Jaimie, I am starting to think you have a problem with Trish when it takes you 2mths to quote her :confused:
Printable View
Jaimie, I am starting to think you have a problem with Trish when it takes you 2mths to quote her :confused:
I would imagine right at the moment one of the biggest challenges for the integrity of the sport is that Cobalt is somewhat "old news" so I am guesing those who choose this path are already using the "next thing"..or even the next thing after that...or something thats already flying under the radar...not an envious task for the authoritys when you think about it
Probably right James. I think the authorities are 'too fair' - instead of setting levels, lets keep the rules general ie You can be suspended for any swab abnormality that the authorities deem suspicious
The same one that ASADA uses for athletes - the 'if it is not on the approved list' you cannot use it
The "legal world" has a vested interest in these matters, just as they do in many other jurisdictions. Personnaly, I think it's a shame so much energy/resources are thrown at simple things like "did you cheat?" when everyone knows the answer anyway......just don't spoon feed the parasites any more than need be.
Geez I hate the way I over simplisize things.............
Thanks Brendan
What I was referring to was the S0 category for
'a substance still under pre-clinical and clinical development and has not been approved for therapeutic use by any government health authority in the world'
I was thinking that some of the "next things" that James was referring too may fit into that category