lolMelt??
too much coffee i think, combined with the fact we've been in a holding pattern for weeks
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.
lolMelt??
this post made me laugh, not because of what you wrote, but who liked it.Dank: I was actually referring to Thymomodulin, not Tb4
Luddites: It was TB4
Just bizarre
To all you unquestioning EFC/Hirdittes faithful, think of the following:
People have been convicted in criminal courts under the higher 'beyond reasonable doubt' burden of proof when all the prosecution had were associations to drug dealers and text records/phone conversations that the prosecution argued were code names for illicit drugs.
ASADA operating under a lesser burden of proof will have a much easier time convincing a tribunal that the injections received by EFC players could only have been TB4 because after 2 years of a exhaustive investigation, not one single bit of paper evidence supports the EFC theory that it was the good form of Thymosin.
How on earth can any EFC supporter even for a second entertain the idea that the tribunal will accept that the good form of Thymosin just magically appeared at EFC to be injected into the players? How can any one for a second think that the tribunal will accept the theory coming from EFC that they used the good thymosin when EFC cannot produce one shred of evidence that even suggests they ordered, paid for, got delivery and injected the substance?
Yeah, club and players aren't concerned at all....Sorry but the bolded is just wrong. Paper evidence that Essendon has is only for the "good" thymosin. However, there is that one batch that is highly suspicious and ASADA is testing the waters on that one.
You have to ask yourself why the footy club and the players are not concerned about the outcome of the tribunal.
this post made me laugh, not because of what you wrote, but who liked it.
Dank referring to Thymomodulin, yet the fish thinks the players used TA1
Yeah, club and players aren't concerned at all....
You on the board? How do you know the club is not concerned?They aren't concerned about any players getting done.
I think they are..... why the federal court action? Why are essendon desperately trying to be involved in the tribunal? Why has Little said they are attacking the evidence and finding any hole?Sorry but the bolded is just wrong. Paper evidence that Essendon has is only for the "good" thymosin. However, there is that one batch that is highly suspicious and ASADA is testing the waters on that one.
You have to ask yourself why the footy club and the players are not concerned about the outcome of the tribunal.
I think you may find a little for TB4 if you care to look.I got it wrong! I was very busy and without lunch so I just hoped that the 3 letter acronym would suffice. However, it is the immune drug that Dank was talking about.
I also find it funny that so many people really think that
1. Dank thought TB4 was cool,
2. Finds out it's not,
3. Panics and tries to cover his tracks (which include pissing off the suppliers by not paying them maybe motivating them to tip him in the s**t),
4. Lies under oath that he didn't use it,
5. A few months later is shocked that it's banned.
I am not saying that this proves he didn't dope the team. I'm just saying that it strikes me as particularly strange that Dank didn't know that TB4 was banned at the time considering the history leading up to it. Coupled with the fact that he's talking about an immune booster which also indicates thymomodulin. There is hardly any literature regards TB4 and the immune system, whereas there is plenty regarding thymomodulin.
They aren't concerned about any players getting done.
Are they as confident as they were in the middle of the year when they though Middleton was going to give them the thumbs up.They aren't concerned about any players getting done.
And Jimmy is only appealing so he can sue everybody laterAre they as confident as they were in the middle of the year when they though Middleton was going to give them the thumbs up.
They can't do anything but be positive in the circumstances. A bit like how SC notices were highly unlikely (for a day at least)
Sorry but the bolded is just wrong. Paper evidence that Essendon has is only for the "good" thymosin. However, there is that one batch that is highly suspicious and ASADA is testing the waters on that one.
I got it wrong! I was very busy and without lunch so I just hoped that the 3 letter acronym would suffice. However, it is the immune drug that Dank was talking about.
I also find it funny that so many people really think that
1. Dank thought TB4 was cool,
2. Finds out it's not,
3. Panics and tries to cover his tracks (which include pissing off the suppliers by not paying them maybe motivating them to tip him in the s**t),
4. Lies under oath that he didn't use it,
5. A few months later is shocked that it's banned.
I am not saying that this proves he didn't dope the team. I'm just saying that it strikes me as particularly strange that Dank didn't know that TB4 was banned at the time considering the history leading up to it. Coupled with the fact that he's talking about an immune booster which also indicates thymomodulin. There is hardly any literature regards TB4 and the immune system, whereas there is plenty regarding thymomodulin.
