cymarak
Go Gators !
I'm not sure the bit I've bolded is an accurate characterisation.As I have said a few times now (what hasn't already been said in this saga?), WADA rules are far from black and white.
S2 bans substances that "act like" (paraphrasing) HGH. It is very murky what "acts like".
WADA maintain some list of substances it deems banned because they "act like". But if something is not on the list, you use it at your own risk, because it may later be added to the list, and when it is, it is deemed to have "acted like" since the day dot.
WADA may explicitly add substance X to the prohibited list, but that doesn't automatically mean it will be deemed to have retrospectively acted like prohibited substance Y.
WADA may think that X acts like Y, but as far as I'm aware WADA don't get to be the final arbiter of that - it's something that could be tested in a tribunal / court / arbitration setting if push came to shove. WADA don't get to say, for argument's sake, that "chewing gum acts like steroids", and have that become unchallengeable fact - they would have to be able to substantiate that.
But I agree with your core point - if you use something that isn't explicitly prohibited in its own right, the practical responsibility is with you to make sure that you have a solid defence if WADA later claim that what you're using falls foul of The Code.