Charter underwrote bought peptides were not for human use

[kfc1]

There is a trail from a vial to 34 players stomachs with accompanying consent forms saying they are being injected with Thymosin.

Can you help me with my maths? I'm struggling to work out how 26 vials can be divided by 34 players as per the dosage schedule.

 

[JoondalupJ]

Way to miss the crux of an article, he has already given evidence if not there in person it will weaken the case slightly but on the balance of probabilities Essendon are farked.

We know the players took some fom of thymosin, there is a ton of eveidence it was tb4 and 1 photo to prove it was thymomodulin, if Essendon get off there will be much anger in the football World, even you deep down must realise now that what they took was the banned substance TB4?

I'd like to see the tons of evidence. And then prove the players knew what it was the drug I mean .

I suspect that the players can have nothing proved against them, in terms of having taken performance enhancing drugs deliberately.

As I've said before it appears that under ASADA rules you can be found guilty or are guilty whether you understood you were doing some thing wrong or not.

I would call that unfair and unjust.

Does that make me naive, that I believe that fair and honest judgement of players now is virtually impossible to prove.

Maybe because the ASADA investigation wasn't that good.

 

[Armchair Critic]

The scenario you are describing is not even making use of strict liabiilty.

What is strict liability?

The principle of strict liability is applied in situations where urine/blood samples collected from an athlete have produced adverse analytical results.

Read the Jake Law Statement of reasons, it states use is covered under Strict Liability Page 3-4, point 16

 

[QuietB]

Each individual footballer sitting in the dock doesn't have to put anything forward.

The onus is 100% on ASADA to establish a clearcut link between the footballer and TB4.

Comfortable satisfaction.

That excludes 100% and it also excludes clear-cut link. You make it sound like ASADA needed to be in the room when it all happened.

 

[Gigantor]

There is a trail from a vial to 34 players stomachs with accompanying consent forms saying they are being injected with Thymosin.

So we can add this to a known supply chain trail for TB4, or an imaginary supply chain for something else.

Who is gonna win GG

It remains to be seen of what value the consent forms are, if anything.

We have already seen conflicting evidence between the instructions Charter supposedly gave Dank (reflected in the consent form) and the actual injection schedules, such that you can pretty much forget about building a case around an imaginary TB4 dosage schedule, it ain't going to fly.

 

[Stumpy Pete]

The scenario you are describing is not even making use of strict liabiilty.

What is strict liability?

The principle of strict liability is applied in situations where urine/blood samples collected from an athlete have produced adverse analytical results.

Gorgeous,

I'd be more convinved if the word "only" appeared in there somewhere.

To me this is why I am very reluctant to criticise ASADA over the time taken in this case. There are not many cases of allegations of sporting teams, as distinct from squads of persons competing indivdually in events, doping their athletes.

Regards

S. Pete

 

[Tazmania]

Can you help me with my maths? I'm struggling to work out how 26 vials can be divided by 34 players as per the dosage schedule.

Well that was one delivery...as per the recent articles there were multiple deliveries of 10ml vials.

Today's says 10ml vials.

Roy's from a couple of days ago says, "ASADA will argue that the batches of the supplement received by the club from the compounding pharmacist, Nima Alavi, is a match with the usage of the banned thymosin beta 4. It will be alleged multiple doses of the prohibited peptide, made to order, were received by the club in a regime that lasted over many months."

So your question has become redundant apparently. Particularly if one vial can do multiple players.

 

[Gigantor]

Read the Jake Law Statement of reasons, it states use is covered under Strict Liability Page 3-4, point 16

I've given you the definition from the WADA website.

I really can't do more than that.

 

[Admiral Byng]

I'm struggling to understand why so many are popping champagne corks.

ASADA expressed this same information back in August 2013.

There is nothing new here.

There is not much new, there are two new bits:

The first new bit is that GL Biochem confirm that they supplied the Beta-4 variety of Thymosin to Charter, and only the Beta-4 variety. It nails down one end of the supply chain and excludes permitted varieties as a possibility in what was in those 10mL clear glass vials that Alavi supplied to Dank.

The second is that Charter signed a disclaimer that they wouldn't be used on humans, which isn't really here nor there as far as arguing the case before the AFL tribunal.

 

[Armchair Critic]

I've given you the definition from the WADA website.

