No Oppo Supporters CAS hands down guilty verdict - Players appealing - Dank shot - no opposition - (cont in pt.2)

[kelvin_sheedy]

So people think Dank is going to roll up in the tribunal solo with no contact to the players lawyers and argue tb4 should not be banned.

And then self incriminate and open himself up to lawsuits.

Holy moly.

 

[astrowizzle]

Isn't the reason the names were put on the register like they were was because the players refused to respond?

Every one of those comments he has made sounds like some one with an axe to grind. Not exactly the manner I would expect from a CEO in charge of what is supposed to be an impartial government organisation

this is whats got me the whole ******* time. this is meant to be a process see if doping did occur, something we are not even sure of. It has become a witch hunt and they will twist facts, lie, ignore evidence and anything else they feel necessary to catch their victims. ASADA can SUKADIK

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

So people think Dank is going to roll up in the tribunal solo with no contact to the players lawyers and argue tb4 should not be banned.

And then self incriminate and open himself up to lawsuits.

Holy moly.

Good point.

 

[efcboy]

So you are suggesting the AFL has paid Charters for his evidence ?

Self preservation seems paramount in this saga so who knows what they're capable of. Charters initial evidence suited the governance agenda - now it may not.

 

[yaco55]

Self preservation seems paramount in this saga so who knows what they're capable of. Charters initial evidence suited the governance agenda - now it may not.

Think its been clarified that Charters evidence evidence to ASADA came with a possible job - This in itself is enough for the case to be thrown out - The cases is SO contaminated.

 

[flintandtas]

This article has several quotes which confirm it:

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...d-use-of-aod9604/story-fni5f91a-1226960517161

Ok, The point I was making was that it has never been confirmed that we (or Dank) received the advice that it was not prohibited. The article shows that it was still a murky point then. ASADA initially denied that they had given incorrect advice. Dank said he had proof but never delivered (surprise surprise).
ASADA has never given a proper explanation on this point. I wouldn't be surprised if there was more to it.

 

[BOMBERS 4 LIFE!!!!]

Mcdivitt says they don't need Charter and Alavi as witnesses because their case is strong enough but yet Asada go to court to force subpoenas what a flog.

 

[efcboy]

Ok, The point I was making was that it has never been confirmed that we (or Dank) received the advice that it was not prohibited. The article shows that it was still a murky point then. ASADA initially denied that they had given incorrect advice. Dank said he had proof but never delivered (surprise surprise).
ASADA has never given a proper explanation on this point. I wouldn't be surprised if there was more to it.

ASADA skirted around the issue avoiding flat out admitting their bungle. By not prosecuting prior to April 2013 is in itself an admission of fault. Why else would they not when they would then do so post this date following WADA correcting them

 

[Eagle Bomber]

Or maybe it means things like hearsay will be allowed ?

Not just hearsay, but rumour, innuendo, lies and statistics.

 

[Smyth94]

Dank is going to argue why TB4 shouldn't be banned isn't he.

which basically means one thing.........

There's no point discussing the status of TB-4...it's a side issue

- Dank swore to the ACC under oath that he didn't administer it;
- Watson's testimony to ASADA RE: Dank explaining the differences between TB-4 and Thymomodulin which was 'conveniently' left out of the interim report;
- Alavi unsure as to what he supplied

These are the key issues

 

[mxett]

There's no point discussing the status of TB-4...it's a side issue

- Dank swore to the ACC under oath that he didn't administer it;
- Watson's testimony to ASADA RE: Dank explaining the differences between TB-4 and Thymomodulin which was 'conveniently' left out of the interim report;
- Alavi unsure as to what he supplied

These are the key issues

For me the key issue is why Hardie and Dank would dispute the status of a drug Dank claims he never used. Well he actually did tell McKenzie he used it until he was informed it was specifically named by ASADA as a banned s2 dug, then he changed his story. Put these 3 pieces of information together and its pretty clear to me how this went down. The player's hope now is that ASADA dont have enough evidence to prove it, otherwise they're in strife.

 

[pepsi]

For me the key issue is why Hardie and Dank would dispute the status of a drug Dank claims he never used. Well he actually did tell McKenzie he used it until he was informed it was specifically named by ASADA as a banned s2 dug, then he changed his story. Put these 3 pieces of information together and its pretty clear to me how this went down. The player's hope now is that ASADA dont have enough evidence to prove it, otherwise they're in strife.

I agree 100% with this. Dank doesn't just confuse tb4 and thymomodulin. It wasn't just a mistake in what he said in that interview with McKenzie.

 

[mxett]

I agree 100% with this. Dank doesn't just confuse tb4 and thymomodulin. It wasn't just a mistake in what he said in that interview with McKenzie.

Yeah I think if you put Hardie's interview together with Dank's admission you can see why he was shocked by the revelation TB4 was specifically named, not left to some ambiguous catch all. It all makes sense

I'm not really sure how I feel now. Will I celebrate if my own club avoids being penalised for drug cheating? Will have to wait and see

 

[flintandtas]

ASADA skirted around the issue avoiding flat out admitting their bungle. By not prosecuting prior to April 2013 is in itself an admission of fault. Why else would they not when they would then do so post this date following WADA correcting them

The most obvious reason is that they had a deal with the AFL in place to not prosecute on AOD if the AFL were able to deliver a much higher profile target. AOD was always going to be a hard case to prosecute on, and there were plenty of loopholes that could have been explored if they had tried to prosecute on it. That kind of deal could have been attractive to ASADA.
I think if Dank had proof that ASADA had given incorrect advice on AOD he would have produced it just to embarrass them further.
I don't know, but this explanation makes more sense to me, given the attempted deal between them to have the no fault clause reduced to a 0 match penalty initially that was exposed by Roy Masters and then withdrawn by ASADA later. There never seemed to be any doubt as well from day dot that ASADA weren't going to prosecute on it. This was communicated to the players as well.
WADA coming out and saying it was banned was what made the whole situation more embarrassing for ASADA, and I think caught them by surprise. WADA probably stated this to protect themselves from embarassment since in the email that that Dank did produce they had made an assessment on it on whether it fit the category of an S2 drug which would have ruled it ineligible for consideration as an S0 drug. S0 drugs are intended to be for unknown, newly developed drugs that have not been assessed yet.
The whole situation is just dirty .... its no wonder ASADA have avoided giving any reasoning on their decision.

