Play Nice The CAS Appeal thread - update: appeal fails (11/10/16)

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

QuietB said:
Can you tell me what the doubt about TB-4 is?
Click to expand...
Ah TB-4 or not TB-4. I think it's likely the players were given TB-4 but I'm not convinced.
Too much of it doesn't add up. For instance why would Dank put Thymosin on the consent forms if it was a banned substance, why wouldn't he just leave it off altogether? If like some on here argue that he didn't realise at the time that it was banned then why not just write TB4 after all AOD9604 was written there? And if we follow the line that the club and players were covering up and destroying evidence why in god's name wouldn't they have destroyed the consent forms because surely by then they would realise the forms would implicate them.
The CAS established that TB4 was sourced by Dank, well if he used it at his clinic you would expect it was, doesn't mean it was used on the players. They also didn't find a paper trail for Thymomodulin yet we see the text messages to Bates about Thymomodulin, so it looks like he was sourcing it from somewhere. Now AT's explanation for this is that he was probably using TB4 there as well and at that time realised it was banned so called it Thymomodulin. But this is in late 2012 so what the hell was that Baker and McKenzie interview all about in 2013?

I have a few other queries but I have to go to work.
Enjoy your day. :)
 
less than zero said:
Ah TB-4 or not TB-4. I think it's likely the players were given TB-4 but I'm not convinced.
Too much of it doesn't add up. For instance why would Dank put Thymosin on the consent forms if it was a banned substance, why wouldn't he just leave it off altogether? If like some on here argue that he didn't realise at the time that it was banned then why not just write TB4 after all AOD9604 was written there? And if we follow the line that the club and players were covering up and destroying evidence why in god's name wouldn't they have destroyed the consent forms because surely by then they would realise the forms would implicate them.
The CAS established that TB4 was sourced by Dank, well if he used it at his clinic you would expect it was, doesn't mean it was used on the players. They also didn't find a paper trail for Thymomodulin yet we see the text messages to Bates about Thymomodulin, so it looks like he was sourcing it from somewhere. Now AT's explanation for this is that he was probably using TB4 there as well and at that time realised it was banned so called it Thymomodulin. But this is in late 2012 so what the hell was that Baker and McKenzie interview all about in 2013?

I have a few other queries but I have to go to work.
Enjoy your day. :)
Click to expand...

You could have stopped at the bolded. That is comfortable satisfaction. Welcome aboard.
 
Last edited:
less than zero said:
Ah TB-4 or not TB-4. I think it's likely the players were given TB-4 but I'm not convinced.
Too much of it doesn't add up. For instance why would Dank put Thymosin on the consent forms if it was a banned substance, why wouldn't he just leave it off altogether? If like some on here argue that he didn't realise at the time that it was banned then why not just write TB4 after all AOD9604 was written there? And if we follow the line that the club and players were covering up and destroying evidence why in god's name wouldn't they have destroyed the consent forms because surely by then they would realise the forms would implicate them.
The CAS established that TB4 was sourced by Dank, well if he used it at his clinic you would expect it was, doesn't mean it was used on the players. They also didn't find a paper trail for Thymomodulin yet we see the text messages to Bates about Thymomodulin, so it looks like he was sourcing it from somewhere. Now AT's explanation for this is that he was probably using TB4 there as well and at that time realised it was banned so called it Thymomodulin. But this is in late 2012 so what the hell was that Baker and McKenzie interview all about in 2013?

I have a few other queries but I have to go to work.
Enjoy your day. :)
Click to expand...
1) Dank thought he could get around the legality of it all by compounding it etc
2) Could possible raise further questions if there were no consent forms, and would be risky as the players did know about the consent forms. You could also expand on "Thymosin" and call it for other things.
3) It's hard, as players saw vials being stored in Danks little fridge. Dank didn't have Thymomodulin, Alpha etc tested, only TB4.
 
less than zero said:
Ah TB-4 or not TB-4. I think it's likely the players were given TB-4 but I'm not convinced.
Too much of it doesn't add up. For instance why would Dank put Thymosin on the consent forms if it was a banned substance, why wouldn't he just leave it off altogether? If like some on here argue that he didn't realise at the time that it was banned then why not just write TB4 after all AOD9604 was written there? And if we follow the line that the club and players were covering up and destroying evidence why in god's name wouldn't they have destroyed the consent forms because surely by then they would realise the forms would implicate them.
The CAS established that TB4 was sourced by Dank, well if he used it at his clinic you would expect it was, doesn't mean it was used on the players. They also didn't find a paper trail for Thymomodulin yet we see the text messages to Bates about Thymomodulin, so it looks like he was sourcing it from somewhere. Now AT's explanation for this is that he was probably using TB4 there as well and at that time realised it was banned so called it Thymomodulin. But this is in late 2012 so what the hell was that Baker and McKenzie interview all about in 2013?

