Charter underwrote bought peptides were not for human use

[imperial_oz]

What I don't understand about the idea of "ASADA have to undeniably prove that each player attempted to take banned drugs" is this:

I'm charged with a crime. I go to court for the case to be heard. The case has to be proven beyond reasonable doubt. I reckon I'm completely innocent so I don't even provide a defence. How do you see that going for me?

The idea that EFC players won't have to mount a defence and the onus is 100% on ASADA is laughable.

I think there are a couple of accounts on here that are consistently bringing up misleading 'facts' to somehow raise the bar in this case.

Comfortable satisfaction does not mean that ASADA must prove that each and every player had a banned a drug enter their veins. ASADA has to be able to demonstrate that it is 'more than likely' that the players were given a banned substance. Having a supply trail from the original supplier, through the importer to the compounding chemist and then onto a sports scientist at the Essendon goes a long way to achieving this. Being able to demonstrate that the players have signed documentation stating they are agreeing to being injected with Thymosin and there is no viable alternative form of Thymosin to TB4 adds to the strength of the case. Details like injection schedules and admissions made by players in their interviews provide corroborative support to the evidence previously dicsussed.

What it will come down to is the panel looking at the evidence that we know of and the evidence that we don't yet know and making certain decisions.

1. Was there TB4 at Essendon? There probably was
2. Was it supplied to the players? Again, it probably was.

Note, the answers were not "yes, it definitely was" to either question because the level of proof required isn't that rigorous.

I would suggest that to achieve 'comfortable satisfaction' ASADA may be able to show there was a supplements program that involved banned substances and that the 34 players were involved in that program will be sufficient.

Comfortable satisfaction is at the level of "it probably happened and in my opinion it did". All the talk of having to show for each individual that its was definitely injected and it definitely happened on such a date(s) and so many times etc is complete rubbish. The level of proof required is nowhere near that specific.

Thats not to say the defence cannot question the links in the chain but there are those on here who are completely exaggerating how robust the ASADA needs to be.

 

[Gigantor]

sorry but you are wrong and the gg is right.

what you are suggesting is a refund not a credit note.

a credit note is basically a cancellation of an invoice except offsetting journals are created instead of cancelling the original journals.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thank you ajb.

 

[Gigantor]

I think there are a couple of accounts on here that are consistently bringing up misleading 'facts' to somehow raise the bar in this case.

Comfortable satisfaction does not mean that ASADA must prove that each and every player had a banned a drug enter their veins. ASADA has to be able to demonstrate that it is 'more than likely' that the players were given a banned substance. Having a supply trail from the original supplier, through the importer to the compounding chemist and then onto a sports scientist at the Essendon goes a long way to achieving this. Being able to demonstrate that the players have signed documentation stating they are agreeing to being injected with Thymosin and there is no viable alternative form of Thymosin to TB4 adds to the strength of the case. Details like injection schedules and admissions made by players in their interviews provide corroborative support to the evidence previously dicsussed.

What it will come down to is the panel looking at the evidence that we know of and the evidence that we don't yet know and making certain decisions.

1. Was there TB4 at Essendon? There probably was
2. Was it supplied to the players? Again, it probably was.

Note, the answers were not "yes, it definitely was" to either question because the level of proof required isn't that rigorous.

I would suggest that to achieve 'comfortable satisfaction' ASADA may be able to show there was a supplements program that involved banned substances and that the 34 players were involved in that program will be sufficient.

Comfortable satisfaction is at the level of "it probably happened and in my opinion it did". All the talk of having to show for each individual that its was definitely injected and it definitely happened on such a date(s) and so many times etc is complete rubbish. The level of proof required is nowhere near that specific.

Thats not to say the defence cannot question the links in the chain but there are those on here who are completely exaggerating how robust the ASADA needs to be.

15. Proof of Doping
15.1 Burden and Standard of Proof
AFL shall have the burden of establishing that an Anti-Doping Rule Violation has
occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether AFL has established an Anti-Doping
Rule Violation to the comfortable satisfaction of CAS or the Tribunal bearing in mind the
seriousness of the allegation which is made. This standard of proof in all cases is greater
than a mere balance of probability, but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

30 This standard of proof required to be met by the Anti-Doping Organisation is comparable to the standard which is applied in most countries to cases involving professional misconduct. It has also been widely applied by courts and hearing panels in doping cases.
See, for example, the CAS decision in N, J, Y, W v FINA, CAS 98/208, 22 December 1998.
31 For example, an Anti-Doping Organisation may establish an Anti-Doping Rule Violation under Clause 11.2 (Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method) based on the Player’s admissions, the credible testimony of third Persons, reliable documentary evidence, reliable analytical data from either an A or B Sample or conclusions drawn from the profile of a series of the Player’s blood or urine Samples.​

Seeing that the burden of proof is greater than the "mere" balance of probability, I disagree when you say that it only has to be shown it "probably" happened. A reading of the above suggests that it is a bit higher than that, and a look at some of the cases CAS has knocked on the head on appeal supports that view.

