Is the plural of strawmen a bale of strawmen?
Are the NFL signatories to the WADA code? It’s be good to get back to a relevant discussion. Any info on the case?Merckx index said:This point is interesting, because NFL player Julian Edelman just got sanctioned, and his defense is that the NFL doesn't even know what the substance he was caught with is. They can't identify it. What they presumably can do, though, is claim it's non-approved.samhocking said:The only grey area in anti-doping is within the WADA rules allowing prohibited substances to be used and within S0 class because substances in S0 are not necessarily detectable.
Don't want to sidetrack the, ahem, discussion about tramadol, but thought this ought to be pointed out.
Do you actually understand the meaning of grey, as in, not black and white?samhocking said:
Ok seriously, STOP! S0 does not cover faking a TUE. It covers drugs in development or drugs not otherwise approved by government agencies for human use. You quoted it, we can all see that's what it says, stop pretending it says something else.samhocking said:Do I take that Tramadol isn't a grey doping area then compared to say faking an ankle injury for TUE Corticosteroids otherwise banned or using a banned substance in S0 you know WADA do not know about and can't detect so you are legally protected just like the TUE protects you legally?
No, the one taken OOC is not an AAF. The one with a TUE is an AAF but not an ADRV. This is AD101.samhocking said:Boonen, you have to view it in terms of the lab. The lab identifies classes of substances within each method of blood/urine analysis. Now, they can find e.g. Corticosteroids in two samples. The sample with a TUE is legally free. The sample without the TUE faces an AAF. Two riders with equal evidence of Corticosteroids sees a grey area one walks free due to the rules surround TUEs.,
There is more to AD than lab work.samhocking said:The lab looking for S0 substances is the same thing. The lab is looking for classes of substances using each method of analysis. They might not find the substance because they can't detect it. The reason the athlete is using an S0 substance is because they know they can't possible face an AAF for sometihng nobody in WADA knows about or the lab can't detect or is looking for just like the holder of the TUE can't either. They are both exempt from a possible ADRV despite using what is essentially a prohibited substance in class S0 to S5 or even S7. That is the grey area. Tramadol is actually very black and white.
You really haven't got a clue what grey area actually means, do you? Or is it that you hope to confuse everyone else?samhocking said:But still the grey area fmk. Tramadol isn't a grey area in any legal shape or form unlike S0 and TUE and Salbutomol.
Don't try and dismiss this as 'just' an ethical debate. You know full well that the law is not black and white and many issues are open to interpretation, ie in the grey area.samhocking said:I see anti-doping grey area as a legal matter fmk. You see it as an ethical matter. Difference of opinion, but ethics don't exist at the moment in anti-doping. Tramadol is legal so to me not a grey area unlike otherwise illegal Corticosteroids under false TUE which can be.
Tramadol. In discussing it its WADA-reported use has declined by a third between 2013 and 2017 and it is now being banned by the UCI on health grounds. So, yeah, it kinda is worth discussing.macbindle said:Is grey area (non)doping really worth shouting about?
If it is grey area then it is still within rules.
Now you're getting there. The grey area is about interpretation of the rules or what the rules allow. No interpretation is required to use Tramadol and no rules apply to it, therefore it doesn't exist within the grey area, other than ethically, which is simply an opinion of the rider and team to legally use it or not.fmk_RoI said:Tramadol. In discussing it its WADA-reported use has declined by a third between 2013 and 2017 and it is now being banned by the UCI on health grounds. So, yeah, it kinda is worth discussing.macbindle said:Is grey area (non)doping really worth shouting about?
If it is grey area then it is still within rules.
Further, grey is not necessarily within the rules. It is within an interpretation of the rules.
No interpretation of the rules may be needed to use it but even WADA have given it a grey status by putting it on its monitoring list.samhocking said:No interpretation is required to use Tramadol and no rules apply to it, therefore it doesn't exist within the grey area, other than ethically, which is simply an opinion of the rider and team to legally use it or not.
Disagree. Just because it doesn’t interest you does mean it’s “old shite”. Judging by your contributions I’d say you don’t actually think this way, you’re just baiting which got you banned not so long ago. It’s tather boring to be honest but not unexpected, don’t blame me when banned again.fmk_RoI said:
Yes saw that, that was very good. I do like his stuff, he is sensible voice amongst the noise of ‘working harder’.Ripper said:My sense is medicines are being used for big time weight loss, power modulation, and big time recovery. Modern medicine is your friend. Ross Tucker made a pretty interesting 4 minute rant on how the pushing of physical capacities and tolerances was physiologically similar to the same stress as a disease or illness state (link below). So medications that are legal can still make a significant difference. And the fun thing is, while there is a 'normal' response to medications, there is still a great deal of individual variability that can only be understood by experimentation. One drug that helps me lose weight results in another person gaining weight. and of course, the more a medication 'ticks all the boxes', the more likely it is the drug of choice.