Charter underwrote bought peptides were not for human use

[Gigantor]

Well that was one delivery...as per the recent articles there were multiple deliveries of 10ml vials.

Today's says 10ml vials.

Roy's from a couple of days ago says, "ASADA will argue that the batches of the supplement received by the club from the compounding pharmacist, Nima Alavi, is a match with the usage of the banned thymosin beta 4. It will be alleged multiple doses of the prohibited peptide, made to order, were received by the club in a regime that lasted over many months."

So your question has become redundant apparently. Particularly if one vial can do multiple players.

Except everything Roy said in that article is at odds with other evidence ASADA had presented in its interim report back in August 2013.

 

[Armchair Critic]

I suggest you read it again.

Accordingly, if the substance had arrived and been consumed.....​

So, I repeat, from the WADA website:

What is strict liability?

The principle of strict liability is applied in situations where urine/blood samples collected from an athlete have produced adverse analytical results.​

From the Aust Sports Commission:

Under the World Anti-Doping Code, the principle of strict liability applies - this means an anti-doping rule violation occurs whenever a prohibited substance is found in an athlete’s sample.​

"USE" is different to "PRESENCE" , Use has no AAF

1. Presence of a prohibited substance or its metabolites or markers in an athlete’s sample

2. 2. Use or attempted use by an athlete of a prohibited substance or prohibited method.

http://www.asada.gov.au/rules_and_violations/8_rule_violations.html

 

[Gigantor]

The silence from the EFC lately has been deafening. Tough guy act not working anymore?

EFC is irrelevant now.

It's a matter for the AFLPA and the players themselves.

 

[kfc1]

You don't think they were paid for. How can you get credit notes for unpaid substances

Semantics. An invoice cancelled and credited means there was no purchase.

"Use" is different Violation to "Presence" by the way

I'm aware of this.
The Jake Law Statement of Reasons only makes reference to Strict Liability when discussing a hypothetical and there is no mention of it for the actual judgement

 

[Gigantor]

ASADA think they have a good link between the footballer and TB4. I'm 100% sure they do.

What will hurt the players is that there is evidence that Charter supplied prohibited drugs to Dank, and that Dank worked for Essendon, and the consent forms say Thymosin.

If only Dank could come forward with the TB4 sales figures to his private customers outside of Essendon that would account for the TB4 purchases to prove he did not supply TB4 to Essendon players.

What a shame he hasn't. What a pity Little hasn't been harder on Dank. Maybe Little gave Dank too much credit. Card.

To clarify, ASADA's evidence from August 2013 does not actually show Charter supplying directly to Dank.

 

[Rumballs]

Players have been sticking together for 2 years, sticking together in all likelihood because they believe they are completely innocent, to any one with common sense this makes complete sense.

The scrutiny from the media, fans, family, the AFL has been intense and unrelenting, if only one player had doubts about what they had taken they would have spilled their guts to all and sundry by now.

It is very sad that so many posters on this board are consistently giving the players a hard time, some of more well known posters will hopefully be making apologies in the near future, but I am not holding my breath.

I agree that players may feel that they are innocent, in the sense that they didn't intend to dope.
But surely some must at least have doubts about whether Dank / Essendon gave them a banned drug.
The public unity after so long is surprising.

 

[Tazmania]

Except everything Roy said in that article is at odds with other evidence ASADA had presented in its interim report back in August 2013.

You mean the report that was produced before the investigation was finished? The one that Alavi hadn't been interviewed for? Hardly surprising new information has surfaced then isn't it.

 

[RegHickeyStand]

To clarify, ASADA's evidence from August 2013 does not actually show Charter supplying directly to Dank.

Who did purchased it directly from Charter?

 

[Armchair Critic]

Semantics. An invoice cancelled and credited means there was no purchase.

I'm aware of this.
The Jake Law Statement of Reasons only makes reference to Strict Liability when discussing a hypothetical and there is no mention of it for the actual judgement

I think ASADA will well and truly disprove that. ALAVI admits Dank took possession of the items and they were never returned.Dank was an official of the EFC at the time

 

[Bobby Charlton]

I'm dumbfounded too.

It's the main reason I don't have sympathy for the players. I can't help but feel they're covering their arses. Anyone in their right mind would break away from the pack mentality and demand answers.

It's genuinely staggering.

Has it never crossed your mind that the reason no player has taken or sought a deal is that they all believe in their own innocence? Isn't that a more sensible conclusion than believing, as you and others here do, that the reason they have not sought deals is that they are all guilty? This spreading belief that no player seeking a deal is evidence of their guilt is warped and the product of desperation.

 

[Randomizor]

EFC is irrelevant now.

It's a matter for the AFLPA and the players themselves.

Well, they'll certainly be irrelevant soon

 

[Tiger2709]

Deals were offered in June. There were no takers. The desperation here is now revealed by it being portrayed that no player taking a deal is evidence of the players' guilt. Cuckoo.
www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/bombers-would-have-missed-finals-under-asada-deal-20140826-108qif.html

That statement by Caroline Wilson was not challenged by ASADA and was not withdrawn. A media statement regarding a NRL deal offer was publicly challenged by ASADA.

The desperation is all from your side, do we know if that article is correct, I see no quotes, isn't that the usual catch-cry from you Essendon faithful?

Your missing the point as usual

"ASADA is understood to have told the Essendon players' legal team that it had compiled evidence they had taken the banned Thyamosin Beta 4 but that it accepted they had done so unknowingly."

