Dank's D-day looms....April 10th

[Laphroaig]

Your conversation with Mxett is hard to follow, but ultimately has no answer because we don't know the dosage given to players (and we can't prove if Garnham knows or not). He (Mxett) was saying; 'Garnham had deemed it safe, having more information' (maybe he does, maybe not). The HS reported that the consent forms had 1 injection per week listed on them. (no dosage was given).
What Mxett said in the post I quoted was that studies had deemed it safe at low doses, which is true. The long term studies were conducted on 300 adults over 14 weeks. All test results completed have shown a safety profile indistinguisable from the placebo. If Garnham knows something that the public don't then he may feel confident in saying it is safe - based on clinical trials only.

We don't know what dosage or length EFC had injected their players with. Using clinical trials - the evidence points to it being safe. However, as AOD has not been approved (it has received GRAS status for food in US) and passed final clinical trials an iron-clad guarantee of safety cannot be given.

For me, IMHO it would say it is probably safe - but we can't be 100% sure. No doubt EFC cocked up in this regard, and anything less than 100% is poor.

Would you like a piece of barely warm partially rotted meat cut from a dead cow? No? How about a 30 day cold aged grass fed angus rib eye cooked perfectly rare?

As impressive as all those words might look, they refer to a process which falls FAR short of completion of the clinical trial process. And far short of any determination other than that the stuff isn't immediately and catastrophicly hazardous. Which is a long way from safe, probably safe or maybe safe.

 

[Laphroaig]

The meeting by the poolside that EFC, Hird and Charter all said was a 'chance' meeting.

Rubbish. Both Dank and Charter say the meetings , two of them, were planned, specifically to discuss the program with Hird. That being the only reason Charter was there.

 

[Gigantor]

ASADA has no control over the makeup of the Panel. That is entirely the Minister's role.

1/ I never said they had control
2/ you made the point that ASADA and ADRVP are in close communication
3/ I then said, that being the case, you'd think ASADA would time its most important work to date to align with a functioning panel.

 

[Duckworth]

Would you like a piece of barely warm partially rotted meat cut from a dead cow? No? How about a 30 day cold aged grass fed angus rib eye cooked perfectly rare?

As impressive as all those words might look, they refer to a process which falls FAR short of completion of the clinical trial process. And far short of any determination other than that the stuff isn't immediately and catastrophicly hazardous. Which is a long way from safe, probably safe or maybe safe.

Clinical trials, so far, show no evidence of an 'immediately catastrophically hazardous' substance. I do prefer my steak served with a large side of hysteria.

 

[Duckworth]

Rubbish. Both Dank and Charter say the meetings , two of them, were planned, specifically to discuss the program with Hird. That being the only reason Charter was there.

The point was that Hird did not plan the meetings - and had 'no intention' to meet with Charters.

Charter, who is assisting ASADA, claimed he had two poolside "discussions" with Hird on the Gold Coast over the course of a day after being invited to Queensland by Dank.

But he backed Essendon's version that it was a chance encounter, saying he believed Hird had not been expecting to meet him and had appeared unconvinced by Dank's pitch.

 

[yaco55]

Why would you think they'd have no communication? How would they do their job if they don't talk? What a bizarre thing to say.

Why is it bizarre ? ASADA investigates and recommends actions. ADRVP acts or rejects actions. Sporting body imposes penalties. There is no need for ongoing communication between ASADA and the ADRVP until ASADA recommends actions.

 

[yaco55]

1/ I never said they had control
2/ you made the point that ASADA and ADRVP are in close communication
3/ I then said, that being the case, you'd think ASADA would time its most important work to date to align with a functioning panel.

I am confused ! In one thread Jenny says ASADA and ADRVP are separate then in another thread says they have close communication.

 

[Laphroaig]

The point was that Hird did not plan the meetings - and had 'no intention' to meet with Charters.

Accidentally met him, then accidentally met him again. On both occasions accidentally discussed the drug program, and accidentally formed an opinion on it that he was unconvinced. Then subsequently accidentally went on with the program anyway.

A bloke that prone to accidents should stay indoors, and probably not be allowed a fork for his meat in case he pokes his own eye out.

 

[Laphroaig]

Clinical trials, so far, show no evidence of an 'immediately catastrophically hazardous' substance.

Glad you understand that simple point. Now try to make the gigantic leap of intellect to grasp that "not immediately catastrophically hazardous" is a gazillion miles from "safe". Or "even probably safe."

"Possibly safe under a narrow set of parameters" is about as good as you get.

 

[Bluez Rule]

Accidentally met him, then accidentally met him again. On both occasions accidentally discussed the drug program, and accidentally formed an opinion on it that he was unconvinced. Then subsequently accidentally went on with the program anyway.

A bloke that prone to accidents should stay indoors, and probably not be allowed a fork for his meat in case he pokes his own eye out.

Bit like the "accidental" meetings the blokes have on the Carlton Mid ads - what are the chances of going on holidays and having your mates have adjoining rooms on both sides? Just a wonderful 'coincidence' of course!

 

[Pinnell]

The point was that Hird did not plan the meetings - and had 'no intention' to meet with Charters.

Probably had no intention to use Charter as his own personal "dietician" in the early 2000's either you would guess?? Just kepy running into him for updated "recipies"? Mighty fine home cookin'!

 

[jenny61_99]

Accidentally met him, then accidentally met him again. On both occasions accidentally discussed the drug program, and accidentally formed an opinion on it that he was unconvinced. Then subsequently accidentally went on with the program anyway.

A bloke that prone to accidents should stay indoors, and probably not be allowed a fork for his meat in case he pokes his own eye out.

 

[HalloweenJack]

Why would you think they'd have no communication? How would they do their job if they don't talk? What a bizarre thing to say.