Also the footnote in the AFL code making the burden of proof comparable to cases involving professional misconduct is interesting.

 

[ajb72]

Also, I'm not sure why you are making a distinction between "debtors" and "receivables".

and now you are wrong.

Debtors are part of receivables, not all of receivables.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Gigantor]

and now you are wrong.

Debtors are part of receivables, not all of receivables.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Although I thought the poster in question was treating them as two entirely different things.

Without wishing to descend into a boring discussion about bookkeeping terms, one could argue that debtors and accounts receivable are one and the same thing, and where a distinction is made, it's as much one of choice and preferred practice as anything else.

For arguments sake, you might wish to have everything under the umbrella term "Receivables", or you might choose to have various different groupings, and you might have an account sitting outside of your receivables that you might refer to as "Sundry Debtors", you might actually flip those concepts around. It's just all a matter of preferences, how localised systems are set up, etc, etc

Otherwise, they are both closely related, form part of your liquid assets, and the accounting treatment of each is pretty much identical.

 

[BlueWorld]

But the ASADA /AFL rules and set up will probably convict them all on this maybe, and so they will all go to court I would suspect , to clear their names of being called drug cheats.

Because, just maybe, some or all weren't knowing what they were taking was legal or illegal.

Someone has to prove that , prove it emphatically in fact .

Or every one of those suspected players will carry cheat with them forever.

When they signed their contracts they agreed to accept the AFL/ ASADA rules. That was made clear by J Middleton. They can appeal to the AFL appeals tribunal or CAS. How is going to Court going to clear their names?

Not knowing is no excuse. They were supposed to make sure it was legal. They have no one to blame but themselves.

Only needs to be proven to 'comfortable satisfaction.'

 

[BlueWorld]

And which individual knew what he was taking. Answer that one as well for each "accused" , that is the bottom line.

Not knowing is no excuse. That is the bottom line.

 

[stfan]

I think there are a couple of accounts on here that are consistently bringing up misleading 'facts' to somehow raise the bar in this case.

Comfortable satisfaction does not mean that ASADA must prove that each and every player had a banned a drug enter their veins. ASADA has to be able to demonstrate that it is 'more than likely' that the players were given a banned substance. Having a supply trail from the original supplier, through the importer to the compounding chemist and then onto a sports scientist at the Essendon goes a long way to achieving this. Being able to demonstrate that the players have signed documentation stating they are agreeing to being injected with Thymosin and there is no viable alternative form of Thymosin to TB4 adds to the strength of the case. Details like injection schedules and admissions made by players in their interviews provide corroborative support to the evidence previously dicsussed.

What it will come down to is the panel looking at the evidence that we know of and the evidence that we don't yet know and making certain decisions.

1. Was there TB4 at Essendon? There probably was
2. Was it supplied to the players? Again, it probably was.

Note, the answers were not "yes, it definitely was" to either question because the level of proof required isn't that rigorous.

I would suggest that to achieve 'comfortable satisfaction' ASADA may be able to show there was a supplements program that involved banned substances and that the 34 players were involved in that program will be sufficient.

Comfortable satisfaction is at the level of "it probably happened and in my opinion it did". All the talk of having to show for each individual that its was definitely injected and it definitely happened on such a date(s) and so many times etc is complete rubbish. The level of proof required is nowhere near that specific.

Thats not to say the defence cannot question the links in the chain but there are those on here who are completely exaggerating how robust the ASADA needs to be.

That plus that there would appear to be no evidence that EFC sourced any of the "good drugs". ...nor took a regime consistent with "good drugs".

There is a lot of evidence that the EFC sourced the "bad drugs" and the regime was for "bad drugs".

Placebo is out.

So that really only leaves one conclusion.

And forget this rubbish about the players being victims. If they chose to be deliberately "ignorant" injection after injection, then they should be wiling to wear the consequences. After all this is what WADA is written the way it is. Otherwise anyone, any team, could cheat.

