Remove this Banner Ad

Section 0 and bans (request)

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Interesting find guys. No precedent of a ban for use of supplement under S0. Even more interesting given AOD isnt performance enhancing. From what I've heard S0 is primarily (but not entirely) designed to outlaw new and unclassified substances that mimic banned substances. What does AOD mimic? Saline?
 
mxett said:
Interesting find guys. No precedent of a ban for use of supplement under S0. Even more interesting given AOD isnt performance enhancing. From what I've heard S0 is primarily (but not entirely) designed to outlaw new and unclassified substances that mimic banned substances. What does AOD mimic? Saline?
Click to expand...

images
 
mxett said:
Interesting find guys. No precedent of a ban for use of supplement under S0. Even more interesting given AOD isnt performance enhancing. From what I've heard S0 is primarily (but not entirely) designed to outlaw new and unclassified substances that mimic banned substances. What does AOD mimic? Saline?
Click to expand...

Here's the rub.

AOD is classified as a banned substance by WADA under SO. It's pretty black and white.
 
Walls_Treat said:
well I am only human - some do go pass to the keeper

however I have noticed that almost all your uppercuts have totally missed their mark since this story broke

Its obvious to me that you haven't even bothered to ring the EFC to obtain clarification on some extremely serious breaches of International Law and ensure that no crimes against humanity have been perpetrated by the gestapo at WIndy Hill
Click to expand...
You sure are a one trick pony aren't you? :)

Good of you to admit being an alias though. I'm sure some industrious mod might get round to an IP check some day ;)
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

Kyptastic said:
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.
Click to expand...

you're all going to jail.
 
Walls_Treat said:
why? are you going to dob me in to one of your mates in here because you cant handle the pressure of the magnifying glass that is FOCUSSED on your club at the moment?

that's rather brave of you isn't it?
Click to expand...
Nah I'm going to do what I always do. Amuse myself by making idiots look foolish. You're not presenting much of a challenge though
 
Lance Uppercut said:
So you disagree with Baker and McKenzie then?
Click to expand...

Yes. WADA have announced AOD is a banned substance under section SO.

What's to disagree with.

Here's a quote from Sandro Donati; "It's like theatre, - but I prefer the theatre because the relationship between the actor and spectator is clear. In sports theatre, both are still pretending it's real"

And so it is with Essendon, and no doubt other clubs.
 
TA87 said:
Yes. WADA have announced AOD is a banned substance under section SO.

What's to disagree with.

Here's a quote from Sandro Donati; "It's like theatre, - but I prefer the theatre because the relationship between the actor and spectator is clear. In sports theatre, both are still pretending it's real"

And so it is with Essendon, and no doubt other clubs.
Click to expand...
Well, they must be fools then cos they don't see it as black and white.

Law is all about interpretation. Will be interesting as it plays out
 
Lance Uppercut said:
Well, they must be fools then cos they don't see it as black and white.

Law is all about interpretation. Will be interesting as it plays out
Click to expand...

The article is from April the 12th right?

WADA has come out since that time and said it is a banned substance, where is the confusion?
 
TA87 said:
Ask them what?

The AFL is banned by the WADA code, bound by their rulings.

WADA has announced AOD as a banned substance, Essendon has confirmed 6 players have taken this substance in 2012, I fail to see the confusion.

WADA set the rules, here, Essendon have broken them. It's black and white.
Click to expand...
that's nice mate. Shall we shut down the sub-board now?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Lance Uppercut said:
no I don't. Why do you think WADA had to come out with a clarification recently if it's so black and white
Click to expand...

It responded to a number of queries about the legality of AOD with a definitive statement.

AOD-9604 is a substance still under pre-clinical and clinical development and has not been approved for therapeutic use by any government health authority in the world.
Therefore, under the 2013 Prohibited Substances and Methods List, the substance falls into the S.0 category which states:
“S0. NON-APPROVED SUBSTANCES
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 at all times.”
I just don't understand how anyone can claim otherwise, the ruling body, which governs the anti-doping code, adopted by the AFL and all it's players. This statement is definitive.
Black and white.
You state the ACC as a witness to your cause, it stated itself that AOD is not approved for human use.
ASADA don't run things, ACC hold no sway, WADA is the boss and it has said what is banned in the most definitive of terms.
 
TA87 said:
It responded to a number of queries about the legality of AOD with a definitive statement.

AOD-9604 is a substance still under pre-clinical and clinical development and has not been approved for therapeutic use by any government health authority in the world.
Therefore, under the 2013 Prohibited Substances and Methods List, the substance falls into the S.0 category which states:
“S0. NON-APPROVED SUBSTANCES
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 at all times.”
I just don't understand how anyone can claim otherwise, the ruling body, which governs the anti-doping code, adopted by the AFL and all it's players. This statement is definitive.
Black and white.
You state the ACC as a witness to your cause, it stated itself that AOD is not approved for human use.
ASADA don't run things, ACC hold no sway, WADA is the boss and it has said what is banned in the most definitive of terms.
Click to expand...
why has no athlete ever been done under S0?
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

TA87 said:
Do you agree that AOD is a banned substance according to WADA?

You are dodging and dancing.
Click to expand...
so no answer to the question?

I'll answer yours then maybe you can answer mine, how does that sound?

WADA have said they believed AOD should have been banned under the catch all, and recently have said it is. According to WADA, on the face of it, it's a banned substance. Whether or not they can make that prosecution, or if ASADA have contradicted that is yet to be seen.

Your turn.
 
mxett said:
Why is it relevant what Lance thinks? Isnt it more important what ASADA thought when Essendon and Melbourne reportedly used it?

Fairfax reckon they have a letter showing WADA were unsure in February 2013
Click to expand...

I'll get to you in a second lap dog.

Hush.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Similar threads

The_Wookie
The Andrew Wilkie Allegations
Replies
17
Views
2K
pattymalone00
pattymalone00

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top