S0 - issues, ideas and prosecutions

[Lance Uppercut]

I thought it would be worthwhile having a thread discussing S0 itself, given it seems so pertinent to the current AOD issue.

S0 is, I think most would agree, a good idea in theory. A cover-all catch clause that protects against chemists tweaking formulations to get around slow-moving enforcement legislation. The requirement that a substance passes by therapeutic goods agency seems like a good idea at first, but it seems to have a few faults.

The fact that it's not determined by a central body is the major issue. Any government in the world can pass a substance and that makes it ok in any other country in the world, under S0. That doesn't make much sense to me. Is there a better way to do it?

Nevertheless, it's a framework that seems to hold water.

So why have there been so few prosecutions under S0 across the globe? Have there been any? An example was given a few days ago which I was interested in, which seemed to suggest the athlete was arguing his supplement shouldn't be prohibited that looked like it could have fallen under the S0 provision, although nowhere that I could find was this explicit.

I find it surprising that there's so few examples. Are there any actual examples of prosecutions under S0, and if not why not?

Note: I am well aware that I am an Essendon fan, and yes I have a vested interest in this. However this thread is only for genuine discussion of issues pertaining S0. If you don't want to discuss it then don't bother posting

 

[STFU Donnie]

As I understand it Lance, the S0 provision was only enacted in 2011. As with most new regulations there is a lag time between their promulgation and their effect on a sporting body/organisation. What often happens is a high profile case is required to test it. Which is where we are at, IMO.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

As I understand it Lance, the S0 provision was only enacted in 2011. As with most new regulations there is a lag time between their promulgation and their effect on a sporting body/organisation. What often happens is a high profile case is required to test it. Which is where we are at, IMO.

that could well be the case. S0 was brought in in 2011, which isn't a hugely long time ago, but it's still a while. The test case scenario is one that is interesting. I think there's two ways to look at it. Either WADA are spoiling for the opportunity to test S0 here as a practice run against some of the bigger soccer clubs; or the alternative that they need to pick the test case carefully, and maybe AOD isn't the right one. Which could explain why Essendon have confidence and why Baker & McKenzie stated that ASADA's internal advice was that the case against it was weak.

 

[Top_4_Tiger]

"Any government in the world can pass a substance..."

I think this would still uphold the ethical standards of the medical profession, including in developing countries. Just in case you were thinking a club could find a country willing to pass a substance... From experience I don't know everything but I do know it's still pretty strict everywhere.

I too am surprised more people haven't been caught under the S0 clause.

I would assume a lot of the tweaks still fall under S2. It's rare a scientist bothers with compounds that didn't pass the testing stage, if not for health reasons then for effectiveness reasons.

S2 has a clause in it, for example, where anything with steroid-like properties not listed is still included in that section.

I'm also interested in more responses to this thread.

 

[STFU Donnie]

that could well be the case. S0 was brought in in 2011, which isn't a hugely long time ago, but it's still a while. The test case scenario is one that is interesting. I think there's two ways to look at it. Either WADA are spoiling for the opportunity to test S0 here as a practice run against some of the bigger soccer clubs; or the alternative that they need to pick the test case carefully, and maybe AOD isn't the right one. Which could explain why Essendon have confidence and why Baker & McKenzie stated that ASADA's internal advice was that the case against it was weak.

Nail. Hit. Head.

If they win over AOD, then S0 becomes a very powerful tool. If they lose over AOD, then S0 is effectively worthless. The choice of substance is secondary; it is the "not approved" aspect that has to stand up.

 

[Paddywhackers]

I've spent/wasted a lot of time on bigfooty over the years, debating about player x from collingwood being better than player y from Essendon and that y + x +z equals T square meaning Collingwood have a brighter future, and i'd usually be right.

But as for this ASADA nonsense. Cannot be bothered with this shit, I want to talk about footy. The Bombers have brought the game into disrepute, and they will be punished real hard. Discussing the issue has become boring and a waste of time. Can't wait for the punishments to be dealt so we can get on with watching the footy on an equal playing field.

