Show Cause Notices v2.0 sent out by ASADA

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
coryne said:
My post was referring to the likelihood of Alavi not knowing that he was compounding, not if what Alavi was compounding was used at the EFC. However if you would like me to address that point then I will direct you to this lovely little article


Within this article Dank and Alavi discuss the EFC program. Here is the conversation.





So lets break it down a bit.

1) Are they referring to the EFC ???
Correspondence occurred on August 5 2012. Next game was against North Melbourne. Essendon played North Melbourne on Sunday the 12th of August.


2) Does Alavi have any direct knowledge about the "supplement" program at the EFC.
Read the exchange and it is pretty obvious that he has an ongoing knowledge and input in the program, talking about mixing AOD and Thymosin (again for professionals they seem to "misspell" Thymomodulin A LOT ..........)

3) How dodgy are these guys
Considering that Alavi has no problem suggesting the use of an experimental polymer on the players, and Dank's first reaction isn't "is it safe" or "is it WADA" compliant but only "is it effective" speaks volume to their ethics IMO.



Oh and it is nice to see that you can respond to my emails so I will post the one from me that you ignored about th
Click to expand...

Inconvenient truths
 
Lance Uppercut said:
the AFL can't be "more sympathetic". They prosecute to the letter of the WADA code (AFL Anti Doping Code).
Click to expand...

Fairies and garden, shall we discuss AFL tribunal decisions now or leave it for another time?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The GG said:
I can recall we both discussed the wording of the first SCN, which was for "use" of TB4 at some point over a 10 month period
granted, I don't know how the current SCNs are worded, but presumably, whatever they state ends up being the case ASADA must make to the tribunal
Click to expand...

As I understand it, The SCNs are designed to allow the players to show why they shouldnt be charged with certain things, but I dont think the SCNs mean anything once we pass the ADRVP. Actual charges arent officially laid until after the ADRVP stage when they are heard by the Tribunal.
 
SunshineTiger said:
Inconvenient truths
Click to expand...

further to Coryne's excellent post, which I agree is good evidence (depending on its verifiability, source, context, meaning, corroboration, etc)
Charter's testimony is that he would help Alavi mix up the peptides, that he advised Alavi how to do it (words to that effect)
which gets me thinking
what is the nature of the substances which Charter imported? (possibily without complete disclosure at customs)
what is their form at the exact point of importation?
at what point do these substances become something we can identify as Tb4, or Ta1 or thymomodulin
and at how is anyone every completely satisfied that the compounding pharmacist has indeed successfully created the substances he was asked to create
given that the German tests for Tb4 came back negative, is there not a possibility that Alavi could have ended up compounding something which approximates the said substances, but may not have actually been the said substances
could have been anything to be honest
especially since Charter appeared to play an important role in guiding the compounding pharmacist
who was able to verify what ended up getting compounded?
 
The_Wookie said:
As I understand it, The SCNs are designed to allow the players to show why they shouldnt be charged with certain things, but I dont think the SCNs mean anything once we pass the ADRVP. Actual charges arent officially laid until after the ADRVP stage when they are heard by the Tribunal.
Click to expand...

that's a good point, putting aside whether "charges" is the correct term or not, since it's entirely dependent on the AFL to issue infraction notices, presumably it's the wording contained within the infraction notice which is important, and presumably they would be free to word it in any manner they wish, noting they are not beholden to either ASADA or the ADRVP
 
The_Wookie said:
As I understand it, The SCNs are designed to allow the players to show why they shouldnt be charged with certain things, but I dont think the SCNs mean anything once we pass the ADRVP. Actual charges arent officially laid until after the ADRVP stage when they are heard by the Tribunal.
Click to expand...
Aflpa and others are trying to get to see the evidence before they Asada legallly has to show it. Two reasons , more time to prepare a defence and If that fails in a tribunal take asada to court for not following the procedure.
 
The_Wookie said:
As I understand it, The SCNs are designed to allow the players to show why they shouldnt be charged with certain things, but I dont think the SCNs mean anything once we pass the ADRVP. Actual charges arent officially laid until after the ADRVP stage when they are heard by the Tribunal.
Click to expand...

following on from Wookie's point here, I've thought a bit more about this and it led me to ponder the AFL's indpendence in this
firstly, allow me to make it clear that I believe the tribunal members would do their job independently, no problem there
but as Wookie is intimating above, it's the AFL who issues the infraction notices
it's the AFL who will frame the wording of the infraction notices
it's the AFL who sets the scene within which the tribunal does its job
further to that, under the code, it's the AFL who is making the case before the tribunal (with the assistance of ASADA)
it seems to me that the AFL has much sway in the extent to which it is willing to sink the boot (if at all), even with the tribunal being entirely independent and acting appropriately (which I am sure it will do, all considered)
some interesting aspects of the process to ponder there
 
andrewb said:
Haha now asada has to deal with the afl media machine. The wheels are in motion.

