Section 0 and bans (request)

[Zach Package]

Tell me more about infranction.

Minor offence, major offence. Essendon have broke the rules as stipulated by the governing body.

obvious typo is obvious.

working on a 5000 word essay on the politics of art censorship that's due at midnight, i'd be lying if i said you had my full attention.

my point is, you used a big word to make yourself sound smart, and it kinda backfired.

 

[TA87]

obvious typo is obvious.

working on a 5000 word essay on the politics of art censorship that's due at midnight, i'd be lying if i said you had my full attention.

my point is, you used a big word to make yourself sound smart, and it kinda backfired.

How is exactly has it backfired?

The Minor offence you club has perpetrated carries sanctions to the tune of 2 years.

 

[Grizzly_82]

last time we did this you reneged on answering my question. You're not very good at this

Give it up you have avoiding answering his question throughout the thread.

Man up and stop deflecting

Pathetic

 

[jenny61_99]

So these sites sell AOD? I wonder why theyre telling us it works?

Unfortunately as far as I can see none of these claims are backed by science. Correct?

Why do you think the manufacturer basically says it does nothing? What would be their motive for lying?

They don't want to get sued for flogging a product that doesn't work? Who knows? Why would the manufacturer who has spent $50 million tell us the product doesn't work?

 

[Zach Package]

How is exactly has it backfired?

The Minor offence you club has perpetrated carries sanctions to the tune of 2 years.

So guilty as charged then?

What are we all still doing here?

 

[mxett]

What don't you get.

WADA are the be all and end all, the clubs are bound to it's rules, it's punishments and it's findings.

They hand that power to WADA the moment they become signatories.

Oh its not what I don't get. Its all about ASADA failing and the likelihood this will be targeted by legal action

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Do you accept your club is in direct contravention of the WADA code?

Yes or no?

you don't answer my questions, I don't answer yours. You've already shown your a welsher.

 

[TA87]

Oh its not what I don't get. Its all about ASADA failing and the likelihood this will be targeted by legal action

It's on the second page of the WADA code.

 

[Zach Package]

Kyptastic

Has anyone answered your question yet?

 

[TA87]

you don't answer my questions, I don't answer yours. You've already shown your a welsher.

Yes or no?

It's not hard, the position you are seemingly taking is that because no one else has been caught under the rule, Essendon should be exempt?

It's tedious, lacks reason, a frankly, is embarrassing.

 

[mxett]

They don't want to get sued for flogging a product that doesn't work? Who knows? Why would the manufacturer who has spent $50 million tell us the product doesn't work?

Because it doesn't work?

It failed efficacy as an anti obesity drug. The manufacturer claims it also falied to promote muscle or cartilage generation in scientific studies.

I noticed of the 3 links you showed, the only one to actually attempt to provide scientific proof said:

"AOD-9604 uses the HGH fragment 176-191 at the C-terminal region. Studies have shown that it works by mimicking the natural HGH regulation of fat metabolism but without the advise insulin sensitivity effects or cell proliferation (muscle growth)"

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Yes or no?

It's not hard, the position you are seemingly taking is that because no one else has been caught under the rule, Essendon should be exempt?

It's tedious, lacks reason, a frankly, is embarrassing.

again you show a surprising lack of intelligence, if that's the conclusion you draw

Try reading it all again. You'll get there. Surely.

 

[TA87]

Because it doesn't work?

It failed efficacy as an anti obesity drug. The manufacturer claims it also falied to promote muscle or cartilage generation in scientific studies.

I noticed of the 3 links you showed, the only one to actually attempt to provide scientific proof said:

"AOD-9604 uses the HGH fragment 176-191 at the C-terminal region. Studies have shown that it works by mimicking the natural HGH regulation of fat metabolism but without the advise insulin sensitivity effects or cell proliferation (muscle growth)"

Why are you arguing the validity of the substances effects?

It is not approved for human use, it is banned.

 

[TA87]

again you show a surprising lack of intelligence, if that's the conclusion you draw

Try reading it all again. You'll get there. Surely.

Why can't you say yes or no?

I'll ask it again.

Do you accept your club is in direct contravention of the WADA code?

 

[jenny61_99]

Why are you arguing the validity of the substances effects?

It is not approved for human use, it is banned.

Yes Mxett - ultimately TA87 is correct. It is a prohibited substance.

 

[Kyptastic]

Kyptastic

Has anyone answered your question yet?

Not yet. Thread's gone off topic though (kinda expected it).

Had another look tonight and still wasn't able to find anything like this situation before. In some respects, I'm disappointed - it would have been nice to see some sort of precedent to help provide a better idea of what's likely to happen, rather than abstract speculation based on untested rules.

 

[mxett]

Why are you arguing the validity of the substances effects?

It is not approved for human use, it is banned.

Its a discussion about whether AOD mimics other banned substances, which is one of the primary reasons for the s0 clause

The manufacturer concedes it does stuff all

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Why can't you say yes or no?

I'll ask it again.

Do you accept your club is in direct contravention of the WADA code?

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/section-0-and-bans-request.1002418/page-6#post-28009335

Now please stop boring everyone

 

[TA87]

Its a discussion about whether AOD mimics other banned substances, which is one of the primary reasons for the s0 clause

The manufacturer concedes it does stuff all

It is a banned substance, the primary reason for the SO clause;

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.

 

[TA87]

http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/section-0-and-bans-request.1002418/page-6#post-28009335

Now please stop boring everyone

Answer the question.

Do you accept your club is in direct contravention of the WADA code?

 

[TA87]

Still waiting Lance, the silence is deafening.

 

[mxett]

It is a banned substance, the primary reason for the SO clause;

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've heard the real purpose of the clause is to catch new PEDs that are yet to be classified. Not to say that is its only purpose.

Anyway we can debate this for another year. In the end any action against Essendon and Melbourne players will end up in court and reports have suggested the players have a good case

 

[mxett]

Still waiting Lance, the silence is deafening.

I think this is going nowhere

 

[TA87]

I've heard the real purpose of the clause is to catch new PEDs that are yet to be classified. Not to say that is its only purpose.

The real purpose is written, in black and white, right in front of you.

I'm guessing that Lance is a gutless wonder.

 

[mxett]

The real purpose is written, in black and white, right in front of you.

I'm guessing that Lance is a gutless wonder.

Yes, I know what it says.