Charter underwrote bought peptides were not for human use

[Ancient Tiger]

Lots of suppliers online market the product as "Thymosin (Thymomodulin)".

So it seems to me that one could call it the full name, or pick and choose parts of the name as a short name.

A non-chemist such as I am might be tempted to use the first part of the name as a shortening, afterall, the second part is in brackets and looks like a secondary name to those who do not know any better.

You would never write the colloquial name on the consent though. You must be specific or else what is the point of the consent? You are consenting then to any number of drugs!

 

[Tazmania]

Lots of suppliers online market the product as "Thymosin (Thymomodulin)".

So it seems to me that one could call it the full name, or pick and choose parts of the name as a short name.

A non-chemist such as I am might be tempted to use the first part of the name as a shortening, afterall, the second part is in brackets and looks like a secondary name to those who do not know any better.

Interestingly if you go to the website of the Medical Rejuvenation Clinic, which I believe is Mr Dank's company at www.mrcpeptides.com.au and scroll down you'll see on the right hand side their menu of goodies they supply... one of which is Thymosin.

Click on the link and it tells you all about TB4 not Thymomodulin....and provides a handy warning about being a professional athlete btw.
https://mrcpeptides.com.au/buy_thymosin_6_17.html

So it appears Dank himself when referring to Thymosin still is referring to TB4.

Edit: and they don't sell Thymomodulin. Probably because it does jack for their target clientele.

 

[mxett]

Interestingly if you go to the website of the Medical Rejuvenation Clinic, which I believe is Mr Dank's company at www.mrcpeptides.com.au and scroll down you'll see on the right hand side their menu of goodies they supply... one of which is Thymosin.

Click on the link and it tells you all about TB4 not Thymomodulin....and provides a handy warning about being a professional athlete btw.
https://mrcpeptides.com.au/buy_thymosin_6_17.html

So it appears Dank himself when referring to Thymosin still is referring to TB4.

Edit: and they don't sell Thymomodulin. Probably because it does jack for their target clientele.

so why did he use it at Melbourne?

 

[Tazmania]

so why did he use it at Melbourne?

Use what?

Edit: I take it you're referring to Thymomodulin? Have had a search and can't find anything that suggests it was actually 'used' at Melbourne. There are reports of Dank and Bates discussing it but nothing more concrete than that. All I can find it that they used AOD cream.

If you've got something can you link it.

 

[JoondalupJ]

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

Exactly , that's where the unfairness comes into it. Read what I've said about the rules and the set up for ASADA, THEY ASSUME YOU GUILTY STRAIGHT AWAY , THE LAW SAYS YOUR INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. WHETHER THIS ARGUMENT IS ABOUT FOOTBALL OR SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT . THE POINT IS IT IS UNFAIR, AND NOT LEGAL TO PUT ASSUMPTIONS OF GUILT IN AN ACCUSING MANNER BY SENDING SHOW CAUSE NOTICES AS IF THE PEOPLE BEING SENT THESE THINGS ARE ALREADY GUILTY.

Because it gets publicity on Big footy it gets publicity in the Herald Sun . It gets Robbo on it , it gets Gerard and Robbo on 360 all the time discussing it, they discuss it quite sensibly I think. But because its sport and it wide open to public scrutiny , and unfortunately this episode lots of stuff has been locked up, and taken so long, that speculation is rife, and mud is sticking , and its probably too late for any saving grace for these blokes . And nothing is proeved yet , just most people look at is like if there is smoke there is fire, maybe true , but you got to see who is burning first. Yes no ???

If Danks did poison them and they didn't know, then he should be jailed. I have never thought any different. All I ever thought was every one is jumping the gun here with so called evidence and fluid from players bellies and god know what else, and fifty million different stories.

Yet lots absolutely lots of you folk out there want to have the execution before the trial.

That is what ASADA is allowed to do. So yes the bottom line is "it doesn't matter whether you are truelly innocent , we think your a cheat and we're going to try and prove it."

What is so hard about that to understand. I know ASADA can behave like this , all I'm ever saying is ITS UNFAIR. Now I was yelling then .
But above higher up, I wasn't, I just got stuck into the key board and capitals everywhere.