Jobe Watson's comment on Monday Night actually magnified the spotlight if that was even possible. Bombers are in a lot of trouble there's absolutely no doubt about this. James Hird shouldn't have backed Jobe up.

 

[The Dodger]

The fact that it's not determined by a central body is the major issue. Any government in the world can pass a substance and that makes it ok in any other country in the world, under S0. That doesn't make much sense to me. Is there a better way to do it?

IMO that is a good way. Its a bare minimum approach as to not be overbearing.
Which I think the purpose of s0 is to provide the most minimal approach to not allowing anything to be taken.

I also think that if they tried to tighten the code it could get to the point where it was seen as too restrictive and more open to challenge.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

"Any government in the world can pass a substance..."

I think this would still uphold the ethical standards of the medical profession, including in developing countries. Just in case you were thinking a club could find a country willing to pass a substance... From experience I don't know everything but I do know it's still pretty strict everywhere.

I too am surprised more people haven't been caught under the S0 clause.

I would assume a lot of the tweaks still fall under S2. It's rare a scientist bothers with compounds that didn't pass the testing stage, if not for health reasons then for effectiveness reasons.

S2 has a clause in it, for example, where anything with steroid-like properties not listed is still included in that section.

I'm also interested in more responses to this thread.

so you're saying my plan of getting North Korea to quickly ok AOD9604 is doomed to failure?!

 

[Lance Uppercut]

I've spent/wasted a lot of time on bigfooty over the years, debating about player x from collingwood being better than player y from Essendon and that y + x +z equals T square meaning Collingwood have a brighter future, and i'd usually be right.

But as for this ASADA nonsense. Cannot be bothered with this shit, I want to talk about footy. The Bombers have brought the game into disrepute, and they will be punished real hard. Discussing the issue has become boring and a waste of time. Can't wait for the punishments to be dealt so we can get on with watching the footy on an equal playing field.

Jobe Watson's comment on Monday Night actually magnified the spotlight if that was even possible. Bombers are in a lot of trouble there's absolutely no doubt about this. James Hird shouldn't have backed Jobe up.

interesting take on S0, thanks for your input

 

[STFU Donnie]

People have commented frequently in the last few days about Watson's admission and why ASADA haven't acted already. I believe that it is precisely because this is a new type of infraction that they are proceeding so cautiously. If the players had admitted to taking something banned under S2, then they would have been served with infraction notices immediately; that clause (and its powers) has been tested frequently.

The big sporting bodies of the world (FIFA, UEFA et al) are watching this with some degree of trepidation, I would imagine.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Nail. Hit. Head.

If they win over AOD, then S0 becomes a very powerful tool. If they lose over AOD, then S0 is effectively worthless. The choice of substance is secondary; it is the "not approved" aspect that has to stand up.

not 100% sure I agree. The substance is important because it needs to be one they'll win on. Now, AOD might be that substance. But if there's been any issues with ASADA ok'ing it (and whilst that's pure speculation, ASADA have been surprisingly quiet on the matter) that might muddy the waters. I personally don't think the whole compouding chemist thing has much merit. But for one it would be one of the few ways I can think to explain why Essendon are confident, aside from posturing of course. Let this one through to the keeper then quietly tighten up the code perhaps.

I think the substance is important because they need to win.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

People have commented frequently in the last few days about Watson's admission and why ASADA haven't acted already. I believe that it is precisely because this is a new type of infraction that they are proceeding so cautiously. If the players had admitted to taking something banned under S2, then they would have been served with infraction notices immediately; that clause (and its powers) has been tested frequently.

The big sporting bodies of the world (FIFA, UEFA et al) are watching this with some degree of trepidation, I would imagine.

exactly right, agree whole-heartedly. If a player had admitted to steroid use, for example, they'd be banned immediately, without question

 

[IanW]

I find it surprising that there's so few examples. Are there any actual examples of prosecutions under S0, and if not why not?

Generally speaking, if you dont have a test for it, you cant find it, and if you cant find it, prosecutions for doping tend to be difficult. Its extraordinarily rare that athletes will sign paperwork acknowledging they are about to be given not-approved-for-human-theraputic-use drugs.