 

[gavaniacono]

Has it never crossed your mind that the reason no player has taken or sought a deal is that they all believe in their own innocence? Isn't that a more sensible conclusion than believing, as you and others here do, that the reason they have not sought deals is that they are all guilty? This spreading belief that no player seeking a deal is evidence of their guilt is warped and the product of desperation.

No. The players holding steady with their club may or may not mean they think they are innocent. What it definitely means is they have no critical eye to cast over the actions of their club. They are not only naive but foolish, and possibly gutless too.

 

[kfc1]

I think ASADA will well and truly disprove that. ALAVI admits Dank took possession of the items and they were never returned.Dank was an official of the EFC at the time

Dank was also "an official" of his own businesses

 

[Armchair Critic]

Semantics. An invoice cancelled and credited means there was no purchase.

I'm aware of this.
The Jake Law Statement of Reasons only makes reference to Strict Liability when discussing a hypothetical and there is no mention of it for the actual judgement

http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/AFL Anti-Doping Code 2014 FINAL.pdf

(b) Use or Attempted Use by a Player of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited
Method9
(i) It is each Player’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance
enters his or her body. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, fault,
negligence or knowing Use on the Player’s part be demonstrated in order
to establish an Anti-Doping Rule Violation for Use of a Prohibited
Substance or Prohibited Method.

 

[Gigantor]

Yes there is it is strict liability, Charter it is known was the supplier of Danks supplements he only sourced Tb4 so where did Dank get thymomodulin, simple question its not banned so the supplier will surely come forward, really your arguments are starting to just sound stupid.

You keep wanting to put the onus on the players.

The onus is 100% on ASADA to prove a link between the footballers and TB4.

 

[blackshadow]

Dank was also "an official" of his own businesses

My God Holmes! What a startling piece of "evidence".

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Armchair Critic]

Dank was also "an official" of his own businesses

He was actually just a shareholder

 

[Gigantor]

Semantics. An invoice cancelled and credited means there was no purchase.

I'm aware of this.
The Jake Law Statement of Reasons only makes reference to Strict Liability when discussing a hypothetical and there is no mention of it for the actual judgement

Correct. It is referred to as part of a hypothetical:

Accordingly, if the substance had arrived and been consumed.....​

 

[fabulousphil]

If I was at one of those bomber parent meetings listening to apologists like Watson senior get up and say that the club has done nothing substantively wrong, even though there are no records, I would have hip and shouldered him on the stage then and there. Is this phenomenon of players holding fat with the club that so obviously abused them AFLs version of the Stockholm syndrome?

You say that, but where are all the parents complaining, where are the spouces, parents, managers hip and shouldering the club ?, you can bet your bottom $ that they don't all barrack for Essendon, like the club, even like football or Hird.

What has stopped hundreds of people associated with the club/players/officials lashing out incognito if they feel scared to identify themselves.

You have to ask yourself this.

yet no one has done it !!!

 

[Gigantor]

http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/AFL Anti-Doping Code 2014 FINAL.pdf

(b) Use or Attempted Use by a Player of a Prohibited Substance or a Prohibited
Method9
(i) It is each Player’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance
enters his or her body. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, fault,
negligence or knowing Use on the Player’s part be demonstrated in order
to establish an Anti-Doping Rule Violation for Use of a Prohibited
Substance or Prohibited Method.

Correct. First and foremost, you must know that the prohibited substance has entered the body....then strict liability applies.

But on this board, there is an expectation that ASADA merely has to point the finger, and strict liability applies.

That is quite obviously incorrect, and if people want, I can quote WADA and the Aust Sports Commission again.

 

[Gigantor]

He was actually just a shareholder

The ASADA evidence from the interim report, August 2013:

The nominated ‘customer’ for both the Hexarelin and ‘Peptide Thymosin’ are listed on the respective invoices under the heading ‘Description’ as ‘Mrc & Icb (sic). Such references are consistent with the acronyms for Medical Rejuvenation Clinic and Institute of Cellular Bioenergentics respectively, companies where Dank is a director.​

 

[Armchair Critic]

The ASADA evidence from the interim report, August 2013:

The nominated ‘customer’ for both the Hexarelin and ‘Peptide Thymosin’ are listed on the respective invoices under the heading ‘Description’ as ‘Mrc & Icb (sic). Such references are consistent with the acronyms for Medical Rejuvenation Clinic and Institute of Cellular Bioenergentics respectively, companies where Dank is a director.​

Director then , must have thousands of patients as a director

 

[Gigantor]

Apparently GG never suggested thymomodulin. GG and me have no idea where you got that from. GG and me are dumbfounded.

I never suggested that Charter purchased thymomodulin.

I'm not aware of anyone suggesting that.

I have stated many times that there are countless suppliers selling thymosin (thymomodulin) online.

 

[Cronos]

And still doesn't answer the question of , if you don't know your taking something illegal how can you be guilty of rule breaking. That is the bottom line to the end of this . Absolute truth and they can't prove absolute truth in this now.

What a complete load of unmitigated garbage.

5.3 Persons to whom this Code applies are specifically cautioned:
(c) It is the obligation of each Person to whom this Code applies to inform himself
of all substances and methods prohibited under this Code. It is not a defence to
any claim that a Person has breached this Code for that Person to contend:
(i) ignorance that a substance or method is prohibited;
(ii) an honest and reasonable, but mistaken, belief that a substance or
method is not prohibited under this Code;
(iii) lack of intention to use or administer a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited
Method;
(iv) inadvertent use or administration of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited
Method;