This is nothing like Armstrong , nothing.

 

[JoondalupJ]

Every body answer me this, when a player is injected with pain killers , what do you think of that. Me ? I don't know , but I know some sides are at full strength because of pain killing injections. How about that one . Aside from all this stuff we argue about.

 

[FastLane]

Exactly , that's where the unfairness comes into it. Read what I've said about the rules and the set up for ASADA, THEY ASSUME YOU GUILTY STRAIGHT AWAY , THE LAW SAYS YOUR INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. WHETHER THIS ARGUMENT IS ABOUT FOOTBALL OR SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT . THE POINT IS IT IS UNFAIR, AND NOT LEGAL TO PUT ASSUMPTIONS OF GUILT IN AN ACCUSING MANNER BY SENDING SHOW CAUSE NOTICES AS IF THE PEOPLE BEING SENT THESE THINGS ARE ALREADY GUILTY.

Because it gets publicity on Big footy it gets publicity in the Herald Sun . It gets Robbo on it , it gets Gerard and Robbo on 360 all the time discussing it, they discuss it quite sensibly I think. But because its sport and it wide open to public scrutiny , and unfortunately this episode lots of stuff has been locked up, and taken so long, that speculation is rife, and mud is sticking , and its probably too late for any saving grace for these blokes . And nothing is proeved yet , just most people look at is like if there is smoke there is fire, maybe true , but you got to see who is burning first. Yes no ???

If Danks did poison them and they didn't know, then he should be jailed. I have never thought any different. All I ever thought was every one is jumping the gun here with so called evidence and fluid from players bellies and god know what else, and fifty million different stories.

Yet lots absolutely lots of you folk out there want to have the execution before the trial.

That is what ASADA is allowed to do. So yes the bottom line is "it doesn't matter whether you are truelly innocent , we think your a cheat and we're going to try and prove it."

What is so hard about that to understand. I know ASADA can behave like this , all I'm ever saying is ITS UNFAIR. Now I was yelling then .
But above higher up, I wasn't, I just got stuck into the key board and capitals everywhere.

This is nothing like Armstrong , nothing.

you are aware criminal law and civil law have different burdens of proof??

 

[mxett]

Use what?

Edit: I take it you're referring to Thymomodulin? Have had a search and can't find anything that suggests it was actually 'used' at Melbourne. There are reports of Dank and Bates discussing it but nothing more concrete than that. All I can find it that they used AOD cream.

If you've got something can you link it.

Just like theres no evidence Dank used TB4 at Essendon either?

 

[Keys]

Exactly , that's where the unfairness comes into it. Read what I've said about the rules and the set up for ASADA, THEY ASSUME YOU GUILTY STRAIGHT AWAY , THE LAW SAYS YOUR INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. WHETHER THIS ARGUMENT IS ABOUT FOOTBALL OR SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT . THE POINT IS IT IS UNFAIR, AND NOT LEGAL TO PUT ASSUMPTIONS OF GUILT IN AN ACCUSING MANNER BY SENDING SHOW CAUSE NOTICES AS IF THE PEOPLE BEING SENT THESE THINGS ARE ALREADY GUILTY.

Because it gets publicity on Big footy it gets publicity in the Herald Sun . It gets Robbo on it , it gets Gerard and Robbo on 360 all the time discussing it, they discuss it quite sensibly I think. But because its sport and it wide open to public scrutiny , and unfortunately this episode lots of stuff has been locked up, and taken so long, that speculation is rife, and mud is sticking , and its probably too late for any saving grace for these blokes . And nothing is proeved yet , just most people look at is like if there is smoke there is fire, maybe true , but you got to see who is burning first. Yes no ???

If Danks did poison them and they didn't know, then he should be jailed. I have never thought any different. All I ever thought was every one is jumping the gun here with so called evidence and fluid from players bellies and god know what else, and fifty million different stories.

Yet lots absolutely lots of you folk out there want to have the execution before the trial.

That is what ASADA is allowed to do. So yes the bottom line is "it doesn't matter whether you are truelly innocent , we think your a cheat and we're going to try and prove it."