The issue of a potentially dodgy jurisdiction authorising some PED or other to pass it under S0 is over-stated, I think - generally, the other sections cover drugs that are definitely PEDs.

S0 is there to stop total cowboys getting 'the Clear' and claiming its not prohibited - newly forumulated drugs that therefore stay ahead of regulators (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bay_Area_Laboratory_Co-operative is probably somewhere to start with what led to S0).

Now, its another issue as to whether individual sports should tighten up their own rules to require that all substances given to their athletes should be legal to be prescribed by a doctor in that country, and I definitely think the AFL, the NRL and the A-League need to go down that path in Australia - but I think S0 as it's written now works.

And, yeah, all this is a test case.

 

[jenny61_99]

What was the intention of establishing catch-all categories? I think it's safe to assume that they just can't possibly keep up with new substances specifically considering the speed with which science and drug discovery is moving, so broad categories had to be established.

S0 is categorised by WADA:

Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the List and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (e.g drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued, designer drugs, substances approved only for veterinary use) is prohibited.

I assume this is because drugs that have not yet been approved for human therapeutic use are deemed experimental, and therefore could have health implications for the user. It is also unknown what the implications are physiologically if combined with other substances. Having regulatory approval would mean contraindications have been considered as well as appropriate dosage and method of administration. Safety of athletes is paramount, as well as ensuring integrity of sports and sporting results. By not having this catch-all clause, athletes could be put at great physical harm as coaches/managers look to experimental drugs in an attempt to enhance their athletes chances of winning.

It is interesting to note that WADA is not open to challenging prohibited substances or categories of the code.

4.3.3 WADA’s determination of the Prohibited Substances and Prohibited Methods that will be included on the Prohibited List and the classi- fication of substances into categories on the Prohibited List is final and shall not be subject to challenge by an Athlete or other Person based on an argument that the substance or method was not a masking agent or did not have the potential to enhance performance, represent a health risk or violate the spirit of sport.

 

[STFU Donnie]

not 100% sure I agree. The substance is important because it needs to be one they'll win on. Now, AOD might be that substance. But if there's been any issues with ASADA ok'ing it (and whilst that's pure speculation, ASADA have been surprisingly quiet on the matter) that might muddy the waters. I personally don't think the whole compouding chemist thing has much merit. But for one it would be one of the few ways I can think to explain why Essendon are confident, aside from posturing of course. Let this one through to the keeper then quietly tighten up the code perhaps.

I think the substance is important because they need to win.

Given the kind of person Dank has shown himself to be, I can't help but be convinced that if he had something genuine along these lines, he would have released it. Same with Essendon. But as far as I can tell, all Dank has is a chain of emails from WADA that repudiate his claims. The emails I saw directly referred him to the S0 clause!

 

[Lance Uppercut]

It is interesting to note that WADA is not open to challenging prohibited substances or categories of the code.

how do you figure?

 

[jmac70]

how do you figure?

read the last part of the post.

 

[Superfist]

Generally speaking, if you dont have a test for it, you cant find it, and if you cant find it, prosecutions for doping tend to be difficult. Its extraordinarily rare that athletes will sign paperwork acknowledging they are about to be given not-approved-for-human-theraputic-use drugs.

This seems a logical explanation for why there hasn't been a prosecution under S0. As I understand it there's not tests, or until recently there have been no tests, for a number of drugs that are on S2. How could WADA/ASADA, then, possibly catch someone using a substance that comes under SO, except in the very unusual circumstances of this case and/or someone involved turning snitch.

The lack of a prosecution does not to my mind mean that SO is ineffective. SO is there precisely to stop what happened at Essendon.

 

[coryne]

I thought it would be worthwhile having a thread discussing S0 itself, given it seems so pertinent to the current AOD issue.

S0 is, I think most would agree, a good idea in theory. A cover-all catch clause that protects against chemists tweaking formulations to get around slow-moving enforcement legislation. The requirement that a substance passes by therapeutic goods agency seems like a good idea at first, but it seems to have a few faults.

