That's fine, I don't take things personally, I was just confused as you quoted me. Yes, it would require evidence either in the form of a test showing that an injection was the only likely route for that concentration of the substance or something else, like Millar, an informant etc.climb4fun said:Sorry. I guess I was questioning the "logic". It wasn't personal.King Boonen said:I know, but it had nothing to do with my post. I was just outlining the rules. I didn't say anything about reporting/investigating offences.blackcat said:it was a reply to the, no, it was a reply implicit the paradox of making injections illegal.King Boonen said:What are you talking about?
well, so are PEDs in cycling, but we all take them in the peloton.
Also, so much illegal stuff can now be delivered via other method. Seems the hypodermic transmission method being outlawed was pure spin.
Bioavailability and location differs based on delivery method, it's why injectable still exist and not everything is in pill/cream form. I know what you mean, for example outlawing injections of glucocorticosteroids but them allowing people to guzzle them as pills seems like a marketing effort (and it is in some respects) but outlawing injections is still worthwhile, they should just go further.