Grizzly_82
Premiership Player
- Banned
- #76
-
Mobile App Discontinued
Due to a number of factors, support for the current BigFooty mobile app has been discontinued. Your BigFooty login will no longer work on the Tapatalk or the BigFooty App - which is based on Tapatalk.
Apologies for any inconvenience. We will try to find a replacement.
Section 0 and bans (request)
- Thread starter Kyptastic
- Start date
- Tagged users None
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
- Status
you sure are adding a lot to the debate. I guess that's just your level
Grizzly_82
Premiership Player
- Banned
- #78
Finally, the admission of guilt.
That haven't suggested, it is unequivocal. It banned. It represents an anti doping violation.
What aren't you getting, WADA make the rules, they are the judge jury and executioner. They have this power, because those who sign on as signatories, give WADA that power. There is not wriggle room, no exit, no loop holes. WADA make the rules and enforce them.
My turn what?
I don't have to defend anything, it's black and white that Essendon, according to the rules set out by the WADA code, reinforced by a definitive statement released to quash any confusion.
Black and White.
That haven't suggested, it is unequivocal. It banned. It represents an anti doping violation.
What aren't you getting, WADA make the rules, they are the judge jury and executioner. They have this power, because those who sign on as signatories, give WADA that power. There is not wriggle room, no exit, no loop holes. WADA make the rules and enforce them.
My turn what?
I don't have to defend anything, it's black and white that Essendon, according to the rules set out by the WADA code, reinforced by a definitive statement released to quash any confusion.
Black and White.
Log in to remove this Banner Ad
pathetic, won't even answer the question. Gutless.
Grizzly_82
Premiership Player
- Banned
- #81
There's no question to answer.
The rules are there, your club broke them.
Attack me all you want, attack the character of whoever goes against your grain, that's fine.
It won't change the fact that Essendon players, it's medical staff and those privy acted in a direct contravention to the WADA code, as a result there will be penalties.
I just don't understand how there can be any doubt, especially after WADA release a definitive statement declaring the substance to be banned.
there is a question. I asked it of you. Why has no athlete ever been caught under an S0 infraction? It's a simple question that you don't want to acknowledge because it muddys your black and white argument. I don't know the answer, but I'm not running scared because it contradicts my POV.
I thought you were here for debate?
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
In summary, AOD9604:
· Reduces the most stubborn abdominal fat.
· Increases muscle mass
· Increases IGF-1 levels, in an effective manner, thus making this a peptide that burns fat
· Increases energy expenditure
· Improves lipid profiles and lipolytic activity does not negatively impact blood glucose level, nor does cell proliferation occur, like Human Growth Hormone
· Extremely potent and effective fat burner.
I'd say that it mimics HGH and increases IGF-1 - both of which are banned.
Maybe you should explain that to the multiple news articles claiming this will be a massive legal battle. Or maybe even the Age investigators who were informed Asada believe they have a weak case
Grizzly_82
Premiership Player
- Banned
- #86
Probably because no one has either been caught before or are stupid enough to test drugs that aren't approved for human on themselves or on to others.
Doesn't change the fact your club breach the doping protocols.
in over 2 years?
Probably because no one has either been caught before or are stupid enough to test drugs that aren't approved for human on themselves or on to others.
Doesn't change the fact your club breach the doping protocols.
Really?
AOD9604 is a small peptide compound modeled on the fat metabolizing region of human growth hormone (hGH). The make-up of AOD9604 represents only a small fragment of human growth hormone (hGH). It is not hGH and it is not a variant of hGH. It consists of less than 8% of the homology of hGH. There exists substantial scientific and medical evidence showing that AOD9604 has none of the safety concerns associated with hGH.
Results from past in-vitro, pre-clinical and human clinical testing of AOD9604 provide clear scientific and medical evidence that AOD9604 does not increase Insulin-like Growth Factor 1 (IGF-1) levels. Furthermore, there is no evidence that AOD9604 dosing increases the number of muscle or cartilage cells.
http://stocknessmonster.com/news-item?S=CZD&E=ASX&N=633003
Grizzly_82
Premiership Player
- Banned
- #89
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
The Canadian equivalent of ASADA have this heading their Banned Substances page:
Reckon that's pretty clear.
http://www.cces.ca/en/bannedsubstances
Reckon that's pretty clear.
http://www.cces.ca/en/bannedsubstances
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
Do ASADA?
How exactly does it muddy my argument? It is right here.
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.”
It's right there in front of you. You can see it for what it is, or scrabble and reach for an exit that isn't there.
ASADA DO NOT SET THE RULES.
🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.
Where was your source? I niticed it made claims without specifically saying they were scientifically or medically provenAnd yet I found information to suggest it does increase IGF-1 levels.
I realise that, but if other drug authorities give clear warnings about S0 why don't ASADA?
What are you even trying to argue?
jenny61_99
Premium Platinum
No. But they do have this:
Because supplement manufacturing processes can lead to their contents varying from batch to batch, ASADA cannot advise whether, at any particular time, a specific supplement, or batch of a supplement, contains prohibited substances.
Athletes who take supplements are, therefore, at risk of committing an inadvertent anti-doping rule violation. There have been cases where both Australian and international athletes have been sanctioned after they have used supplements that they thought were okay, but which were actually contaminated with prohibited substances.
The presence of a prohibited substance in a supplement product may result in an anti-doping rule violation, whether its use was intentional or unintentional.
Under the World Anti-Doping Code strict liability principle, athletes are ultimately responsible for any substance found in their body, regardless of how it got there.
What you need to do
If you are an athlete, you need to be aware that you are ultimately responsible for any prohibited substance found in your body. If you use a supplement, you do so at your own risk.
- Status