 

[sonnywalters]

15. Proof of Doping
15.1 Burden and Standard of Proof
AFL shall have the burden of establishing that an Anti-Doping Rule Violation has
occurred. The standard of proof shall be whether AFL has established an Anti-Doping
Rule Violation to the comfortable satisfaction of CAS or the Tribunal bearing in mind the
seriousness of the allegation which is made. This standard of proof in all cases is greater
than a mere balance of probability, but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

30 This standard of proof required to be met by the Anti-Doping Organisation is comparable to the standard which is applied in most countries to cases involving professional misconduct. It has also been widely applied by courts and hearing panels in doping cases.
See, for example, the CAS decision in N, J, Y, W v FINA, CAS 98/208, 22 December 1998.
31 For example, an Anti-Doping Organisation may establish an Anti-Doping Rule Violation under Clause 11.2 (Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method) based on the Player’s admissions, the credible testimony of third Persons, reliable documentary evidence, reliable analytical data from either an A or B Sample or conclusions drawn from the profile of a series of the Player’s blood or urine Samples.​

Seeing that the burden of proof is greater than the "mere" balance of probability, I disagree when you say that it only has to be shown it "probably" happened. A reading of the above suggests that it is a bit higher than that, and a look at some of the cases CAS has knocked on the head on appeal supports that view.

Also the footnote in the AFL code making the burden of proof comparable to cases involving professional misconduct is interesting.

Thats actually quite interesting GG.

This standard of proof in all cases is greater
than a mere balance of probability, but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

So they dont have have actual doping into actual veins. But it has to be more than a mere balance of probabilities. So it has to be more than - well a few things might have happened and TB4 is the most likely. It has to be more like there is no other plausible explanation. Maybe even an implausible one will get them off as long its not fanciful.

 

[BlueWorld]

I think the more obvious answer is really very simple. Every player knew exactly what they were taking.

That is what Dank has said.

 

[Clems Knee]

Interesting that he specifically used thymosin with essendon and thymomodulin with melbourne. Surely if he was using the same drug at both he'd use the same name?

yeah looks like hes 1. changed the name because he realised the term Thymosin looks suspicious, or 2. changed the drug because he realised TB4 was banned

1. Yet he still used the term Thymosin when interviewed after the s**t had hit the fan.
2. Yet he still used the term Thymosin when describing the Essendon program, and was happy to state it.

How about:
3. He used Thymosin B4 for the Essendon players, and Thymomodulin with Trengove, who had injury recovery or health issues. He didn't realise one but not the other was banned, until he was made aware of it after the interview.

 

[Gigantor]

1. Yet he still used the term Thymosin when interviewed after the s**t had hit the fan.
2. Yet he still used the term Thymosin when describing the Essendon program, and was happy to state it.

How about:
3. He used Thymosin B4 for the Essendon players, and Thymomodulin with Trengove, who had injury recovery or health issues. He didn't realise one but not the other was banned, until he was made aware of it after the interview.

Although you would not use thymomodulin for injury recovery.

 

[Clems Knee]

Although you would not use thymomodulin for injury recovery.

But you might want to use it if infections, allergies or malignancies are involved. I remember the text was in reference to Trengove not going to Darwin, but don't remember when that was, and if it relates to his ankle injury or his drop in form.

 

[mxett]

But you might want to use it if infections, allergies or malignancies are involved. I remember the text was in reference to Trengove not going to Darwin, but don't remember when that was, and if it relates to his ankle injury or his drop in form.

he had a navicular stress injury, not an infection, allergy or carcinoma

 

[Clems Knee]

he had a navicular stress injury, not an infection, allergy or carcinoma

That's what I thought. But the text was to cancel sending the Thymomodulin to Darwin, because Trengove had been diagnosed with the navicular stress injury, that day.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/ankle-injury-a-big-setback-for-trengove-20121206-2ayao.html

So it is likely that Dank was giving Thymomodulin not for the stress injury, but for some other reason.

 

[imperial_oz]

Thats actually quite interesting GG.

This standard of proof in all cases is greater
than a mere balance of probability, but less than proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

So they dont have have actual doping into actual veins. But it has to be more than a mere balance of probabilities. So it has to be more than - well a few things might have happened and TB4 is the most likely. It has to be more like there is no other plausible explanation. Maybe even an implausible one will get them off as long its not fanciful.

The standard of proof required is still probability in spite of the false standards being talked up by some people. Even 'beyond reasonable doubt' is actually a measure of probability rather than a mathematical certainty but its an extremely high level of probability. The Tribunal or CAS will not need proof of each individual actually having used TB4 but on a sliding scale of probability they will need to satisfied that the players were involved.

