![](https://images.bigfootymedia.com/icons/mobile-bullets/adelaide.png)
Muggs
Premiership Player
Perhaps one or the other of you could explain this part to me, then: my understanding of strict liability is that it means players effectively are deemed to have constructive knowledge of what is banned and what is not. And with something like S0, doesn't that provide a basic framework for establishing that AOD is banned? ie Anything that is not approved for human use is banned. AOD is not approved for human use. Therefore AOD is banned.
Unless it is the case that ASADA straight up told them it was okay to use, I don't see how they couldn't determine that it was banned.
I think ASADA basically ignored S0 for a bit and forgot it exists and gave advice based on S2, as per the ACC report. ACC report says AOD9064 not banned by S2. While not incorrect it is incomplete.