I doubt that there was any communication between ASADA and the ADRVP prior to ASADA issuing Dank with the show cause notice because this is not how these types of Tribunals/Panels operate. They would hardly be considered to be independent if they were speaking about matters before any decisions had been made.

The Minister has completely stuffed up this process by refusing to re-appoint the former members who would have been well versed in relation to the papers provided by ASADA because a hearing was set down for 10 April 2014.

 

[jenny61_99]

I doubt that there was any communication between ASADA and the ADRVP prior to ASADA issuing Dank with the show cause notice because this is not how these types of Tribunals/Panels operate. They would hardly be considered to be independent if they were speaking about matters before any decisions had been made.

The Minister has completely stuffed up this process by refusing to re-appoint the former members who would have been well versed in relation to the papers provided by ASADA because a hearing was set down for 10 April 2014.

The Herald Sun understands the ADRVP had completed extensive background work on the AFL-NRL investigation and was given briefings as new information came to hand.

Which means there must have been SOME communication prior to them sending the show cause notice.

 

[HalloweenJack]

The Herald Sun understands the ADRVP had completed extensive background work on the AFL-NRL investigation and was given briefings as new information came to hand.

Which means there must have been SOME communication prior to them sending the show cause notice.

It doesn't work like that. The ADRVP is independent of ASADA. The paper has got it wrong.

 

[Satan]

It doesn't work like that. The ADRVP is independent of ASADA. The paper has got it wrong.

The HS never gets it wrong. Lol

 

[Bobby Charlton]

The Minister has completely stuffed up this process by refusing to re-appoint the former members who would have been well versed in relation to the papers provided by ASADA because a hearing was set down for 10 April 2014.

Not only that but the minister has now appointed a replacement member who self declared, before appointment, that he cannot even be involved in the AFL/NRL matters.

 

[jenny61_99]

It doesn't work like that. The ADRVP is independent of ASADA. The paper has got it wrong.

They are independent in so far as ASADA does not select the members, however ASADA would have already given material to the panel to begin considering. Honestly to think otherwise would be naive.

 

[Laphroaig]

Not only that but the minister has now appointed a replacement member who self declared, before appointment, that he cannot even be involved in the AFL/NRL matters.

Pass my regards to Hawker83

 

[Bobby Charlton]

Pass my regards to Hawker83

Who is hawker83?

 

[coryne]

I just hope that the latest set of "complications" leads to WADA stepping in sooner rather than later. SURELY there is some grounds for WADA to intervene if the countries Governments has been shown to be incompetant/corrupt and cannot form an independent ADRVP themselves ???

 

[Satan]

Who is hawker83?

a friend of Mr Hanky, full of ....

 

[HalloweenJack]

They are independent in so far as ASADA does not select the members, however ASADA would have already given material to the panel to begin considering. Honestly to think otherwise would be naive.

Perhaps we are at cross-purposes. I am saying that prior to ASADA providing the ADVRP with formal allegations there would have been no communication about this matter between them. Once the ADVRP received the formal allegations a show cause notice would have been issued.

The ADVRP is independent. ASADA do not communicate with the ADVRP about possible breaches of the code during an investigation of those breaches.

As it happens I do know how an independent decision-making tribunal operates because I was a Registrar of an independent decision-making tribunal for 2 years.

On the ASADA website it has this to say about the ADVRP.

Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel:

The ADRVP is a decision-making body independent from ASADA whose members are appointed by the Minister for Sport.

The panel assesses the information presented to them by the athlete, ASADA and any other relevant party.

After due consideration the panel decides on whether a possible anti-doping rule violation has been committed, and whether to enter an athlete’s details on to its Register of Findings.

In accordance with its legislative framework, ASADA puts formal allegations of a possible ADRV to the athlete or support person in anticipation of the matter being considered by the independent Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel (ADRVP).

The athlete or support person has the opportunity to make a submission to the ADRVP prior to their consideration of a matter.

The ADRVP reviews ASADA’s processes and all relevant evidence in a matter and makes decisions as to whether to enter an athlete or support person’s details onto the Register of Findings if it believes that a person has possibly committed an ADRV.
​

There would be no communication between ASADA and the ADVRP before any formal allegations were put to the panel. There well may be communication afterwards even before the subject of the allegation has appeared before the panel but this would be at the request of the panel not ASADA. It is also possible that ASADA may provide the panel with additional information after the formal allegations have been provided but I think this is highly doubtful.

I have enjoyed reading your posts particularly those posts where you obviously have considerable expertise and experience in respect of those matters that you comment upon. However, your personal insult of calling me naive is not appreciated and in my opinion diminishes your credibility on this board.

​

 

[jenny61_99]

I have enjoyed reading your posts particularly those posts where you obviously have considerable expertise and experience in respect of those matters that you comment upon. However, your personal insult of calling me naive is not appreciated and in my opinion diminishes your credibility on this board.

​

My calling you naive diminishes my credibility on this board? Really?

I think you are right we are at cross purposes. I know and have said many times the ADRVP is independent to ASADA so we are in complete agreement there. What you seem to misunderstand is my belief that ASADA communicate with the panel - clearly they must communicate, or no information would be disseminated. That is all I'm saying. I'm not suggesting they are in cahoots, because clearly, that would remove the independent nature of the panel. But as the existing panel members are reported to have already been going through information provided by ASADA, and get updates as more information comes to hand, it is clear that ASADA have been communicating with them. I didn't call you naive - but I did say that to think the two entities wouldn't communicate would be naive, there is a difference.

 

[jenny61_99]

I am confused ! In one thread Jenny says ASADA and ADRVP are separate then in another thread says they have close communication.

Yes because separate entities never talk to each other.