Section 0 and bans (request)

[Kyptastic]

Not a big question or debate here hopefully, but just have a request for those who have more knowledge of this area and felt it could get lost in the circular debating of some of the other threads.

Given that S0 may become involved in this situation regarding AOD and the fact that this section is only been around since 2012, have there been many cases of athletes being caught out under this area of the code and what punishments they have received?

Most of what I'm seeing posted is regarding literal readings of the code and what could be the punishment. However, I'm interested in seeing some real world examples of bans under this section so that we may be able to get some form of precedent for this situation.

This may have been posted elsewhere and, if that's the case, this thread can be deleted.

 

[jenny61_99]

ASADA list 8 Anti-Doping Rule Violations:

1. Presence of a prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers in an athlete’s sample​
2. Use or attempted use by an athlete of a prohibited substance or prohibited method​
3. Refusing or failing without compelling justification to submit to sample collection after notification as authorised in applicable anti-doping rules, or otherwise evading sample collection.​
4. Violation of applicable requirements regarding athlete availability for out-of-competition testing, including failure to file required whereabouts information and missed tests which are declared based on rules which comply with the International Standard for Testing. Any combination of three missed tests and/or fililng failures within an eighteen-month period as determined by Anti-Doping Organisations with jurisdiction over the athlete shall constitute an Anti-Doping Rule Violation.​
5. ​
   Tampering or attempted tampering with any part of doping control​
6. Possession of prohibited substances and prohibited methods.​
7. Trafficking or attempted trafficking in any prohibited substance or prohibited method.​
8. ​
   Administration or attempted administration to any athlete in-competition of any prohibited method or prohibited substance, or administration or attempted administration to any athlete out-of-competition of any prohibited method or any prohibited substance that is prohibited out-of-competition, or assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting, covering up or any other type of complicity involving an Anti-Doping Rule Violation or any attempted Anti-Doping Rule Violation​
   .​

I believe only two possibly could apply in this instance:​

#2: In addition to testing athletes, ASADA also has the power to investigate the possible use of prohibited substances, drugs, medications or methods in conjunction with the Australian Federal Police and Customs and Border Protection. An athlete does not have to have succeeded in using a prohibited substance or method – if there is sufficient evidence that the athlete has attempted to use a prohibited substance or method, they can be sanctioned. It is the athlete’s responsibility to ensure that no prohibited substance, drug or medication enters his or her body. Not knowing that you have taken something is not an excuse.​

#8: Coaches, support personnel, parents, friends and anyone else involved in the life of an athlete can be subject to the World Anti-Doping Code. While anything found in an athlete's body is the athlete's responsibility, support personnel can commit Anti-Doping Rule Violations and receive subsequent sanction. ​

​

 

[Kyptastic]

That's great, but not what I'm after jenny61_99. I'm looking for examples of athletes who have been rubbed out for drugs that are covered under section 0.

 

[rumply]

Endless copy/paste's are really not going to do it anymore

 

[jenny61_99]

USADA offer this explanation for US athletes when they go to its sight:

S0. Non-Approved Substances

This “open” section addresses the issue of the abuse of pharmacological substances for the purpose of performance enhancement that are not included in other sections of the Prohibited List. They include substances that are not approved by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (i.e. drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued, designer drugs, or veterinary drugs). These substances will be prohibited at all times (in- and out-of-competition).

http://www.usada.org/prohibited-list/athlete-guide/

 

[jenny61_99]

That's great, but not what I'm after jenny61_99. I'm looking for examples of athletes who have been rubbed out for drugs that are covered under section 0.

Yes, I know, and I'm looking for examples. Stay tuned...

 

[STFU Donnie]

Not a big question or debate here hopefully, but just have a request for those who have more knowledge of this area and felt it could get lost in the circular debating of some of the other threads.

Given that S0 may become involved in this situation regarding AOD and the fact that this section is only been around since 2012, have there been many cases of athletes being caught out under this area of the code and what punishments they have received?

Most of what I'm seeing posted is regarding literal readings of the code and what could be the punishment. However, I'm interested in seeing some real world examples of bans under this section so that we may be able to get some form of precedent for this situation.

This may have been posted elsewhere and, if that's the case, this thread can be deleted.

You obviously have access to the internet, so why don't you do your own research?

 

[Kyptastic]

You obviously have access to the internet, so why don't you do your own research?

Well, I have done some brief searches and found nothing. I figured that maybe someone else has gone deeper into this than I have.

Plus, having this could be a useful resource for everyone in the overarching discussion.

 

[STFU Donnie]

Well, I have done some brief searches and found nothing. I figured that maybe someone else has gone deeper into this than I have.

Plus, having this could be a useful resource for everyone in the overarching discussion.

