Section 0 and bans (request)

[beez]

Dear Lance Uppercut and TA87,

No one wants to read your semantic arguments. Please refrain from letting the drivel emanate from your mouths ITT.

Sincerely,

People who enjoy reading the discussions on this board.


PS. I do hope someone can find a relevant case (if there is one), it'll bring on more interesting discussions.

 

[TA87]

Dear Lance Uppercut and TA87,

No one wants to read your semantic arguments. Please refrain from letting the drivel emanate from your mouths ITT.

Sincerely,

People who enjoy reading the discussions on this board.


PS. I do hope someone can find a relevant case (if there is one), it'll bring on more interesting discussions.

Simply asking for a yes or no answer to a very simple question that Lance is ducking in a very gutless manner.

So Lance,

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

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Still waiting Lance, the silence is deafening.

Yeah nah, you had your chance. You dogged it. And you still don't even get how you've missed the point of the question you dodged.

As I said, do stop boring everyone

 

[TA87]

Yeah nah, you had your chance. You dogged it. And you still don't even get how you've missed the point of the question you dodged.

As I said, do stop boring everyone

Just answer it. It's not hard, yes or no.

 

[TA87]

You gutless wonder.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Does anyone know why there apparently hasn't been an S0 prosecution?

Have there been attempts or has it simply not come up?

 

[TA87]

ANSWER THE QUESTION.

 

[theGimp]

Alias trolls calling anyone gutless does not compute.

 

[Chameleon75]

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

http://calzada.com.au/wp-content/up...n-Animal-Model-of-Osteoarthritis_5-Feb-13.pdf

http://calzada.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/1059707.pdf

The company is looking at other applications for the drug including it's anabolic effects to help people with muscular dystrophy.

I suggest why the company doesn't sell that line is because being a joint venture with monash uni, there would be ethical reputation of the institution at stake if they were to make claims that they are still researching and yet to reach a conclusion with. Retailers on the other hand would have no ethical concerns and if they got sniff that there might be other applications they'll just run with it.

 

[mxett]

http://calzada.com.au/wp-content/up...n-Animal-Model-of-Osteoarthritis_5-Feb-13.pdf

http://calzada.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/1059707.pdf

The company is looking at other applications for the drug including it's anabolic effects to help people with muscular dystrophy.

I suggest why the company doesn't sell that line is because being a joint venture with monash uni, there would be ethical reputation of the institution at stake if they were to make claims that they are still researching and yet to reach a conclusion with. Retailers on the other hand would have no ethical concerns and if they got sniff that there might be other applications they'll just run with it.

I realise they are investigating other uses for their expensive investment. However as yet none appear to have a proven efficacy

 

[r_boy]

I realise they are investigating other uses for their expensive investment. However as yet none appear to have a proven efficacy

So what if efficacy is not proven in a controlled trial amongst obese hospital patients, it won't help Essendon get off. Every man and his dog knows it has effects. You think a biochemist like Stephen Dank was just feeding his players this stuff if it didn't do anything? I shouldn't even ask that because I know you think he would.

 

[r_boy]

Now I feel guilty for getting sucked into mxett's delusional logic.

 

[mxett]

So what if efficacy is not proven in a controlled trial amongst obese hospital patients, it won't help Essendon get off. Every man and his dog knows it has effects. You think a biochemist like Stephen Dank was just feeding his players this stuff if it didn't do anything? I shouldn't even ask that because I know you think he would.

Explain how every man and his dog knows AOD works when the company who make it and have an interest in seeing it work have stated it failed to burn fat, build muscle, and repair cartilage despite multiple trials

Placebo?

 

[The full package]

Feels like I just read the script to "A few good posters"

 

[MOTiger]

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.

There has been at least one case S0, A russian cyclist.

Richard Ings said that the drug the cyclist tested +ve for wasGW1516 AKA GW501516 (thats what i found it under while Ings said GW1516 but it's that same thing) the sanction is still pending.
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...os-Valery-Kaykov-provisionally-suspended.aspxEdit - Should read the whole tread already been posted

 

[Ned_Flanders]

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?

Anything that says you can lose weight or get a good boner has success as only a secondary factor. The thing will sell regardless as long as you are able to make some half arsed claim that stands up (be it a therapeutic or non therapeutic claim)

 

[Ironmonger]

So I take it no one can give a definitive answer to the question posed by the OP?

It's a very good question, by the way.

I don't like the idea of AFL clubs being used as test cases for something relatively new in the WADA code. That doesn't change my view that Essendon only have themselves to blame, though.