 

[boncer34]

Yeah I think if you put Hardie's interview together with Dank's admission you can see why he was shocked by the revelation TB4 was specifically named, not left to some ambiguous catch all. It all makes sense

I'm not really sure how I feel now. Will I celebrate if my own club avoids being penalised for drug cheating? Will have to wait and see

It is not specifically named.

 

[mxett]

It is not specifically named.

I havent read ASADA's list but according to McKenzie it is

 

[efcboy]

I agree 100% with this. Dank doesn't just confuse tb4 and thymomodulin. It wasn't just a mistake in what he said in that interview with McKenzie.

Dank did however describe the properties of thymomodulin in that interview though and not properties of TB4

 

[efcboy]

Yeah I think if you put Hardie's interview together with Dank's admission you can see why he was shocked by the revelation TB4 was specifically named, not left to some ambiguous catch all. It all makes sense

I'm not really sure how I feel now. Will I celebrate if my own club avoids being penalised for drug cheating? Will have to wait and see

Dank was already aware of the classification of TB4 prior to this interview. The Age piece was selectively edited and editorialised.

 

[boncer34]

I havent read ASADA's list but according to McKenzie it is

Well it must be if a journalist said so.

Read the list.

 

[mxett]

Dank did however describe the properties of thymomodulin in that interview though and not properties of TB4

They can both be used for immunity

Dank was already aware of the classification of TB4 prior to this interview. The Age piece was selectively edited and editorialised.

Appears he wasnt aware it as specifically named though, hence his argument that it shouldnt be

 

[Smokin]

Dank did however describe the properties of thymomodulin in that interview though and not properties of TB4

exactly, if he was ever going to stuff it up it would have been with the science. It was clearly thymomodulin he was referring to, cant even be debated really.

Fact is, he was surprised because neither drug is listed. He knows the WADA code inside out. No doubt he tries to bend the rules, but like he said he'd be shocked if there was a drug listed he didn't know about.

 

[efcboy]

The most obvious reason is that they had a deal with the AFL in place to not prosecute on AOD if the AFL were able to deliver a much higher profile target. AOD was always going to be a hard case to prosecute on, and there were plenty of loopholes that could have been explored if they had tried to prosecute on it. That kind of deal could have been attractive to ASADA.
I think if Dank had proof that ASADA had given incorrect advice on AOD he would have produced it just to embarrass them further.
I don't know, but this explanation makes more sense to me, given the attempted deal between them to have the no fault clause reduced to a 0 match penalty initially that was exposed by Roy Masters and then withdrawn by ASADA later. There never seemed to be any doubt as well from day dot that ASADA weren't going to prosecute on it. This was communicated to the players as well.
WADA coming out and saying it was banned was what made the whole situation more embarrassing for ASADA, and I think caught them by surprise. WADA probably stated this to protect themselves from embarassment since in the email that that Dank did produce they had made an assessment on it on whether it fit the category of an S2 drug which would have ruled it ineligible for consideration as an S0 drug. S0 drugs are intended to be for unknown, newly developed drugs that have not been assessed yet.
The whole situation is just dirty .... its no wonder ASADA have avoided giving any reasoning on their decision.

It's not just EFC that ASADA won't prosecute for on AOD9604 prior to April 2013. It's all Australian athletes so it has nothing to do with the AFL. It's ASADA cleaning up their own mess.

 

[Smokin]

I asked the question on the HTB when AOD was flavor of the month - Even the committed souls on the HTB couldn't find a case - Never heard of a doping case involving TB4.

wasnt there a lawyer early in the AOD piece who said he doubts a catch-all clause can ever get up, in Australian law anyway? WADA can word whatever they like, doesn't make an ambiguous, nearly impossible to work out clause law in this country.

 

[rumply]

I havent read ASADA's list but according to McKenzie it is

It is shown as banned by ASADA & other NADO's but is not specifically listed by WADA, it is caught under the S2 catchall, so it is considered banned until & if it can be shown that it should not be (is my limited understanding). to quote Ings - "The WADA prohibited list includes limited named substances and broad banned categories."


some tweets with Ings yesterday -

roadagain ‏@roadagain65 Dec 5
@ringsau Richard if I can ask a ? - Is TB4 a prohibited substance under WADA code? I have heard Hardie state it's status is untested/unclear
Richard Ings ‏@ringsau 24h24 hours ago
@roadagain65 USADA, UKAD, CCES, JADCO, ASADA all post it online as banned. TB4/500 is widely considered an S2 category PED.
Richard Ings ‏@ringsau 22h22 hours ago
@roadagain65 Tb4 is not on the prohibited list by name. A player could rebut an allegation of TB4 use by asking ASADA to show it is banned.

& it's a bit of a long read but after a slow start, there is some interesting discussion about the issues in this feed

 

[mxett]

Well it must be if a journalist said so.

Read the list.

He isnt the only one. Anyway, I looked on their website but couldnt find the specific list, only the status checker which is pretty clear its banned