I'm going to laugh when you guys turn on Caro because Gil's agenda has moved on from Hird
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?
 
The GG said:
further to Coryne's excellent post, which I agree is good evidence (depending on its verifiability, source, context, meaning, corroboration, etc)
Charter's testimony is that he would help Alavi mix up the peptides, that he advised Alavi how to do it (words to that effect)
which gets me thinking
what is the nature of the substances which Charter imported? (possibily without complete disclosure at customs)
what is their form at the exact point of importation?
at what point do these substances become something we can identify as Tb4, or Ta1 or thymomodulin
and at how is anyone every completely satisfied that the compounding pharmacist has indeed successfully created the substances he was asked to create
given that the German tests for Tb4 came back negative, is there not a possibility that Alavi could have ended up compounding something which approximates the said substances, but may not have actually been the said substances
could have been anything to be honest
especially since Charter appeared to play an important role in guiding the compounding pharmacist
who was able to verify what ended up getting compounded?
Click to expand...


These peptides would be delivered as lyophilized (freeze dried) powders. All that Alavi is doing by "compounding" the peptide is dissolving the powder in a buffer (liquid) at a desired concentration and in a mixture with other substances. Alavi can basically create medication mixtures not generally available by changing the concentration the medication is at or what is mixed with. He doesn't turn TB4 into TA1 by mixing it with other peptides or solution they are totally different peptides.


As for the differences between the peptides I have already covered that in a post on page 91 of the thread. The company would have supplied QC documents with the peptides. You would expect that if Dank and Alavi trusted the supplier enough to inject peptides from them into human beings (despite their products being produced for research purposes) then why would they doubt their ability to produce what they are paid to produce?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Lance Uppercut said:
yes, I asked for proof that Caro had received false information. I mean, you surely couldn't make a claim like that without any proof and based on nothing, could you?

This is what Caro reported:

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...-finals-under-asada-deal-20140826-108qif.html

Essendon players facing anti-doping sanctions rejected a definitive six-month suspension tabled before them in June this year, which would have seen them miss the last four games of the home-and-away season and finals but return in time for round one of 2015.

The offer, which did not involve the AFL nor Essendon, was rejected after ASADA refused to provide details of its evidence against the players. The July deadline expired and the ASADA offer was withdrawn. Last week, when backdated suspensions were offered to the members of Cronulla's 2011 squad, ASADA changed its tactics and provided those players with the evidence collected against them.

The official proposal was put to the players - at least 20 of whom are still on Essendon's list - within a week of the show-cause notices being delivered and shortly after ASADA chief executive Ben McDevitt had publicly entertained the prospect of a 75 per cent discount upon the standard two-year ban for the use of prohibited substances.

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.

But the players refused to accept they had taken prohibited substances and their fate now remains on hold pending the findings of Federal Court Justice John Middleton in the Bombers' case that the joint AFL-ASADA investigation was unlawful.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...-finals-under-asada-deal-20140826-108qif.html


Now, that seems pretty comprehensive, but you're claiming it's based on false information, so all I'm asking for is your proof that this is so. Even if you can't provide proof as such, give me at least something that isn't you making it up in your own head. Anything will do. Thanks.
Click to expand...

yep.
 
coryne said:
These peptides would be delivered as lyophilized (freeze dried) powders. All that Alavi is doing by "compounding" the peptide is dissolving the powder in a buffer (liquid) at a desired concentration and in a mixture with other substances. Alavi can basically create medication mixtures not generally available by changing the concentration the medication is at or what is mixed with. He doesn't turn TB4 into TA1 by mixing it with other peptides or solution they are totally different peptides.


As for the differences between the peptides I have already covered that in a post on page 91 of the thread. The company would have supplied QC documents with the peptides. You would expect that if Dank and Alavi trusted the supplier enough to inject peptides from them into human beings (despite their products being produced for research purposes) then why would they doubt their ability to produce what they are paid to produce?
Click to expand...