I have a few other queries but I have to go to work.
Enjoy your day. :)
Click to expand...


I am pretty sure that there was no evidence of the "good" thymosin ever being ordered or supplied and if that's the case then they didn't cover their tracks very well.
 
less than zero said:
Ah TB-4 or not TB-4. I think it's likely the players were given TB-4 but I'm not convinced.
Too much of it doesn't add up. For instance why would Dank put Thymosin on the consent forms if it was a banned substance, why wouldn't he just leave it off altogether? If like some on here argue that he didn't realise at the time that it was banned then why not just write TB4 after all AOD9604 was written there? And if we follow the line that the club and players were covering up and destroying evidence why in god's name wouldn't they have destroyed the consent forms because surely by then they would realise the forms would implicate them.
The CAS established that TB4 was sourced by Dank, well if he used it at his clinic you would expect it was, doesn't mean it was used on the players. They also didn't find a paper trail for Thymomodulin yet we see the text messages to Bates about Thymomodulin, so it looks like he was sourcing it from somewhere. Now AT's explanation for this is that he was probably using TB4 there as well and at that time realised it was banned so called it Thymomodulin. But this is in late 2012 so what the hell was that Baker and McKenzie interview all about in 2013?

I have a few other queries but I have to go to work.
Enjoy your day. :)
Click to expand...

For instance why would Dank put Thymosin on the consent forms if it was a banned substance, why wouldn't he just leave it off altogether? If like some on here argue that he didn't realise at the time that it was banned then why not just write TB4 after all AOD9604 was written there? And if we follow the line that the club and players were covering up and destroying evidence why in god's name wouldn't they have destroyed the consent forms because surely by then they would realise the forms would implicate them.

Dank is smarter than all the people he fleeced at Essendon. He needed the players on the hook - they signed the consent forms so they knew what they were doing, and he needed Hird on the hook - text messages, everything else. Dank uses TB-4 as the key pillar in his program - he always has. And I believe he knew it changed status to banned. But he also knew there was no test for it.

What he didn't know was that the ACC was watching everything he did.

The CAS established that TB4 was sourced by Dank, well if he used it at his clinic you would expect it was, doesn't mean it was used on the players. They also didn't find a paper trail for Thymomodulin yet we see the text messages to Bates about Thymomodulin, so it looks like he was sourcing it from somewhere. Now AT's explanation for this is that he was probably using TB4 there as well and at that time realised it was banned so called it Thymomodulin.

It is very difficult to build an argument that the players did not receive TB-4 when it was bought, compounded, tested, the players signed (admittedly slightly ambiguous) consent forms, and the players admitted being injected with thymosin and there is a total and complete lack of evidence it was something other than TB-4.

But this is in late 2012 so what the hell was that Baker and McKenzie interview all about in 2013?

I do not know what happened in that interview. Maybe Dank dropped his guard and tried to backtrack, maybe it was deliberate. What I will say is I believe that any interview throughout this whole saga has been more about the interviewee talking to, or more to the point threatening the other parties than it has been about explaining anything to the public or actually defending themselves.

Everything Dank says is aimed at reminding Essendon that they better not step too far in isolating him as solely responsible.

Everything Hird says is a veiled threat to the AFL about how much more complicit they are/were in the cover up.


To discredit WADA you need to build a credible argument that something else happened and I have not seen anyone do it yet.
 
Danks thymomodulin/thymosin is TB4, neither thymomodulin or thymosin alpha 1 have the properties needed for the purpose he was trying to achieve. He thought compounding it made it legal!