The fact that it's not determined by a central body is the major issue. Any government in the world can pass a substance and that makes it ok in any other country in the world, under S0. That doesn't make much sense to me. Is there a better way to do it?

Nevertheless, it's a framework that seems to hold water.

So why have there been so few prosecutions under S0 across the globe? Have there been any? An example was given a few days ago which I was interested in, which seemed to suggest the athlete was arguing his supplement shouldn't be prohibited that looked like it could have fallen under the S0 provision, although nowhere that I could find was this explicit.

I find it surprising that there's so few examples. Are there any actual examples of prosecutions under S0, and if not why not?

Note: I am well aware that I am an Essendon fan, and yes I have a vested interest in this. However this thread is only for genuine discussion of issues pertaining S0. If you don't want to discuss it then don't bother posting

The catch-all clause to ensure that small tweaks of chemical compounds cannot be used to bypass the anti-doping regulations is more S2 than S0. Sure S0 will catch such a substance IF it hasn't undergone extensive clinical trials, but S2 will automatically catch it as it would have similar physiological properties as the original molecule (otherwise it would be useless).


S0 is there to ensure that products must first undergo extensive clinical trials before it can be given to athletes. This is to protect the athletes from being used as guinea pigs by unethical scientists/doctors/managers willing to push the boundaries, and is there to ensure the safety of the players. It doesn't matter if the drug/compound is designed to mimic the hGH, or to help prevent perspiration for heavy sweaters, the product cannot be used ON ATHLETES until it has COMPLETED CLINICAL TRIALS and is APPROVED for THERAPEUTIC USE (and yes, I am using caps because I know how much you love it when I do it to emphasize a point )


Now if the two substances above do pass clinical trials then they are exposed to being classified under S2, at which stage the hGH molecule would be banned and the antiperspirant would (most likely) be cleared to be used by the athlete. That doesn't mean that the antiperspirant should have always been available to be used by the athletes because it is paramount that the safety, and any possible side effects, of the product is known before it is given to them.


As for the "rogue country accepting unsafe products" argument, I agree that there should be a standardization of requirements for therapeutic substances before they are allowed to be given to athletes (e.g. that the substance must be approved by a major, developed country such as America/Australia/England etc) but this also comes down to an ethical standard too. I mean if the sports scientists/doctors REALLY believe that they should be able to inject Substance X, which failed clinical trials in Australia/USA but is approved for human use due to approval of use in Zimbabwe, then are they REALLY the type of people who you want working at your club? If you have proper checks and balances within the program, including the employment of ethical staff members and the requirement for proper verification of compliance of substances with therapeutic bodies/WADA/ASADA, then these kinds of situations would not eventuate. Oh and if the "rogue country" accepted anything performance-enhancing it would obviously automatically be picked up under S2.



As for why no-one, up until now, has been banned under S0 well maybe it is quite unusual for a product NOT approved for human use to be available/used by a single athlete, let alone an entire team. These products are generally only for research purposes, so their availability would be restricted (although I do not know too much about their production in black-market situations such as what is occurring for AOD) and catching someone using a substance not approved for human use would be next-to-impossible as you wouldn't be looking for/testing for such substances so other forms of evidence would be required for catching such cases (e.g. ordering of such products/signing of consent fors to use such products). The EFC may be the first such case simply because the rules were only introduced in 2011 (so small time period), anti-doping authorities have been focusing on other substances which are easier to get convictions for through drug testing (e.g. they can't look for everything all the time) and the EFC were very blatant in the way they went about the use of a, S0 substance (large orders of said substance, consent forms linking substance to players, correspondence linking sports scientist to wanting to use said substance on athletes, admission from athletes said substances have been used etc). There probably hasn't been another case where the evidence regarding the use of a S0 substance has been available, and no I don't think it matters if the substance is ultimately shown to be performance-enhancing or not, simply being unapproved for human use is enough for the charges to stick.

 

[Sydney Bloods]

I thought it would be worthwhile having a thread discussing S0 itself, given it seems so pertinent to the current AOD issue.

