Martin Hardie alleges Dank will give evidence to AFL anti doping tribunal

[gutsroy]

It's not specially mentioned on the list but fits into a category on the list - therefore it's on the list

Further on down in the document I quoted at least, it indicated that similar substances' status can be challenged. There were some illustrative cases noted in the book. It's on Google Books, over here at least.

 

[threesixpio]

Further on down in the document I quoted at least, it indicated that similar substances' status can be challenged. There were some illustrative cases noted in the book. It's on Google Books, over here at least.

Okey dokey - and how's that challenge going to go?

 

[gutsroy]

Okey dokey - and how's that challenge going to go?

Poorly, I'd imagine, was just correcting what I believe to be an incorrect statement on my behalf that its status couldn't be challenged.
Looking at the literature, it seems to meet the requirements, so a challenge would likely be a dead-end street.

 

[Argy]

TB4 is not listed in the WADA Prohibited list.

You seem to be a very confused little possum. The guts have been explained to you several times but you seem incapable of understanding.

The Prohibited List is not a list of names of substances. It is a list of categories. The S2 category includes all substances that function in certain specific ways. TB4 functions in at least one of these specific ways.

TB4 is banned not by name, but by function.

Is that too hard to understand?

 

[BlueWorld]

TB4 is not listed in the WADA Prohibited list.

It doesn't have to be. It's banned. It's a non issue. Is that Dank's defense? The only issue is whether the EFC players took it. Did they or didn't they?

 

[threesixpio]

You seem to be a very confused little possum. The guts have been explained to you several times but you seem incapable of understanding.

The Prohibited List is not a list of names of substances. It is a list of categories. The S2 category includes all substances that function in certain specific ways. TB4 functions in at least one of these specific ways.

TB4 is banned not by name, but by function.

Is that too hard to understand?

Crickets Argy

 

[Argy]

Crickets Argy

Yep, I think I'll make that my ring tone.

What is so mind bogglingly ridiculous about the thrust of BC, GG, et al, on this red herring is that far greater legal minds than theirs have conceded that TB4 is banned. Tony Hargreaves, the players' lawyer, is one of the most respected and accomplished criminal lawyers in Australia. If there was a chance that TB4 was not prohibited he would have been onto it in a flash.

Crickets indeed.

 

[Big Sim]

To think Martin Hardie is earning a large salary and has adolescents taking him seriously...crazy.

 

[Bobby Charlton]

You seem to be a very confused little possum. The guts have been explained to you several times but you seem incapable of understanding.

The Prohibited List is not a list of names of substances. It is a list of categories.

Your statement is false. It is both.
http://www.teachpe.com/drugs/banned_list.php

WADA Prohibited Substances List

The prohibited substances list is a list of all drugs, supplements and other substances and methods which are banned from use in sports. WADA (World Anti-Doping Agency) is responsible for maintaining and updating this list. Note the list below may not be up to date!

Some substances are banned only during competition, while others depend on the method of administration (for example inhalation versus tablet or injection form).

The list of prohibited substances is updated annually to keep up with advances in science and technology, with a new list being issued on the 1st of January. A substance is added to the list if it meets two of the three criteria listed below:

• The potential for enhanced performance
• The potential for being detrimental to health
• Violation of the spirit of sport

Argy - The S2 category includes all substances that function in certain specific ways. TB4 functions in at least one of these specific ways.

TB4 is banned not by name, but by function.

That is a matter for expert opinion. TB4 has not been added to the prohibited list by WADA - it is not even included in the WADA 2015 prohibited list.
If the so called WADA panel of international experts had decided that TB4 met the requirements for S2 they would have added it by now. Many substances are included in the WADA prohibited list.

 

[threesixpio]

Your statement is false. It is both.
http://www.teachpe.com/drugs/banned_list.php


That is a matter for expert opinion. TB4 ha not been added to the prohibited list by WADA - it is not even included in the WADA 2015 prohibited list.
If the so called WADA panel of international experts had decided that TB4 met the requirements for S2 they would have added it by now. Many substances are included in the WADA prohibited list.

At least say it might not fit into a category rather than argue "it's not on the list". In the event it fits into a category it IS on the list

 

[coryne]

Your statement is false. It is both.
http://www.teachpe.com/drugs/banned_list.php


That is a matter for expert opinion. TB4 has not been added to the prohibited list by WADA - it is not even included in the WADA 2015 prohibited list.
If the so called WADA panel of international experts had decided that TB4 met the requirements for S2 they would have added it by now. Many substances are included in the WADA prohibited list.