Just ask Bock if you think Dank would hesitate to give a banned drug to an AFL player.
 
less than zero said:
Ah TB-4 or not TB-4. I think it's likely the players were given TB-4 but I'm not convinced.
Too much of it doesn't add up. For instance why would Dank put Thymosin on the consent forms if it was a banned substance, why wouldn't he just leave it off altogether? If like some on here argue that he didn't realise at the time that it was banned then why not just write TB4 after all AOD9604 was written there? And if we follow the line that the club and players were covering up and destroying evidence why in god's name wouldn't they have destroyed the consent forms because surely by then they would realise the forms would implicate them.
The CAS established that TB4 was sourced by Dank, well if he used it at his clinic you would expect it was, doesn't mean it was used on the players. They also didn't find a paper trail for Thymomodulin yet we see the text messages to Bates about Thymomodulin, so it looks like he was sourcing it from somewhere. Now AT's explanation for this is that he was probably using TB4 there as well and at that time realised it was banned so called it Thymomodulin. But this is in late 2012 so what the hell was that Baker and McKenzie interview all about in 2013?

I have a few other queries but I have to go to work.
Enjoy your day. :)
Click to expand...
I think the initial part is easy to explain. Dank was truly unaware of TB4's S2 status early on. He was aware, however, that it was not approved for human use. After all, the vials from GL Biochem would have had it on them. So just like AOD9604, both were S0. He probably then thought if he could get doctors to prescribe these drugs, they were automatically approved for human use and thus not banned any more. So that is why he put THYMOSIN on the consents. As I have pointed out, even on his own website, thymosin beta 4 is called THYMOSIN. At some stage in 2012 (before June) he discovered that it was S2 and started covering his tracks and from then on THYMOSIN started being called thymomodulin.
As I have previously stated, the only thing that I cannot be sure of is why he mentioned TB4 to Nick McKenzie. There are several explanations but I'm not sure which one is best.
 
Last edited:

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Tiger Toffee said:
So which way are people leaning

Appeal application lodged and rejected
Appeal application lodged and approved
Click to expand...

Considering that the first review of the application is more a tick a box approval it get approved.

The Supreme Court will examine (i) whether it has jurisdiction to hear the appeal, (ii) whether the challenged decision qualifies as a challengeable award, taking into consideration the issue of awards based on multiple reasons, (iii) whether the requirements for admissibility are met, namely whether the challenging party has standing to appeal, (iv) whether the challenge was filed within the applicable time limit. It is submitted that the specific condition relating to the amount in dispute which is set forth in Article 74 SCA does not apply to appeals against CAS awards.

It's not like our high court where you need to apply for leave to get appeal.

Also worth noting that most of the time its a document only appeal, no hearing which reduces the need to actually approve or reject the application.

"In practice, the Supreme Court will decide on the action to set aside on a documents-only basis (ie the parties' briefs and submissions, together with any exhibits attached thereto). No other evidentiary measures will be taken. In the vast majority of the cases, the Supreme Court decides ‘by circulation’, without holding a public hearing"

All quotes from a journal article highlighting the process. Goes into a fair bit of depth. http://intl-jids.oxfordjournals.org/content/1/1/217.full#sec-2
 
Tiger Toffee said:
So which way are people leaning

Appeal application lodged and rejected
Appeal application lodged and approved
Click to expand...


rejected

or approved and bombers will get a retrial and CAS will come up with the same finding.
 
Muggs said:
Considering that the first review of the application is more a tick a box approval it get approved.

The Supreme Court will examine (i) whether it has jurisdiction to hear the appeal, (ii) whether the challenged decision qualifies as a challengeable award, taking into consideration the issue of awards based on multiple reasons, (iii) whether the requirements for admissibility are met, namely whether the challenging party has standing to appeal, (iv) whether the challenge was filed within the applicable time limit. It is submitted that the specific condition relating to the amount in dispute which is set forth in Article 74 SCA does not apply to appeals against CAS awards.

It's not like our high court where you need to apply for leave to get appeal.

Also worth noting that most of the time its a document only appeal, no hearing which reduces the need to actually approve or reject the application.

"In practice, the Supreme Court will decide on the action to set aside on a documents-only basis (ie the parties' briefs and submissions, together with any exhibits attached thereto). No other evidentiary measures will be taken. In the vast majority of the cases, the Supreme Court decides ‘by circulation’, without holding a public hearing"

All quotes from a journal article highlighting the process. Goes into a fair bit of depth. http://intl-jids.oxfordjournals.org/content/1/1/217.full#sec-2
Click to expand...