I really can't do more than that.

I just gave you a real case that went to Tribunal where it was deemed "Use" even without a AAF is covered by Strict Liability. I wonder what holds more relevence

 

[BlueWorld]

As I've said before it appears that under ASADA rules you can be found guilty or are guilty whether you understood you were doing some thing wrong or not.

I would call that unfair and unjust.

Does that make me naive, that I believe that fair and honest judgement of players now is virtually impossible to prove.

Maybe because the ASADA investigation wasn't that good.

That's right. They don't take into account whether you did it deliberately or accidentally. Prevents people being 'accidentally' given banned substances and then claiming they didn't realize. Just ask the Chinese swimmers.

 

[Randomizor]

The silence from the EFC lately has been deafening. Tough guy act not working anymore?

 

[FuManchu]

I'm struggling to understand why so many are popping champagne corks.

ASADA expressed this same information back in August 2013.

There is nothing new here.

Must have used your example of 'the utter humiliation of Andruska is complete' as a guideline to premature cork popping

 

[QuietB]

It remains to be seen of what value the consent forms are, if anything.

We have already seen conflicting evidence between the instructions Charter supposedly gave Dank (reflected in the consent form) and the actual injection schedules, such that you can pretty much forget about building a case around an imaginary TB4 dosage schedule, it ain't going to fly.

They are absolutely valuable. They, with the player confessions about injections, 100% prove that the players were injected with Thymosin.

Now unless someone can produce an alternative supply chain for good Thymosin, one the ACC missed in their monitoring mind you so some random Chinese capitalist is probably not going to cut it, then it can only be one type of Thymosin - the one supplied and dosed - TB4.

I think you will find no records is going to bite the bombers on the arse. Although records would have done that as well.

 

[Gigantor]

Comfortable satisfaction.

That excludes 100% and it also excludes clear-cut link. You make it sound like ASADA needed to be in the room when it all happened.

Yesterday I referred to two cases involving non-presence violations, originally successfully prosecuted by ASADA, which were overturned in the CAS on appeal.

Curiously, in both cases, prohibited substances were found in the rooms of the athletes, but CAS found that was insufficient to prove attempted use, or even possession.

That's a pretty high bar that ASADA must reach for each and every individual footballer.

All the cases I've seen so far where ASADA has successfully prosecuted a non-presence violation, they were in possession of solid direct evidence, and on top of that, they had admissions or the charge was not contested.

 

[RegHickeyStand]

Each individual footballer sitting in the dock doesn't have to put anything forward.

The onus is 100% on ASADA to establish a clearcut link between the footballer and TB4.

ASADA think they have a good link between the footballer and TB4. I'm 100% sure they do.

What will hurt the players is that there is evidence that Charter supplied prohibited drugs to Dank, and that Dank worked for Essendon, and the consent forms say Thymosin.

If only Dank could come forward with the TB4 sales figures to his private customers outside of Essendon that would account for the TB4 purchases to prove he did not supply TB4 to Essendon players.

What a shame he hasn't. What a pity Little hasn't been harder on Dank. Maybe Little gave Dank too much credit. Card.

 

[Keys]

The second is that Charter signed a disclaimer that they wouldn't be used on humans, which isn't really here nor there as far as arguing the case before the AFL tribunal.

Agree that the not for human use condition won't mean much at the tribunal but it does enhance the belief that dank really didn't give a s**t about whether the substances he was jabbing into the players was safe or not

 

[Bobby Charlton]

Not amazing if the players know they were given banned substances, no deals have actually been offered what was offered is for the players to discuss and then see if deals are offered.

If they know they cheated then the obvious thing is to stick together and deny everything, Essendon and its lawyers would have ensured they realise if one breaks ranks they are all gone.

Deals were offered in June. There were no takers. The desperation here is now revealed by it being portrayed that no player taking a deal is evidence of the players' guilt. Cuckoo.
www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/bombers-would-have-missed-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.

That statement by Caroline Wilson was not challenged by ASADA and was not withdrawn. A media statement regarding a NRL deal offer was publicly challenged by ASADA.

 

[QuietB]

Yesterday I referred to two cases involving non-presence violations, originally successfully prosecuted by ASADA, which were overturned in the CAS on appeal.