The problem with that is that you are relying completely on what others who claim to have done the research have told you. They might have searched poorly, or searched with an unstated agendum.

Hang on a minute ...

 

[rumply]

Well having just awarded myself a google degree in investigative research (ianw, jenny et al, this is how it works right?), I have found naff all in relation to bans under S.0.

Oh I do love a 'first'.

 

[IanW]

European champion Valery Kaykov sacked for failing drug test
European track cycling champion Valery Kaykov has been sacked by his team after failing a drugs test.
Rusvelo acted after the Russian, who won European Track Championship team pursuit gold in 2012, tested positive for fat-burning drug GW1516.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/22111802


Hearing hasnt happened yet. GW1516, as the fact it doesnt have a name yet hints at, isnt approved for human theraputic use.

I couldnt find it mentioned by name anywhere in WADA.

 

[jenny61_99]

European champion Valery Kaykov sacked for failing drug test
European track cycling champion Valery Kaykov has been sacked by his team after failing a drugs test.
Rusvelo acted after the Russian, who won European Track Championship team pursuit gold in 2012, tested positive for fat-burning drug GW1516.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/cycling/22111802


Hearing hasnt happened yet. GW1516, as the fact it doesnt have a name yet hints at, isnt approved for human theraputic use.

I couldnt find it mentioned by name anywhere in WADA.

He did test positive though. The players in this instance, haven't.

Edit:

For those who are unaware, gw1516 is a research chem that's supposed to improve cardio and have a noticeable effect on fatloss via manipulation of fast twitch muscle fibers to slow twitch, alowing the muscle to use adipose tissue as energy more efficiently.

Sound familiar?

 

[rumply]

He did test positive though. The players in this instance, haven't.

technicality....

 

[IanW]

He did test positive though. The players in this instance, haven't.

Just because theres a decent test for the stuff. Its still a S0 ban.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

bit different to what we're looking at though, given "WADA made unprecedented warning against a PED - GW1516 - because "side effect of this compound is so serious..." and toxic in clinical studies.":

WADA issues alert on GW501516
March 21, 2013

It has come to WADA’s attention that the black market substance GW501516 is being sold to and used by some athletes.

The side effect of this chemical compound is so serious that WADA is taking the rare step of warning “cheats” to ensure that there is complete awareness of the possible health risks to athletes who succumb to the temptation of using GW501516 for performance enhancement.

GW501516 was a developmental drug that was withdrawn from research by the pharmaceutical company and terminated when serious toxicities were discovered in pre-clinical studies.

Clinical approval has not, and will not be given for this substance.

However, GW501516 has been available for some months on the black market, through the Internet and elsewhere. Anti-Doping authorities have already seen its use by athletes, as there are a number of positive cases.

Please pass this information on to your athletes as soon as possible.

 

[IanW]

technicality....

Positive tests arent necessary for players or coaches to be banned.

 

[IanW]

bit different to what we're looking at though, given "WADA made unprecedented warning against a PED - GW1516 - because "side effect of this compound is so serious..." and toxic in clinical studies.":

No, the reason its banned is *drumroll* it's not approved for human theraputic use.

Same reason as AOD-9604 and CJC-1295.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

No, the reason its banned is *drumroll* it's not approved for human theraputic use.

Same reason as AOD-9604 and CJC-1295.

ah, yeah... I know. You're not the only one who can use the google machine you know

 

[STFU Donnie]

Clinical approval has not, and will not be given for this substance.

Is Rumply going to give back his degree?

 

[TerryWallet]

bit different to what we're looking at though, given "WADA made unprecedented warning against a PED - GW1516 - because "side effect of this compound is so serious..." and toxic in clinical studies.":

Congratulations EFC....you are officially not quite so bad as a Russian cyclist

 

[rumply]

Is Rumply going to give back his degree?

Still no S0 bans sherlock...

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

He did test positive though. The players in this instance, haven't.

Edit:


Sound familiar?

Not remotely.

 

[STFU Donnie]

Still no S0 bans sherlock...

So why was he sacked? He failed a drug test for a prohibited substance. That substance "has not, and will not be given" clinical approval. So what clause is applicable?

Just let me get out of the way; I'd hate to be run over while you're reversing.

 

[hoianbulldog]

Not sure if relevant to EFC but this guy was pinged under a different clause.

A letter was sent by WADA to anti-doping organizations urging them to notify athletes of the dangers of the substance known as “GW501516.” In the printed version of the current WADA prohibited list, GW501516 is banned under section S4-5b, and in the online version it’s banned under section M3

 

[rumply]

So why was he sacked? He failed a drug test for a prohibited substance. That substance "has not, and will not be given" clinical approval. So what clause is applicable?

Just let me get out of the way; I'd hate to be run over while you're reversing.

see the post above.

& sacked/banned, yeah they're the same thing

keep trying though...