Remove this Banner Ad

Section 0 and bans (request)

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
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.
 
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? o_O Who knows? Why would the manufacturer who has spent $50 million tell us the product doesn't work?
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

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

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)"
 
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 :D

Try reading it all again. You'll get there. Surely.
 
Because it doesn't work? o_O

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.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

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

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?
 
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.
 
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.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

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
 
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.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top