- May 13, 2012
- 15,812
- 5,966
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Other Teams
- Brumbies, Socceroos
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.
The note you refer to at the bottom of S2 is merely advisory, it does not delegate to ASADA the authority to add substances to the Prohibited List or to operate a separate prohibited list.
The Tribunal determines ADRVs pursuant to the WADA code (inclusive of the prohibited list). The Tribunal is not bound by whatever ASADA puts up on its website, or otherwise does in interpreting the WADA code. Such interpretations remain just that, they have no authority in themselves.