The level is reasonably high but not so high that its difficult to achieve and they will not need to specifically identify individuals as some have proposed. If the tribunal is of the opinion that the use of TB4 took place and the players that have been identified took part in the program, that will be enough to make a finding. Its the same as a lot of posters on here being of the opinion that doping did occurred. If the Tribunal reach a similar conclusion then findings of guilt can be made.

It should be noted that the Tribunal members may have experience in this area and may be persuaded more easily or may be more difficult to persuade but it boils down to forming an opinion based on all of the evidence that doping has likely occurred. That isn't going to please some.

 

[Tiger2709]

are you suggesting he was using TB4 for Trengroves injuries but calling it thymomodulin?

Its Dank anything is possible, particularly if this was after putting his foot in his mouth on TV, I bet he will never mention Thymosin again.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

1. Yet he still used the term Thymosin when interviewed after the s**t had hit the fan.
2. Yet he still used the term Thymosin when describing the Essendon program, and was happy to state it.

How about:
3. He used Thymosin B4 for the Essendon players, and Thymomodulin with Trengove, who had injury recovery or health issues. He didn't realise one but not the other was banned, until he was made aware of it after the interview.

The conspiracist in me thinks that Trengrove is currently serving a ban.

 

[Clems Knee]

The conspiracist in me thinks that Trengrove is currently serving a ban.

I wondered that. But the injury is real, isn't it? Surely Richmond wouldn't have bought into the conspiracy?

 

[Clems Knee]

Its Dank anything is possible, particularly if this was after putting his foot in his mouth on TV, I bet he will never mention Thymosin again.

I'm pretty sure the text about Trengove was in December, well before the TV interview.

 

[Art Corvelay]

I wondered that. But the injury is real, isn't it? Surely Richmond wouldn't have bought into the conspiracy?

Maybe they agreed to not take him after finding out. Might as well add to the conspiracy theory

 

[Armchair Critic]

According to the article the Thymomodulin injection at the time was canceled , is there any evidence he actually received the injections in the end or are people just speculating that he received the injections

 

[threesixpio]

I think there are a couple of accounts on here that are consistently bringing up misleading 'facts' to somehow raise the bar in this case.

Comfortable satisfaction does not mean that ASADA must prove that each and every player had a banned a drug enter their veins. ASADA has to be able to demonstrate that it is 'more than likely' that the players were given a banned substance. Having a supply trail from the original supplier, through the importer to the compounding chemist and then onto a sports scientist at the Essendon goes a long way to achieving this. Being able to demonstrate that the players have signed documentation stating they are agreeing to being injected with Thymosin and there is no viable alternative form of Thymosin to TB4 adds to the strength of the case. Details like injection schedules and admissions made by players in their interviews provide corroborative support to the evidence previously dicsussed.

What it will come down to is the panel looking at the evidence that we know of and the evidence that we don't yet know and making certain decisions.

1. Was there TB4 at Essendon? There probably was
2. Was it supplied to the players? Again, it probably was.

Note, the answers were not "yes, it definitely was" to either question because the level of proof required isn't that rigorous.

I would suggest that to achieve 'comfortable satisfaction' ASADA may be able to show there was a supplements program that involved banned substances and that the 34 players were involved in that program will be sufficient.

Comfortable satisfaction is at the level of "it probably happened and in my opinion it did". All the talk of having to show for each individual that its was definitely injected and it definitely happened on such a date(s) and so many times etc is complete rubbish. The level of proof required is nowhere near that specific.

Thats not to say the defence cannot question the links in the chain but there are those on here who are completely exaggerating how robust the ASADA needs to be.

Yeah - It's got to the point where if Jobe came into the tribunal, stripped off and jumped into a kiddy pool of TB4 and gargled it singing "TB4 forever" some posters would still try and raise doubt. There's not much to gain from being on the HTB now other than to get news updates quickly.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

I wondered that. But the injury is real, isn't it? Surely Richmond wouldn't have bought into the conspiracy?

Probably.

It is a pretty cool conspiracy though, isn't it?

 

[mxett]

That's what I thought. But the text was to cancel sending the Thymomodulin to Darwin, because Trengove had been diagnosed with the navicular stress injury, that day.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/ankle-injury-a-big-setback-for-trengove-20121206-2ayao.html

So it is likely that Dank was giving Thymomodulin not for the stress injury, but for some other reason.

its likely he was using it in a similar manner to why he was using 'thymosin' at Essendon, to negate the immunity reducing affects of heavy training. Or is it possible he was using TB4 to help heal the fracture but calling it thymomodulin. Everyone seems to think that was the case at Essendon