 

[Baldur]

So I take it no one can give a definitive answer to the question posed by the OP?

It's a very good question, by the way.

I don't like the idea of AFL clubs being used as test cases for something relatively new in the WADA code. That doesn't change my view that Essendon only have themselves to blame, though.

S0 is a fairly new section, so it is not surprising that there is little to no precedent. I suspect that the AFL will be used as a test case. On the world stage AFL is tiny small fry. From WADA's point of view just the thing to tackle before taking on the really big boys.

 

[Glacier]

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?

What's the relevance of an athlete being caught under the rules or not?
They are still the rules!!
Lance, you spend an awful lot of time abusing people with snide remarks including new people who join to obviously discuss these topics only to get a smart arse " you're new here " answer
Defend all you like but debate properly or don't bother typing
Most of us know that Essendon will be protected and get off with a slap on the wrist but that's not what's really important because it will be what it will be
What's important is the FACT that Essendon used banned substances
Banned
It really is that simple

 

[Glacier]

Is that some kind of threat you bully? Are you the hall monitor around here? Do you dob to mods everytime someone says something you dont agree with it?

What is this 'alias' nonsense? Everyone on here is an alias. Unless your name on your birth certificate is "Lance Uppercut" then you are an alias. Whats this threat of an "IP search"?

Is there a double like button for this post ??

 

[Lance Uppercut]

What's the relevance of an athlete being caught under the rules or not?
They are still the rules!!
Lance, you spend an awful lot of time abusing people with snide remarks including new people who join to obviously discuss these topics only to get a smart arse " you're new here " answer
Defend all you like but debate properly or don't bother typing
Most of us know that Essendon will be protected and get off with a slap on the wrist but that's not what's really important because it will be what it will be
What's important is the FACT that Essendon used banned substances
Banned
It really is that simple

Please point out my "abuse" or give it a rest and stop sooking.

I am asking a legitimate question that I don't know the answer to. You can either address the question or not, but for crying out loud don't have a teary, it's most unbecoming.

If you don't think there's any significance to the fact it appears that in over 2 years no athlete has ever been done for S0 then good on you. I think it's a bit odd and I'm interested in it. Now either contribute or log off, yeah?

 

[Kaiser Powser]

Thread has derailed by the usual bullshit.

Considering the cream of internet detectives that reside on this board have found nothing, I think it's safe to confirm the OP; that there have been no WADA bans for S0?

Or do you lot just want to live in denial?

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

http://www.peptidelabs.com/aod9604.html
· Increases muscle mass
· Increases IGF-1 levels, in an effective manner, thus making this a peptide that burns fat
· Increases energy expenditure

http://biokemresearch.com.au/products/lipotropin-aod-9604
Increases muscle mass
Increases IGF-1 levels, effectively making this a peptide that burns fat
Increases energy expenditure









In all of the websites selling AOD9604 - they all mention the same attributes. Not sure where that originated from, but it is in every single one that I looked at.


http://www.researchclinic.com.au/peptides/researchers-range/aod-9604-lipotropin/?items_per_page=24
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) that is seen with the unmodified Human Growth Hormone. Lipotropin is estimated to be 12.5 times stronger than HGH for the breaking down of fat


It doesn't mention IGF-1. Although it does say:

Those sites have quoted the original claim from the manufacturer before the human clinical trials were rejected for therapeutic use on the basis it did not deliver on the claims.

Since the manufacturer have updated the effects based on the clinical trials. For that information follow the link mxett quoted.

 

[Glacier]

Please point out my "abuse" or give it a rest and stop sooking.

I am asking a legitimate question that I don't know the answer to. You can either address the question or not, but for crying out loud don't have a teary, it's most unbecoming.

If you don't think there's any significance to the fact it appears that in over 2 years no athlete has ever been done for S0 then good on you. I think it's a bit odd and I'm interested in it. Now either contribute or log off, yeah?

Contribute or log off ?
A poster of 1 day has got as much right to read and comment on here as a poster if 10 years
And no, it's completely irrelevant if someone's been banned or not under the section in discussion
It's still the rules
You can twist them all you want but they are still the rules
Answer the questions put to you on the thread without the deflection and suedo clever retorts if you have deemed yourself to be the protected of all things Essendon
If not , perhaps it is you who should think about having a rest for a while
Hypocrite

 

[The Dodger]

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

Pretty sure the code has this clause for the protection & health of athletes. Not necessarily just for the PED aspect of it.
So that in the pursuit of excellence they don't become lab rats