S0 is, I think most would agree, a good idea in theory. A cover-all catch clause that protects against chemists tweaking formulations to get around slow-moving enforcement legislation. The requirement that a substance passes by therapeutic goods agency seems like a good idea at first, but it seems to have a few faults.

The fact that it's not determined by a central body is the major issue. Any government in the world can pass a substance and that makes it ok in any other country in the world, under S0. That doesn't make much sense to me. Is there a better way to do it?

Nevertheless, it's a framework that seems to hold water.

So why have there been so few prosecutions under S0 across the globe? Have there been any? An example was given a few days ago which I was interested in, which seemed to suggest the athlete was arguing his supplement shouldn't be prohibited that looked like it could have fallen under the S0 provision, although nowhere that I could find was this explicit.

I find it surprising that there's so few examples. Are there any actual examples of prosecutions under S0, and if not why not?

Note: I am well aware that I am an Essendon fan, and yes I have a vested interest in this. However this thread is only for genuine discussion of issues pertaining S0. If you don't want to discuss it then don't bother posting

I agree S0, should be revised and an,additional clause be restricted being approved for use by TGA, both within the country they are competing and training in.

This gets rid if all the bullshit excuses, maybe we can get this approved in Angola to get around section zero, defence.

This way the domestic drug and administration in each country would have a much higher likely hood of catching scumbags that cheat, then try to use loopholes to get around the frame work.

An example would be the case of AOD and the AFL, ASADA would only have to prove that the Australia therapeutic goods administration had not approved AOD for human consumption, rather then the whole world.

 

[Spongebob]

The BALCO case is the one that really pointed up the need for some sort of process in which unknown drugs and other derivatives that were performance enhancing could be chased out of sport.

IanW is correct in saying that if you can't test for something, it makes life very difficult. Even more so when you do not know that these things exist.

There is another set of issues for S0, but I have not been able to pin it down. There are some drugs which have lost their approvals internationally because of significant adverse events (killing patients). Some of these have PED properties and are used, and I believe there have been some athletes sanctioned for them.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

I agree S0, should be revised and an,additional clause be restricted being approved for use by TGA, both within the country they are competing and training in.

This gets rid if all the bullshit excuses, maybe we can get this approved in Angola to get around section zero, defence.

This way the domestic drug and administration in each country would have a much higher likely hood of catching scumbags that cheat, then try to use loopholes to get around the frame work.

An example would be the case of AOD and the AFL, ASADA would only have to prove that the Australia therapeutic goods administration had not approved AOD for human consumption, rather then the whole world.

that creates its own problems though - you have drugs that can be used in some countries but not others. What happens then for international tournaments?

 

[DudleyB]

Essendon have a coordinated strategy to beat this that has four pillars:
1. Create maximum doubt and confusion in relation to the WADA code and regulatory and legal matters. Focus on potential 'grey areas' in the code (see Lance's post)
2. Isolate and Demonise Dank and keep him as an outsider of the EFC
3. Maintain a united positive and confident front for everyone 'inside' the EFC. Outwardly convey innocence.
4. Use passive language and externalise blame such as 'management practices', 'due diligence', 'record keeping'. This keeps the blame on 'process' and not individuals. It removes intent or human involvement.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Essendon have a coordinated strategy to beat this that has four pillars:
1. Create maximum doubt and confusion in relation to the WADA code and regulatory and legal matters. Focus on potential 'grey areas' in the code (see Lance's post)
2. Isolate and Demonise Dank and keep him as an outsider of the EFC
3. Maintain a united positive and confident front for everyone 'inside' the EFC. Outwardly convey innocence.
4. Use passive language and externalise blame such as 'management practices', 'due diligence', 'record keeping'. This keeps the blame on 'process' and not individuals. It removes intent or human involvement.

how is that about S0 champ?

 

[Spongebob]

that creates its own problems though - you have drugs that can be used in some countries but not others. What happens then for international tournaments?

there are already significant problems for athletes with medications and international tournaments or training.

What is found is that the same named drug may have different components in different countries. So you can do all your checking for drug FixMe in Australia and find it passes, however, in the USA FixMe may contain a different filler or other active ingredient that is banned.