Aragon wrote:
If you are currently aware is irrelevant, because you lectured others about the anti-doping code, but had no clue that one out of three criteria wouldn't be sufficient for a method to be banned. This is equivalent of an Arabic teacher lecturing self-confidently about the Fusha/Amiyya grammar and having simultaneously no clue that it is written from right to left.
It wasn't me, who succumbed to ad hominem bitching and whining, but here it is. Sorry, but the glove just didn't fit, an "Aleppo moment".
https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=9898512&page=32Aragon wrote:
From the WADA website:
For a substance or method to be added to the List, it must be determined that it meets two of the following three criteria:
- It has the potential to enhance or enhances sport performance
- It represents an actual or potential health risk to the athletes
- It violates the spirit of sport.
Sorry dude, but this is 101 of anti-doping basics. For a self-described anti-doping specialist with legal you should know better.
Of course you would never sink to "ad hominem bitching and whining", as you dig around amongst old threads to make an ad hominem attack.
I am not a "self-described anti-doping specialist" - I prefer to leave that kind of posturing to the likes of you - although I am legally trained (and I'm guessing you aren't). But I am sure you know everything about writing from right to left.
I guess it also hasn't really occurred to you that an objection to a drug being performance enhancing under the WADA code carries the implication that it is therefore also against the spirit of sport. Making connections not your thing?
But in your enthusiastic attack on credentials - which I don't assert, I simply try to assess arguments on their merits from what I understand of the issues - I missed the part where you provided a substantive response to the points that I made previously in this exchange. I guess you ran out of arguments.