ASADA case against Essendon hanging by a thread (The Age, 1 Nov 14)

[fabulousphil]

Seriously GeeGee, this is equivalent to stating that the stuff the street drug dealer gave to you couldn't possibly have been heroin, because he sells heroin to other people.

How so, pretty sure Heroin is illegal for everyone , the stuff Dank uses is not, you and i can take it any time we wish.

Your analogy is not quite right.

 

[Cronos]

Yes, and if he is selling heroin to other people, it raises doubt as to whether he gave the heroin to these people over here, especially where there is no evidence of the latter.

You're claiming they bought stuff from the Coca-Cola dealer, who only ever sells Coca-Cola and Coca-Cola products, who only ever buys from a distributor that has stated he has only ever supplied the dealer with Coca-Cola. And you're claiming it could be Pepsi.

 

[Whatsonswhat]

Seriously GeeGee, this is equivalent to stating that the stuff the street drug dealer gave to you couldn't possibly have been heroin, because he sells heroin to other people.

Not couldn't possibly. Just not necessarily.

 

[Armchair Critic]

Yes, and if he is selling heroin to other people, it raises doubt as to whether he gave the heroin to these people over here, especially where there is no evidence of the latter.

wow just wow .

 

[Gigantor]

Not couldn't possibly. Just not necessarily.

His analogy is going from bad to worse.

As Fabphil has pointed out, TB4 is sold legally through Dank's anti-aging clinic(s).

MRC had multiple business dealings with Charter/Alavi during the period in question, so the fact that Charter and Alavi may have dealt in TB4 means absolutely nothing of itself.

 

[gavaniacono]

They don't name thymomoulin either. Now why would you not state the correct term if you were using a legal substance and wanted to leave no doubt of that?

The bloke who wrote those consent forms has lost all cred. They should have consulted a lawyer! I heard the consents were written on the back of old tb4 labels after they were torn off vials and replaced by other labels

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

You're claiming they bought stuff from the Coca-Cola dealer, who only ever sells Coca-Cola and Coca-Cola products, who only ever buys from a distributor that has stated he has only ever supplied the dealer with Coca-Cola. And you're claiming it could be Pepsi.

The Essendon diehards seem to think that that defence will be enough!

There seems to be a belief from them, that unless ASADA can provide lab results, photos and samples to prove it is Coca Cola, they'll get off by saying 'nah, it could have been Pepsi. Prove it'


Doesn't work like that.

 

[Whatsonswhat]

His analogy is going from bad to worse.

As Fabphil has pointed out, TB4 is sold legally through Dank's anti-aging clinic(s).

MRC had multiple business dealings with Charter/Alavi during the period in question, so the fact that Charter and Alavi may have dealt in TB4 means absolutely nothing of itself.

Well it means it possibly went to Essendon, but not necessarily.

 

[DonsRule]

Essendon had an application for a lawyer to represent the club during the proceedings rejected.

How many hints do people need that the ASADA case is weak agenda has more holes in it than the titanic

You impressed the GG.

I really don't think that can point to strength or weakness of either side tbh,

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Yes, and if he is selling heroin to other people, it raises doubt as to whether he gave the heroin to these people over here, especially where there is no evidence of the latter.

Not quite

Your analogy works only with one change

If the dealer bought 1kg of heroin, and it can be shown he sold the entire volume to other customers

Bringing it back to the real world, the "he also uses it at MRC" argument only works if you can show the MRC volumes matched the Alavi numbers.

Given Dank has refused to help both ASADA and the players, I don't know how the players can even have access to this info

 

[imperial_oz]

The Essendon diehards seem to think that that defence will be enough!

There seems to be a belief from them, that unless ASADA can provide lab results, photos and samples to prove it is Coca Cola, they'll get off by saying 'nah, it could have been Pepsi. Prove it'


Doesn't work like that.

Reminds me of the Pepsi salesman who got sacked after he tested positive to Coke

 

[Armchair Critic]

I really don't think that can point to strength or weakness of either side tbh,

Not on its own it cant but with all the other little hints then it paints a clear picture

 

[DonsRule]

Not on its own it cant but with all the other little hints then it paints a clear picture

I don;t really agree, can read all the tips and kinds any way you want.

Eac h side just chooses what hints they want to read into.

 

[Whatsonswhat]

You're claiming they bought stuff from the Coca-Cola dealer, who only ever sells Coca-Cola and Coca-Cola products, who only ever buys from a distributor that has stated he has only ever supplied the dealer with Coca-Cola. And you're claiming it could be Pepsi.

This is a straw man. The claim is just that a shop they shop at sells coke. More evidence is needed before it can be inferred that Essendon bought any of it.

 

[Cronos]

This is a straw man. The claim is just that a shop they shop at sells coke. More evidence is needed before it can be inferred that Essendon bought any of it.