Curiously, in both cases, prohibited substances were found in the rooms of the athletes, but CAS found that was insufficient to prove attempted use, or even possession.

That's a pretty high bar that ASADA must reach for each and every individual footballer.

All the cases I've seen so far where ASADA has successfully prosecuted a non-presence violation, they were in possession of solid direct evidence, and on top of that, they had admissions or the charge was not contested.

Use is not disputed. Neither is possession. The only thing in dispute is what was in the needles. In the absence of any other possibilities it was TB4.

 

[FuManchu]

Agree that the not for human use condition won't mean much at the tribunal but it does enhance the belief that dank really didn't give a s**t about whether the substances he was jabbing into the players was safe or not

Dankenstein

 

[JoondalupJ]

There is a trail from a vial to 34 players stomachs with accompanying consent forms saying they are being injected with Thymosin.

So we can add this to a known supply chain trail for TB4, or an imaginary supply chain for something else.

Who is gonna win GG

Trial of stomach fluids in vials from 34 players, first I heard of that.

And still doesn't answer the question of , if you don't know your taking something illegal how can you be guilty of rule breaking. That is the bottom line to the end of this . Absolute truth and they can't prove absolute truth in this now.

The dispute in court for any one taking it there to clear their name (s), is exactly that, its whether they knew they were rule breaking or whether they were totally innocent and were taking sport supplements as a health and strength booster, and had no idea that they were doing something wrong let alone illegal?.

That's what has to be proved to sanction any player whatsoever. But the ASADA /AFL rules and set up will probably convict them all on this maybe, and so they will all go to court I would suspect , to clear their names of being called drug cheats.

Because, just maybe, some or all weren't knowing what they were taking was legal or illegal.

Someone has to prove that , prove it emphatically in fact .

Or every one of those suspected players will carry cheat with them forever.

 

[Armchair Critic]

Deals were offered in June. There were no takers. The desperation here is now revealed by it being portrayed that no player taking a deal is evidence of the players' guilt. Cuckoo.
www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/bombers-would-have-missed-finals-under-asada-deal-20140826-108qif.html

That statement by Caroline Wilson was not challenged ASADA and was not withdrawn. A media statement regarding a NRL deal offer was publicly challenged by ASADA.

Was that the LEGAL TEAM that the AFLPA organised for the players passing on that information

 

[JoondalupJ]

Use is not disputed. Neither is possession. The only thing in dispute is what was in the needles. In the absence of any other possibilities it was TB4.

And which individual knew what he was taking. Answer that one as well for each "accused" , that is the bottom line.

 

[Tiger2709]

There is a trail of TB4 from the Chinese supplier to an anti-aging clinic which markets TB4 quite openly:

The nominated ‘customer’ for both the Hexarelin and ‘Peptide Thymosin’ are listed on the respective invoices under the heading ‘Description’ as ‘Mrc & Icb (sic). Such references are consistent with the acronyms for Medical Rejuvenation Clinic and Institute of Cellular Bioenergentics respectively, companies where Dank is a director.​

It is not incumbent on each individual footballer, as he sits in the dock, being paid to be a professional footballer, to state where his football club sources various supplies.

Yes there is it is strict liability, Charter it is known was the supplier of Danks supplements he only sourced Tb4 so where did Dank get thymomodulin, simple question its not banned so the supplier will surely come forward, really your arguments are starting to just sound stupid.

 

[Randomizor]

Trial of stomach fluids in vials from 34 players, first I heard of that.

And still doesn't answer the question of , if you don't know your taking something illegal how can you be guilty of rule breaking. That is the bottom line to the end of this . Absolute truth and they can't prove absolute truth in this now.

The dispute in court for any one taking it there to clear their name (s), is exactly that, its whether they knew they were rule breaking or whether they were totally innocent and were taking sport supplements as a health and strength booster, and had no idea that they were doing something wrong let alone illegal?.

That's what has to be proved to sanction any player whatsoever. But the ASADA /AFL rules and set up will probably convict them all on this maybe, and so they will all go to court I would suspect , to clear their names of being called drug cheats.

Because, just maybe, some or all weren't knowing what they were taking was legal or illegal.

Someone has to prove that , prove it emphatically in fact .

Or every one of those suspected players will carry cheat with them forever.

So when this is all over they can sue the club. Seems fair to me.