a large part of ASADA's case is proving that the thymosin mentioned on the consent forms and in other records is actually Tb4
one way they are attempting to prove this is by collecting evidence on the supply chain from the Chinese supplier to EFC
I'm pretty sure that the lawyers defending the case will question every single step in that supply chain, noting that there are many gaps, a point also publicly acknowledged by McDevitt
at the time of the interim report, ASADA themselves stated: "Preliminary checks with Customs by ASADA reveal that Mr Charter had in fact declared a quantity of human growth hormone’ material upon his passage through customs."
from this entry, it's unclear whether ASADA had evidence of what exactly Charter re-entered the country with (noting that whatever Charter was up to was dodgy, whether it involved EFC or not)
furthermore, I'm not sure if there is any evidence of what Charter delivered to Alavi, whether it was lyophilized powders or quick milk shake powder
there might be a reason why Alavi might be saying why he is not clear on what he received or what he produced, because he was involved in something questionable which may or may not have involved EFC (not to mention the reliability or otherwise of Charter himself)
these are the sorts of things the defence will look at (amongst other things)
 
andrewb said:
Haha now asada has to deal with the afl media machine. The wheels are in motion.

I'm going to laugh when you guys turn on Caro because Gil's agenda has moved on from Hird
Click to expand...
Like I said earlier.....ever more daily delusional ramblings

Do yourself a favour, look back over your posting history and identify the number of times you have claimed a certain defense will be work, that has ultimately turned out to be a dismal failure
 
andrewb said:
Haha now asada has to deal with the afl media machine. The wheels are in motion.

I'm going to laugh when you guys turn on Caro because Gil's agenda has moved on from Hird
Click to expand...

I am sure they are quaking in their boots ,I mean look at McDevitt trembling at his knees when the AFL requested the evidence. He sure is scared of the AFLPA it seems. Quaking in his boots
 
Last edited:
Baltimore Jack said:
Like I said earlier.....ever more daily delusional ramblings

Do yourself a favour, look back over your posting history and identify the number of times you have claimed a certain defense will be work, that has ultimately turned out to be a dismal failure
Click to expand...

in the end, ASADA only appeared to be interested in two substances (rightly or wrongly)
one dropped off a long time ago (AOD)
now we are left with the question whether "thymosin" means Tb4 or another substance derived from thymus tissue
 
Armchair Critic said:
Richard Ings @ringsau · 15h15 hours ago
Senate Estimates was held on Wednesday evening. No Senators had any questions for ASADA. Not one. There you go http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;db=COMMITTEES;id=committees%2Festimate%2F5a8a7fa2-b9c7-4b7f-843c-89aa3b145886%2F0005;query=Id%3A%22committees%2Festimate%2F5a8a7fa2-b9c7-4b7f-843c-89aa3b145886%2F0000%22…
Click to expand...

I think these are supplementary hearings (to the main budget hearings held in May), as such, it's not uncommon for the senators to zoom through the various portfolios and gloss over small agencies
 
The GG said:
a large part of ASADA's case is proving that the thymosin mentioned on the consent forms and in other records is actually Tb4
one way they are attempting to prove this is by collecting evidence on the supply chain from the Chinese supplier to EFC
I'm pretty sure that the lawyers defending the case will question every single step in that supply chain, noting that there are many gaps, a point also publicly acknowledged by McDevitt
at the time of the interim report, ASADA themselves stated: "Preliminary checks with Customs by ASADA reveal that Mr Charter had in fact declared a quantity of human growth hormone’ material upon his passage through customs."
from this entry, it's unclear whether ASADA had evidence of what exactly Charter re-entered the country with (noting that whatever Charter was up to was dodgy, whether it involved EFC or not)
furthermore, I'm not sure if there is any evidence of what Charter delivered to Alavi, whether it was lyophilized powders or quick milk shake powder
there might be a reason why Alavi might be saying why he is not clear on what he received or what he produced, because he was involved in something questionable which may or may not have involved EFC (not to mention the reliability or otherwise of Charter himself)
these are the sorts of things the defence will look at (amongst other things)
Click to expand...

Um they interviewed Charter himself and from all reports he sung like a canary.
 
image.jpg

This pleases me.

Have heard Essendon claim that McDevitt is a stooge put forward by the Government to take the fall for an investigation that was tenuous to begin with.
If that was true, wouldn't some Senators be giving ASADA all sorts of grief during such hearings?
 
Perry Pie said:
Exactly. The consent was effectively from the player to say "I will take this". The club is protected.
Click to expand...

Yes and no in my opinion.

It may help protect the club from being sued by the players if they can be used to demonstrate the players were willing participants but it can also be used to show that the club was complicit in a doping scheme and expose the club to penalties under the Anti-Doping code. Essendon needs to be careful what it says about the consent forms but I'm pretty sure their lawyers know the club is walking a possible tightrope here
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

The_Wookie
Play Nice Happy 10th Anniversary (of the Essendon/ASADA Saga)
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
blackcat
blackcat

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top