What is so hard about that to understand. I know ASADA can behave like this , all I'm ever saying is ITS UNFAIR. Now I was yelling then .
But above higher up, I wasn't, I just got stuck into the key board and capitals everywhere.

This is nothing like Armstrong , nothing.

Holy batshit. What?

 

[imperial_oz]

Exactly , that's where the unfairness comes into it. Read what I've said about the rules and the set up for ASADA, THEY ASSUME YOU GUILTY STRAIGHT AWAY , THE LAW SAYS YOUR INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY. WHETHER THIS ARGUMENT IS ABOUT FOOTBALL OR SOMETHING TOTALLY DIFFERENT . THE POINT IS IT IS UNFAIR, AND NOT LEGAL TO PUT ASSUMPTIONS OF GUILT IN AN ACCUSING MANNER BY SENDING SHOW CAUSE NOTICES AS IF THE PEOPLE BEING SENT THESE THINGS ARE ALREADY GUILTY.

Because it gets publicity on Big footy it gets publicity in the Herald Sun . It gets Robbo on it , it gets Gerard and Robbo on 360 all the time discussing it, they discuss it quite sensibly I think. But because its sport and it wide open to public scrutiny , and unfortunately this episode lots of stuff has been locked up, and taken so long, that speculation is rife, and mud is sticking , and its probably too late for any saving grace for these blokes . And nothing is proeved yet , just most people look at is like if there is smoke there is fire, maybe true , but you got to see who is burning first. Yes no ???

If Danks did poison them and they didn't know, then he should be jailed. I have never thought any different. All I ever thought was every one is jumping the gun here with so called evidence and fluid from players bellies and god know what else, and fifty million different stories.

Yet lots absolutely lots of you folk out there want to have the execution before the trial.

That is what ASADA is allowed to do. So yes the bottom line is "it doesn't matter whether you are truelly innocent , we think your a cheat and we're going to try and prove it."

What is so hard about that to understand. I know ASADA can behave like this , all I'm ever saying is ITS UNFAIR. Now I was yelling then .
But above higher up, I wasn't, I just got stuck into the key board and capitals everywhere.

This is nothing like Armstrong , nothing.

I do hope you are not serious with this?

If so, you are wrong in nearly every particular, which is more than passing strange because everything you said has been debunked in this forum on more than one ocassion.

1. The players were NOT found guilty before or after the SCNs were sent. They still haven't been found guilty. They don't HAVE to prove their innocence. ASADA has to make a case to particular level to get any athlete found guilty.

So everything you shouted is flat wrong.

2. The players have a responsibility to be aware of everything that enters their bodies. The same responsibilities that 15 and 16 years have when they compete at elite levels. I refuse to accept that well paid professional ADULT athletes should have a lesser responsibility than a 15 year old. I refuse to accept that a player can sign up to a set of rules and later complain when they don't live up to them.

So that part is wrong as well.

3. Its exactly like Armstrong. Right down to the letter with the exception being at the moment that this team hasn't been shown to be doping where Armstrong's team has been shown to be doping.

I'll simplify it for you. You drive a car, you are responsible for the controlling the speed. If you get an infringement in the mail, you haven't been found guilty. If you pay it, you admit your guilt. If you elect to go to court, the police will try to prove you guilty. Exactly as you accuse ASADA of doing and try to make it look like ASADA is doing something wrong.

In short, every thing you said is wrong. Utterly wrong. Maybe time you sobered up a bit before going near another keyboard.

 

[imperial_oz]

you are aware criminal law and civil law have different burdens of proof??

I'm not even convinced he knows what day it is

 

[onemancyclone]

Just like theres no evidence Dank used TB4 at Essendon either?

That's just mind blowing.

 

[Tiger2709]

Lots of suppliers online market the product as "Thymosin (Thymomodulin)".

So it seems to me that one could call it the full name, or pick and choose parts of the name as a short name.

A non-chemist such as I am might be tempted to use the first part of the name as a shortening, afterall, the second part is in brackets and looks like a secondary name to those who do not know any better.

None of the searches I did for thymosin mention thymomodulin, and when I searched for thymomodulin suppliers they all call it thymomodulin? Are you getting confused with thymus as in the thymus gland from which these products are based?