Are they as confident as they were in the middle of the year when they though Middleton was going to give them the thumbs up.
They can't do anything but be positive in the circumstances. A bit like how SC notices were highly unlikely (for a day at least)
I got it wrong! I was very busy and without lunch so I just hoped that the 3 letter acronym would suffice. However, it is the immune drug that Dank was talking about.
I also find it funny that so many people really think that
1. Dank thought TB4 was cool,
2. Finds out it's not,
3. Panics and tries to cover his tracks (which include pissing off the suppliers by not paying them maybe motivating them to tip him in the s**t),
4. Lies under oath that he didn't use it,
5. A few months later is shocked that it's banned.
I am not saying that this proves he didn't dope the team. I'm just saying that it strikes me as particularly strange that Dank didn't know that TB4 was banned at the time considering the history leading up to it. Coupled with the fact that he's talking about an immune booster which also indicates thymomodulin. There is hardly any literature regards TB4 and the immune system, whereas there is plenty regarding thymomodulin.
What will your view be if they're cleared?It' simpler than that.
THe spin campaign has always been aimed primarily at the true believers.
The current version of the spin campaign is aimed at ensuring that the true believers don't believe the bad stuff. After crying "innocent until proven guilty" for so long, they are being prepared to scream "innocent even after being proven guilty".
Absolutely - if ASADA makes a case, EFC will need to try and refute it in some way. Which, if they have evidence is really hard to do. How do you prove a negative? If the negative is "were you at place X at time Y when the incident happened" you can prove you were somewhere else. If it is "across these months X happened" it is much harder. So a lot of the focus will be on showing inaccuracies/issues with the ASADA data. How much of that challenge occurs during ASADA's presenting versus in the second part, who knows.But if ASADA can provide enough evidence to satisfy the tribunal it will require the EFC players to refute that or come up with evidence that contradicts that. Do you think it likely that ASADA have spent 3 days so far with more to come if they cannot present a strong case?I don't know if its their sole defence. I don't know what ASADA's evidence is. But I would point out that proving a negative is extremely hard - it is why the onus of proof is on the prosecution/plaintiff. If ASADA can't produce proof then the court case will be lost. There is no onus on EFC to prove ASADA's case for them. Whether innocent or guilty, they would be idiots to help ASADA make a case....
That must be comforting -- given that they were confident about SCNs and infraction notices.
Sorry but the bolded is just wrong. Paper evidence that Essendon has is only for the "good" thymosin. However, there is that one batch that is highly suspicious and ASADA is testing the waters on that one.
You have to ask yourself why the footy club and the players are not concerned about the outcome of the tribunal.
Gee, if the players get off then it must be evident in the tribunal's eyes that no players were at any time given banned substances.To all you unquestioning EFC/Hirdittes faithful, think of the following:
People have been convicted in criminal courts under the higher 'beyond reasonable doubt' burden of proof when all the prosecution had were associations to drug dealers and text records/phone conversations that the prosecution argued were code names for illicit drugs.
ASADA operating under a lesser burden of proof will have a much easier time convincing a tribunal that the injections received by EFC players could only have been TB4 because after 2 years of a exhaustive investigation, not one single bit of paper evidence supports the EFC theory that it was the good form of Thymosin.
How on earth can any EFC supporter even for a second entertain the idea that the tribunal will accept that the good form of Thymosin just magically appeared at EFC to be injected into the players? How can any one for a second think that the tribunal will accept the theory coming from EFC that they used the good thymosin when EFC cannot produce one shred of evidence that even suggests they ordered, paid for, got delivery and injected the substance?
In the Nick Mckenzie interview Dank talks to them about dosages of TB4 that he gave the players and asks The Age not to publish. I assume this is because he wanted to protect his intel.
NM: How often were Essendon players taking Thymosin Beta 4?
SD: [Explains the dosage level but asks that this be not published].
Has what he told Mckenzie ever been published or is it still off limits? Wouldn't this hold the key?
Is Mckenzie a witness at the tribunal and will he spill the beans if so?
Sorry if this has already been discussed.
I have heard this before. Have you got a link to substantiate this indeed has happened? Thanks.ASADA requested the off the record part of the interview.
The Age/ Nick McKenzie refused to provide it, only gave the on the record section.
I suspect it holds a key one way or another.
I don't think they'll be cleared.What will your view be if they're cleared?