I found a picture of the shop that EFC bought Pepsi from:

 

[Gigantor]

Not quite

Your analogy works only with one change

If the dealer bought 1kg of heroin, and it can be shown he sold the entire volume to other customers

Bringing it back to the real world, the "he also uses it at MRC" argument only works if you can show the MRC volumes matched the Alavi numbers.

Given Dank has refused to help both ASADA and the players, I don't know how the players can even have access to this info

The onus remains on ASADA to show that it went to EFC, of which there is currently no evidence (even worse, they have to demonstrate that TB4 was admnistered to each and every one of the 34 players).

Dank continued many paid activities outside of EFC, of which there is plenty of evidence, and one of which legally markets such substances to the general population.

Furthermore, there are multiple dealings between MRC and Charter/Alavi in such substances, right through the period in question.

There is no onus on the players to prove that's where the substances went, it's merely sufficient to show these sorts of substances were regularly going in that direction and that there is a good chance that ASADA has been jumping at shadows.

 

[Whatsonswhat]

I found a picture of the shop that EFC bought Pepsi from:

You need to give this to ASADA pronto.

 

[replicant]

again its shitty governence no question.

Didnt name Tb4 and didnt name thymo, doesnt mean you just stick with that it must be tb4. They need to PROVE it was tb4. Not just assume it.

No, they need comfortable satisfaction.

And given they aim to prove there was a cover-up under way, and "black ops", and Dank and Robinson planning on using a Thymosin that matches the effects of TB4 as the cornerstone of the program, it's not a big jump to say that TB4 is the most likely version. And unless there is evidence tot he contrary, that's what will be assumed.

Seriously, you guys seem to think that unless ASADA run in while there is a needle jabbed into an arm, with TB4 written on it and then that needle is tested and is found to be TB4.... then and only then could ASADA prove use of TB4.

Even then i'd bet you'd be arguing there was no proof someone pressed the plunger and unless they did a blood test you can't prove it made it from the syringe to the body.

There are MULTIPLE lines of evidence pointing at TB4. There are MULTIPLE lines of evidence that there was an attempted cover up of TB4 use. Unless some evidence turns up proving it wasn't TB4, it is most likely (to a comfortable satisfaction) that is was TB4.

At this point, based solely on what's in the public domain you can hope for 2 things:
1. There is a large purchase order for TA1 or an injectable form of Thymomodulin.
2. The fix is in with the AFL commission and they really, really don't want to find the players guilty.

Otehr than that, to any impartial observer, it was TB4, they took it, and they're done.

 

[Gavstar]

A football club employed someone who was also dealing PEDs through another business? Why? (Tongue in cheek).

Having both obligations as director and employee means he is conflicted but caught by both sets of obligations.

Governance ....

 

[Cronos]

The onus remains on ASADA to show that it went to EFC, of which there is currently no evidence (even worse, they have to demonstrate that TB4 was admnistered to each and every one of the 34 players).

Dank continued many paid activities outside of EFC, of which there is plenty of evidence, and one of which legally markets such substances to the general population.

Furthermore, there are multiple dealings between MRC and Charter/Alavi in such substances, right through the period in question.

There is no onus on the players to prove that's where the substances went, it's merely sufficient to show these sorts of substances were regularly going in that direction and that there is a good chance that ASADA has been jumping at shadows.

And the man at the centre of it, who would have all the proof anyone could possibly want that proves that he's innocent, and that the players are innocent, won't even show up to the hearing that will prohibit him from dealing with anyone involved in any sport associated with WADA.

Why do you think that is? Really, have a good long hard think about it.

 

[van peebles]

I found a picture of the shop that EFC bought Pepsi from:

Must be an AFL shop.
Manned by nobody and way overpriced.

 

[Gigantor]

And the man at the centre of it, who would have all the proof anyone could possibly want that proves that he's innocent, and that the players are innocent, won't even show up to the hearing that will prohibit him from dealing with anyone involved in any sport associated with WADA.

Why do you think that is? Really, have a good long hard think about it.

That's a weird question.

It's ASADA prosecuting the case.

Did ASADA use their new draconian powers on Dank?

 

[Cronos]

Must be an AFL shop.
Manned by nobody and way overpriced.

Zing!

 

[Cronos]

That's a weird question.

It's ASADA prosecuting the case.

Did ASADA use their new draconian powers on Dank?

Their draconian powers that can make them insist that he show up, but not answer questions? Hmm, they were looking at it, but he signed a stat dec saying he had no documentation. You know, that documentation I was talking about that any business director needs to ensure is kept? The information that could prove him, and the players innocent... He signed a statutory declaration saying he had none.

Why do you think he'd do that?

 

[imperial_oz]

I found a picture of the shop that EFC bought Pepsi from:

Its not genuine. There aren't any folds evident in the photo