Great. Queue the next sook - "Hirdy didn't even get to talk - it wasn't even a public hearing" :cry:
 
Slartibartfast said:
Any wonder there is so much resentment towards the fools who are still running with the we were innocent but we don't know what we took so you can't prove it.
Wish they knew how silly they look.
Click to expand...

Why would of there been no records if they had nothing to hide? So easy to find loopholes in their arguments
 
less than zero said:
Well of course there's a roster happening, essendon supporters have a life, except for dapperjong who has a country, besides, it's one clubs supporters against all the other idiots.
Click to expand...

Nice deflection, we aren't going to stop talking about how we feel about a subject. Notice the irony in saying we don't have a life yet your spending your time to post about it.

We are here because we care, we don't think cheats should prosper, wouldn't matter who the club was. The fact that your club has been disgraceful in its arrogance and refusing to take responsibility just adds fuel to the fire of hate.

Would of been like us in 2002 complaining that the salary cap was illegal, and how it was unfair, go on endless court battles to deflect and muddy the waters.

And yes Dapperjong has a tough job.
 
Seadog said:
My head hurts. I don't recall saying anything about them being a little bit guilty.
Click to expand...

It was me I made a simpsons reference 'just a little guilty, its still good its still good'

But once again an Essendon supporter got 2 and 2 and came up with 4326453, and came up with something like 'heaps of horrible criminals get away with things, its not fair we can't!'
 
QuietB said:
For instance why would Dank put Thymosin on the consent forms if it was a banned substance, why wouldn't he just leave it off altogether? If like some on here argue that he didn't realise at the time that it was banned then why not just write TB4 after all AOD9604 was written there? And if we follow the line that the club and players were covering up and destroying evidence why in god's name wouldn't they have destroyed the consent forms because surely by then they would realise the forms would implicate them.

Dank is smarter than all the people he fleeced at Essendon. He needed the players on the hook - they signed the consent forms so they knew what they were doing, and he needed Hird on the hook - text messages, everything else. Dank uses TB-4 as the key pillar in his program - he always has. And I believe he knew it changed status to banned. But he also knew there was no test for it.

What he didn't know was that the ACC was watching everything he did.

The CAS established that TB4 was sourced by Dank, well if he used it at his clinic you would expect it was, doesn't mean it was used on the players. They also didn't find a paper trail for Thymomodulin yet we see the text messages to Bates about Thymomodulin, so it looks like he was sourcing it from somewhere. Now AT's explanation for this is that he was probably using TB4 there as well and at that time realised it was banned so called it Thymomodulin.

It is very difficult to build an argument that the players did not receive TB-4 when it was bought, compounded, tested, the players signed (admittedly slightly ambiguous) consent forms, and the players admitted being injected with thymosin and there is a total and complete lack of evidence it was something other than TB-4.

But this is in late 2012 so what the hell was that Baker and McKenzie interview all about in 2013?

I do not know what happened in that interview. Maybe Dank dropped his guard and tried to backtrack, maybe it was deliberate. What I will say is I believe that any interview throughout this whole saga has been more about the interviewee talking to, or more to the point threatening the other parties than it has been about explaining anything to the public or actually defending themselves.

Everything Dank says is aimed at reminding Essendon that they better not step too far in isolating him as solely responsible.

Everything Hird says is a veiled threat to the AFL about how much more complicit they are/were in the cover up.


To discredit WADA you need to build a credible argument that something else happened and I have not seen anyone do it yet.
Click to expand...

this is an excellent post. top marks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The_Wookie
Play Nice Happy 10th Anniversary (of the Essendon/ASADA Saga)
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
blackcat
blackcat
The_Wookie
The Andrew Wilkie Allegations
Replies
17
Views
674
pattymalone00
pattymalone00
sosos
The Joel Smith Bust
Replies
0
Views
387
sosos
sosos
A
This is the way to treat drug cheats
2
Replies
25
Views
1K
PoppedCorn
PoppedCorn
CASEYS9420
Moved Thread James Hird - is it time to give him a second chance at coaching an AFL club? Gil says yes! - The PEDs Forum Version
2 3 4
Replies
88
Views
6K
Caligo
Caligo

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top