Section 0 and bans (request)

[hoianbulldog]

S4.HORMONE AND METABOLIC MODULATORS
5.Metabolic modulators:

a)Insulins

b)Peroxisome Proliferator Activated Receptor δ (PPARδ) agonists
(e.g. GW 1516), PPARδ

 

[QuietB]

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'.

You guys are going to be famous -

 

[rumply]

You guys are going to be famous -

woopee

 

[IanW]

S4.HORMONE AND METABOLIC MODULATORS
5.Metabolic modulators:

a)Insulins

b)Peroxisome Proliferator Activated Receptor δ (PPARδ) agonists
(e.g. GW 1516), PPARδ

Thanks for that

Its good to see people are actually trying to find stuff out.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Thanks for that

Its good to see people are actually trying to find stuff out.

drumroll?

 

[hoianbulldog]

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

What's worse?

a) Taking a banned substance that you know a bit about through various warning and alerts and can research the pros and cons

or

b) Taking a banned substance that you know SFA about the pros and cons.

 

[Mordecai]

http://www.ihf.info/MediaCenter/News/NewsDetails/tabid/130/Default.aspx?ID=1517 - so I think GW501516 and AOD9604 are in the same basket.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...-riders-are-from-same-BCR-Pizza-Hut-team.aspx - positive test = a provisional suspension.

http://mmafrenzy.com/27904/legal-defense-for-nick-diazs-likely-irrelevant-according-to-nsac-policy/ - interesting.

This would be a test case of the new provision then?

 

[Mordecai]

What's worse?

a) Taking a banned substance that you know a bit about through various warning and alerts and can research the pros and cons

or

b) Taking a banned substance that you know SFA about the pros and cons.

The first one. I'd expect you know what you're doing though - ignorance is no excuse in this case.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

http://www.ihf.info/MediaCenter/News/NewsDetails/tabid/130/Default.aspx?ID=1517 - so I think GW501516 and AOD9604 are in the same basket.

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...-riders-are-from-same-BCR-Pizza-Hut-team.aspx - positive test = a provisional suspension.

http://mmafrenzy.com/27904/legal-defense-for-nick-diazs-likely-irrelevant-according-to-nsac-policy/ - interesting.

This would be a test case of the new provision then?

None of these are precedents where someone has been banned for a substance falling under the WADA S.0 category.

GW501516 has been banned since 2009. S.0 was introduced in 2011. It's not relevant to this case because it was a clearly banned substance, not under a catch-all.

 

[rumply]

So we (qualified) internet detectives can assume S.0 is untested in any way shape or form?

To quote that nice commentator gentleman - WOWEE!!

 

[IanW]

So we (qualified) internet detectives can assume S.0 is untested in any way shape or form?

To quote that nice commentator gentleman - WOWEE!!

Why are you assuming whether tested is important for S0 ?

 

[QuietB]

So we (qualified) internet detectives can assume S.0 is untested in any way shape or form?

To quote that nice commentator gentleman - WOWEE!!

Not sure why that is relevant. It only means one of 2 things;

1/ everyone else is not dumb enough to use supplements banned under SO
2/ everyone else was not stupid/unlucky enough to get caught

Given the choice I would have chosen option 1.

 

[TA87]

Just diverting away from section 0. I'm surprised this hasn't been bought up.

Section 22

"If more than one player in a club is found to have committed an Anti Doping rule violation in a season, the club may be subect to sanctions to be determined, in there absolute discretion, by the commission."

If 6 players go, the Commission have free reign to do as they please with Essendon.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Why are you assuming whether tested is important for S0 ?

well don't you think it's odd that in over 2 years it's never gotten anyone?

Maybe that's part of the reason ASADA think the case against AOD is weak? Who knows.

 

[MOTiger]

S0 was introduced since 1/1/11 according to Richard Ings
https://twitter.com/ringsau

 

[TA87]

well don't you think it's odd that in over 2 years it's never gotten anyone?

Maybe that's part of the reason ASADA think the case against AOD is weak? Who knows.

On what basis are you suggesting ASADA think the case is weak?

 

[jenny61_99]

Just diverting away from section 0. I'm surprised this hasn't been bought up.

Section 22

"If more than one player in a club is found to have committed an Anti Doping rule violation in a season, the club may be subect to sanctions to be determined, in there absolute discretion, by the commission."

If 6 players go, the Commission have free reign to do as they please with Essendon.

It has.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

On what basis are you suggesting ASADA think the case is weak?

I love that you're new here, and welcome to you.

But it is tiresome having to catch everybody up all the time. For example, the Section 22 you quoted that you were surprised hasn't been raised has been brought up literally dozens and dozens of times.

In answer to your question, it was reported that ASADA had internal advice the case was weak, and this has been corroborated a number of times in articles by Baker and McKenzie.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Yes its so weak that Essendon have already turned in 6 of their playing list

I love that you can misinterpret that so spectacularly. Missing the point by that much takes talent.

 

[TA87]

I love that you're new here, and welcome to you.

Thanks.

In answer to your question, it was reported that ASADA had internal advice the case was weak

When and where?

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Thanks.




When and where?

http://www.theage.com.au/sport/game-changer-20130412-2hr82.html
In relation to the Bombers’ use of AOD, even ASADA’s internal advice suggests the doping case around the drug is weak.

This was back on the 12th though, prior to WADA coming out with their clarification.

 

[TA87]

WADA has the power to back date both bans and interpretations, they are monsters.

 

[Scott Emberton]

But it is tiresome having to catch everybody up all the time.

Nonsense! you seem tireless on this subject! or at least your spin of it.

 

[TA87]

Guessing everyone is on top of section 10.5.4?

 

[mxett]

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.

So he was sacked but allowed to participate in the sport elsewhere?