How many times do you have to be told that a list containing every prohibited substance would be HUGE which is why there are catch all clauses and protocols in place to check the full database of prohibited substance.

 

[Bobby Charlton]

At least say it might not fit into a category rather than argue "it's not on the list". In the event it fits into a category it IS on the list

It is not on the list. It may or may not fit into a prohibited category. Despite adding additional substances to their prohibited list each year as matters develop, WADA have not chosen to add TB4 even to next year's 2015 list.

 

[threesixpio]

Your statement is false. It is both.
http://www.teachpe.com/drugs/banned_list.php


That is a matter for expert opinion. TB4 has not been added to the prohibited list by WADA - it is not even included in the WADA 2015 prohibited list.
If the so called WADA panel of international experts had decided that TB4 met the requirements for S2 they would have added it by now. Many substances are included in the WADA prohibited list.

Just humour me and say "if it fits within a category it's on the list." It would make me SO happy

 

[threesixpio]

It is not on the list. It may or may not fit into a prohibited category. Despite adding additional substances to their prohibited list each year as matters develop, WADA have not chosen to add TB4 even to next year's 2015 list.

Is it that hard to say?

 

[Broken_Chairs]

How many times do you have to be told that a list containing every prohibited substance would be HUGE which is why there are catch all clauses and protocols in place to check the full database of prohibited substance.

not to mention silly, when names of substances could be changed to whatever else

 

[threesixpio]

It is not on the list. It may or may not fit into a prohibited category. Despite adding additional substances to their prohibited list each year as matters develop, WADA have not chosen to add TB4 even to next year's 2015 list.

Dude I've unignored you tonight - the least you could say is "if it fits within a category it's on the list"....

 

[Lockyer24]

I'm getting a Ned Kelly final stand type vibe from the Albert camp

 

[Gigantor]

It's not specially mentioned on the list but fits into a category on the list - therefore it's on the list

BC's point is an obvious one, and I am not sure why people are arguing it to be honest.

If ASADA are relying on the catchall definition (the bit you bolded), then clearly, ASADA have to prove to the comfortable satisfaction of the tribunal that it actually meets the definition, ie that TB4 has those properties.

No one is saying they aren't able to do it, they just have to do it.

It's not a matter of ASADA deciding, and therefore that is binding on the tribunal. There is no magic list floating around that operates alongside the Prohibited List.

The Tribunal refers to the WADA Code, inclusive of the Prohibited List (which does not name TB4), and for it to determine that there has been an ADRV, it must be demonstrated that TB4 falls within S2.

The fact that ASADA have put it up on its website means diddlysquat.

I don't understand why this question has caused so much angst.

 

[Gigantor]

It's not specially mentioned on the list but fits into a category on the list - therefore it's on the list

ASADA's interpretation on that aspect is not binding on the Tribunal. ASADA must demonstrate to the comfortable satisfaction of the Tribunal that it does have the properties mentioned in the catchall clause. The Tribunal refers to the Prohibited List, not the ASADA website.

 

[Gigantor]

EDITED
In terms of TB4, as I understand it (source: A Guide to the World Anti-Doping Code, Paul David, 2013), a substance's status is determined by the WADA list committee (comprised of 11 scientists?), on the basis that it satisfied at least two of the three criteria below under article 4.3, i.e. use of the substance of method:

• improves sport performance;
• is injurious to the athlete;
  
• is contrary to the spirit of sport.

The reason for the inclusion of the substance or method is not required to be recorded on the list / made publicly available. If a substance / method is included in the list, its use is normally prohibited across all sports which adopt the code.

Interestingly, as this was also discussed in this thread, the author goes on to state that the decision to include a substance / method in the prohibited list cannot be challenged by an athlete facing an ADRV on the grounds that the athlete argues that it does not satisfy the inclusion criteria in the athlete's view.
EDIT: He goes on to state (p.91) that challenges are possible for substances similar to a prohibited substance (as opposed to challenges to the decision whether to include a substance on the list)
He quotes CAS/2005/A - FINA vs Kreutzmann and the German Swimming Federation (see also footnote 15 of http://www.lk-k.com/data/document/r...ision-turin-winter-journal-intl-arb.-2006.pdf).

The catch-all provisions are an essential part of the code, which cases such as BALCO's 'the clear' illustrated, to prevent slightly modified designer drugs.