 

[Tiger2709]

You would never write the colloquial name on the consent though. You must be specific or else what is the point of the consent? You are consenting then to any number of drugs!

I searched google for Thymomodulin suppliers and they all call it thymomodulin, as you say if you are dealing with a supplement that is banned then you would be specific on how you write this, okay Dank is as much a scientist as I am (I have used a Bunsen burner at high school) but even I wouldn't make that mistake., this is yet another Essendon supporter deflection, IMO.

 

[JoondalupJ]

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;

Pretty bloody hard rules to go by , every single solitary person coming under these rules understands all this complicated stuff to a tee? I don't think so .

I say these rules you quoted are there alright but in real life about 1 % of players know it backwards.

It doesn't change my opinion, it is unfair if you don't know its illegal and you assume its fine because your told it.

All those rules you list are fine, good for you to know them, and I suppose they are exactly as you've written them out.

Doesn't have anything really to do with my point.

Unfairness whether official or just rubbish, is still unfairness. Talking on young players here by the way, that are too busy being good footballers putting up with that very hard training and publicity and every other thing young fellows are involved in, I suppose someone explains the rules to them, but when some of those "explainers" say its OK... and its not... how do they know ?

If these rules are to tell them they have to know everything down to the most minute part, I'd say if you ask a player he won't be able to quote every degree of the laws he's supposed to follow in the sport doping area , because he won't believe he has been involved in it. In this instance.

Of course you know so you,ve got by the short and curlys. But your list means nothing, in my argument , yes they are there , they are unfair full stop.

s**t easy to get convicted with that set of rules. Even when your innocent.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Pretty bloody hard rules to go by , every single solitary person coming under these rules understands all this complicated stuff to a tee? I don't think so .

I say these rules you quoted are there alright but in real life about 1 % of players know it backwards.

It doesn't change my opinion, it is unfair if you don't know its illegal and you assume its fine because your told it.

All those rules you list are fine, good for you to know them, and I suppose they are exactly as you've written them out.

Doesn't have anything really to do with my point.

Unfairness whether official or just rubbish, is still unfairness. Talking on young players here by the way, that are too busy being good footballers putting up with that very hard training and publicity and every other thing young fellows are involved in, I suppose someone explains the rules to them, but when some of those "explainers" say its OK... and its not... how do they know ?

If these rules are to tell them they have to know everything down to the most minute part, I'd say if you ask a player he won't be able to quote every degree of the laws he's supposed to follow in the sport doping area , because he won't believe he has been involved in it. In this instance.

Of course you know so you,ve got by the short and curlys. But your list means nothing, in my argument , yes they are there , they are unfair full stop.

s**t easy to get convicted with that set of rules. Even when your innocent.

You cannot be serious.
It is easy to follow the rules. Just don't line up for a whole lot of injections when you are perfectly healthy would be an easy start.
And if you think the rules are still too difficult, nobody is forcing you to play AFL football. Go and play footy in a league that doesn't adhere to WADA. Easy.

 

[threesixpio]

You would never write the colloquial name on the consent though. You must be specific or else what is the point of the consent? You are consenting then to any number of drugs!

Bang.

 

[imperial_oz]

Pretty bloody hard rules to go by , every single solitary person coming under these rules understands all this complicated stuff to a tee? I don't think so .

I say these rules you quoted are there alright but in real life about 1 % of players know it backwards.

It doesn't change my opinion, it is unfair if you don't know its illegal and you assume its fine because your told it.

All those rules you list are fine, good for you to know them, and I suppose they are exactly as you've written them out.

Doesn't have anything really to do with my point.

Unfairness whether official or just rubbish, is still unfairness. Talking on young players here by the way, that are too busy being good footballers putting up with that very hard training and publicity and every other thing young fellows are involved in, I suppose someone explains the rules to them, but when some of those "explainers" say its OK... and its not... how do they know ?

If these rules are to tell them they have to know everything down to the most minute part, I'd say if you ask a player he won't be able to quote every degree of the laws he's supposed to follow in the sport doping area , because he won't believe he has been involved in it. In this instance.

