Armchair Critic
Cancelled
- Feb 8, 2013
- 9,566
- 11,241
- AFL Club
- Sydney
It had nothing to do with his conviction though. Those tests were sorted with a backdated TUE
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Round 10
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Does it make you suspicious though of a backdated TUE?It had nothing to do with his conviction though. Those tests were sorted with a backdated TUE
2005 showed the presence of the blood-boosting agent EPO. The lack of B samples to test, however, made it impossible to charge Armstrong with a doping offence.
It had nothing to do with his conviction though. Those tests were sorted with a backdated TUE
Possible but why tell someone lies like that? It would hardly make his business look better. Couple this to Dr Harcourt's presentation and it shows that the AFL, at least, had full belief that this actually went down. Dr Harcourt probably never imagined his presentation on the other side of the world would make it back to Oz, so he spoke what he obviously believed was the truth. I can tell you that when you present at an International Conference, you generally make sure your facts are 100% correct.Have you considered ever Dank was telling porkies to your mate?
Eg Self promotion for his business. Just talking crap?
Ego. some dumb games Dank would play? Seeing if anyone cottons on etc, especially with his ego of thinking he knows more.
My view is he knew full well Tb4 was banned, If someone questioned him the same play dumb act comes.
Why?Possible but why tell someone lies like that? It would hardly make his business look better. Couple this to Dr Harcourt's presentation and it shows that the AFL, at least, had full belief that this actually went down. Dr Harcourt probably never imagined his presentation on the other side of the world would make it back to Oz, so he spoke what he obviously believed was the truth. I can tell you that when you present at an International Conference, you generally make sure your facts are 100% correct.
My view was he thought TB4 was only S0 banned, could get around it but at some point in time discovered it was S2. Then he switched to calling it thymomodulin, a drug he had read about but one he knew would be useless. He just then asked for a backdated spreadsheet to document thymomodulin's use to cover his tracks. Relabelled vials and started calling TB4 thymomodulin around the club.
Possible but why tell someone lies like that? It would hardly make his business look better. Couple this to Dr Harcourt's presentation and it shows that the AFL, at least, had full belief that this actually went down. Dr Harcourt probably never imagined his presentation on the other side of the world would make it back to Oz, so he spoke what he obviously believed was the truth. I can tell you that when you present at an International Conference, you generally make sure your facts are 100% correct.
My view was he thought TB4 was only S0 banned, could get around it but at some point in time discovered it was S2. Then he switched to calling it thymomodulin, a drug he had read about but one he knew would be useless. He just then asked for a backdated spreadsheet to document thymomodulin's use to cover his tracks. Relabelled vials and started calling TB4 thymomodulin around the club.
They don't really have the opportunity to try to clear the names (that time is long gone), so they are fighting on a legal technicality, which is the only appeal option available to them.its quite strange and even comical that they suggest the "
It was confirmed on Thursday that a last-ditch bid to clear the names of the Essendon 34 found guilty of an anti-doping breach by the Court of Arbitration for Sport would go ahead through an appeal before the Swiss Federal Tribunal.
then they will clear their names because the appeal would be fought on a legal technicality.
So they did all that s**t and all the stuff that WADA suggests went down, but they are clear because WADA couldnt appeal because the rules said so and that now translates to clearing their names??? Get the f**k outta here with that s**t FFS...
They don't really have the opportunity to try to clear the names (that time is long gone), so they are fighting on a legal technicality, which is the only appeal option available to them.
Does it make you suspicious though of a backdated TUE?
There was also this
Though, fair enough that there was no B sample to let that fly.
As Abasi a co incidence,
Or TerryWallet a coverup is hardy yacca.
it all started with a disgruntled Floyd Landis. 'Whistle blower' lawsuit and away it went from there.
I think he had dodgy blood samples in 09-010 too but essentially the reason for his ultimate downfall were his states dobbing him in.
Once ol' General George Hincapie was sworn in it was lights out for Lance.
Check out 'The Armstrong Lie' on YT. Eye opening viewing.
Why?
Because dodgy people have all kinds of games they like to play. As dumb as it sounds some get a thrill out of playing people like that seeing what they can get them to believe. I'm not saying this is the case with Dank here. And I accept CAS's findings on Tb4.
From the pov of an honest person yeah your point is well made.
But then you get to (and I think was a dumb statement) Hirds comment the other night with Tracey he doesn't see why Dank would break protocol and use something prohibited. From an honest persons pov thats fair.
But I think it is fair to say that isn't Dank, and for Dank their is a good reason to d it, good results, a new contract, or a contract elsewhere.
Maybe and a point that could be made. I think it;s a case you could theorize many aspects the saga and no one is ever likely to agree. No one is ever likely to be wrong.You have to first believe that the protocol was ever intended to be followed though. When you are involving convicted drug dealers I would be more inclined to believe it was all just window dressing to cover their arses.
And one the AFL was trying to manufacture in this situation. If it hadn't been for that pesky ACC, they may well have got away with it.It was not just suspicious it was a dead set cover up.
That is not what I am arguing at all.Your point is? Armstrong was not ultimately charged nor convicted (nor confessed to cheating) because of those 4 positive tests. What it does show is that technicalities prevented Armstrong from being charged in 2005 with those 1999 positive tests. Technicalities. The things Essendon are trying to use now to overturn a doping conviction. So which is it? Do you consider Armstrong a drug cheat based on those 4 positives, depsite the technicalities that prevented him for being charged? Yes you do. Essendon are drug cheats too, despite the technicalities they are trying to argue.
Its up to the AFL, not WADA to ban teamsi have a sneaky suspicion that all this crap playing out is purely to cloud over the one thing that WADA havent done, can do and might do...ban the club because more than 2 of its playing list were found guilty for doping...so the players are being used as a front for that...
Its up to the AFL, not WADA to ban teams
WADA can't do that. It is agreed that the AFL have this option should they so chose to use it. They won't.i have a sneaky suspicion that all this crap playing out is purely to cloud over the one thing that WADA havent done, can do and might do...ban the club because more than 2 of its playing list were found guilty for doping...so the players are being used as a front for that...
They don't really have the opportunity to try to clear the names (that time is long gone), so they are fighting on a legal technicality, which is the only appeal option available to them.[/QUO]
All this is being done to mitigate compensation claims to the insurer the club and the AFL
One question (sorry in advance if already covered) : Peter Gordon was the first to mention it, but others also have since, that the 2010 AFL Anti-Doping Code foresaw that tribunal rulings could only be appealed if the decision involved legal error or gross unreasonableness. I can't see any mention of that in the code, does anyone know where that is taken from? Seems very specific wording, but I couldn't find it anywhere.
WADA can't do that. It is agreed that the AFL have this option should they so chose to use it. They won't.
If you look at the evidence in both those cases you will see that it was much stronger than that in this one (both positive tests, whistleblowers and witnesses.) Additionally, many athletes who dope aim to cheat (and that's particularly prevalent in sports such as cycling and athletics.) Of the 38 or so AFL players (34 of whom were Essendon players) there has been no evidence of cheating.