Just thought this might be of interest as it would contradict some assertions that the onus is on ASADA to prove that TB4's listing is warranted. EDIT: Or maybe not, see above, after reading all that, all I know for sure is my head hurts)

TLDR: Spot on, I reckon. But I've been wrong before and will be again, no doubt.

"EDIT: He goes on to state (p.91) that challenges are possible for substances similar to a prohibited substance (as opposed to challenges to the decision whether to include a substance on the list)"​

This is the essential point. Clearly athletes cannot challenge whether a named substance should be there or not, but where an NDO has determined that a particular substance is alike, or meets the definition in a catchall clause, then quite obviously, it can be challenged because an NDO's interpretation under those circumstances is NOT binding on the Tribunal. For the Tribunal to determine whether there has been an ADRV or not, then clearly it must be of the opinion that the definition has been met (in the case of the catchall clause).

 

[Gigantor]

It's banned, get over it.

It might be banned, most probably it is, but since it is not named in the Prohibited List, ASADA must demonstrate to the comfortable satisfaction of the Tribunal that it meets the catchall definition.

 

[Gigantor]

Further on down in the document I quoted at least, it indicated that similar substances' status can be challenged. There were some illustrative cases noted in the book. It's on Google Books, over here at least.

That's right, what you quoted explains it perfectly.

If specifically named, then clearly it cannot be challenged - that is Law (so to speak).

But where an NDO is claiming it's a like-product, or where it has decided that a particular substance fits in within a catchall definition (as exists in S2), then clearly such an interpretation is not binding on the Tribunal. The Tribunal itself must be comfortably satisfied that the catchall definition is met.

It would be ludicrous if the Tribunal was handing out ADRVs in relation to substances unnamed in the Prohibited List merely because an NDO had determined that it fitted the catchall definition, if in fact, the substance did not fit the definition at all.

 

[Gigantor]

Why's it matter if the players didn't take it, why are you even arguing the point of its legality?? Oh, that's right, because they did take it ...

It's a simple matter of first principles.

What is the basis for ASADA having spent so much time investigating a substance which is not even named in the Prohibited List?

If it has good grounds for deciding that it meets the definition in the catchall clause, is it not duty bound to make the basis of that interpretation widely known? At a minimum, for the education of all relevant parties and in the public interest.

When the AFLPA stands before the tribunal on December 15, it has every right to seek clarification of the alleged violations, and furthermore, it has every right to point out to the Tribunal that TB4 is not actually named in the Prohibited List. The Tribunal will note that, and should then seek information from ASADA the basis on which it has determined that TB4 is in fact covered by the WADA code. ASADA will refer to the catchall clause in S2, and if it has the wherewithal, it should be able to demonstrate to the comfortable satisfaction of the Tribuanl why TB4 meets the catchall definition in S2. If it is not able to do that, the Tribunal would have no other choice but to decide there and then that there could not have been an ADRV.

 

[Gigantor]

You obviously have no training in pharmacology. Everything I have said is consistent. TB-4 is not unique. Substances like VEGF, FGF-1 and FGF-2 all promote vacularization just like TB-4. There are also drugs that use viral vectors to manipulate genes and promote vacularization.
Your selective quoting skills are poor too. If you read what I wrote carefully you would have realized that I was indicating that WADA did not list it by name but obviously mentioned it by name to ASADA. Because it clearly transgresses the S2 rule re vacularization they informed WADA that it was S2 prohibited. ASADA promptly put it on their prohibited check list.

I haven't made any of this up. Your background in science is obviously limited so I probably shouldn't be too harsh on your ignorance.

Are you saying that TB4 is a VEGF?

In which case, ASADA merely needs to say as much because VEGFs are clearly banned under S2.

But if you are saying that TB4 is similar to a VEFG, then such a claim must be demonstrated to the comfortable satisfaction of the Tribunal.

 

[gutsroy]

The Tb4 item seems most likely to end up a red herring: The code states that the respective national authority is to be consulted for any substances not explicitly listed, and ASADA advises that it is prohibited. Given that research points to its role in vascularization etc., any challenge would have little chance of success. And given that Dank at stages directly communicated with WADA, and in that correspondence was informed to consult his national authority with queries on various substances, and players are also counseled to consult ASADA if in doubt, ignorance of its status would be hard to argue. And arguing that they knew of its status but don't agree with it and administer / took it anyway would be strange. What needs to be established first is if they actually took it (to the comfortable satisfaction of the panel).