Of course you know so you,ve got by the short and curlys. But your list means nothing, in my argument , yes they are there , they are unfair full stop.

s**t easy to get convicted with that set of rules. Even when your innocent.

It is impossible to get convicted when you are innocent.

There are too many checks and balances in the system. If you take banned performance enhancing drugs when you can get accurate, balanced and legally binding advice with a single telephone call then you have no cause for complaint if you fail to do that. Advice on the 24 hour a day, 7 days per week advice line is issued with a receipt no so that you can always be covered.

If you can't or won't make a telephone call to protect a career that pays several hundred thousand per year then you are clearly too stupid for the job.

 

[Seadog]

Pretty bloody hard rules to go by , every single solitary person coming under these rules understands all this complicated stuff to a tee? I don't think so .

I say these rules you quoted are there alright but in real life about 1 % of players know it backwards.

It doesn't change my opinion, it is unfair if you don't know its illegal and you assume its fine because your told it.

All those rules you list are fine, good for you to know them, and I suppose they are exactly as you've written them out.

Doesn't have anything really to do with my point.

Unfairness whether official or just rubbish, is still unfairness. Talking on young players here by the way, that are too busy being good footballers putting up with that very hard training and publicity and every other thing young fellows are involved in, I suppose someone explains the rules to them, but when some of those "explainers" say its OK... and its not... how do they know ?

If these rules are to tell them they have to know everything down to the most minute part, I'd say if you ask a player he won't be able to quote every degree of the laws he's supposed to follow in the sport doping area , because he won't believe he has been involved in it. In this instance.

Of course you know so you,ve got by the short and curlys. But your list means nothing, in my argument , yes they are there , they are unfair full stop.

s**t easy to get convicted with that set of rules. Even when your innocent.

Don't take any drug or supplement unless you are 100% sure it is permitted. How hard is that? seriously.

 

[tigerdan]

I say these rules you quoted are there alright but in real life about 1 % of players know it backwards.

How do you know 'in real life about 1% of players know it backwards'? Did you go out and survey them?

Your line of argument is juvenile (I can only hope you are about 16 years old) and for crying out loud, it was covered so many times when this story broke.

If the players don't know the rules despite attending multiple seminars that spell out the rules then they are ******* idiots. Read that again and again until it makes sense.

Yes the rules do seem unfair but that is the only way you can do it to prevent systematic cheating and then throwing up your hands in the air and going 'oh, bummer about the sport scientists doping me but hey i'll keep my brownlow thanks'.

If what I have written doesn't make sense try converting to caps.

 

[corio bay]

Regarding the report of 26 vials of a substance being made, Has it been confirmed that one vial = one dose?

Isn't it reasonable to assume that you can get more than one dose from one vial of a substance?

 

[jatz14]

Every body answer me this, when a player is injected with pain killers , what do you think of that. Me ? I don't know , but I know some sides are at full strength because of pain killing injections. How about that one . Aside from all this stuff we argue about.

What!
Are you in some way querying the use of pain killing injections, and relating them to ASADA. Performance enhancing drugs are banned. A drug that lets you get on the park, but without artificially enhancing your performance above normal is not. It seems clear enough to me.

 

[jenny61_99]

Every body answer me this, when a player is injected with pain killers , what do you think of that. Me ? I don't know , but I know some sides are at full strength because of pain killing injections. How about that one . Aside from all this stuff we argue about.

Must be the cynic in me, but you are starting to sound very similar to one or three "other" non essendon sympathisers.

 

[jenny61_99]

Regarding the report of 26 vials of a substance being made, Has it been confirmed that one vial = one dose?

Isn't it reasonable to assume that you can get more than one dose from one vial of a substance?

1 vial, 50ml could make 10 5ml injections.

 

[mxett]

What!
Are you in some way querying the use of pain killing injections, and relating them to ASADA. Performance enhancing drugs are banned. A drug that lets you get on the park, but without artificially enhancing your performance above normal is not. It seems clear enough to me.

its a blurred line. Local anaesthetic allows you to keep playing through injury which is artificially enhancing your performance under those conditions. Its not that far removed from using peds to recover from injury quicker rather than bulking up. Having said that I dont condone ped use in any way, im just saying the line idoes get fairly blurry