-
LIVE: Richmond v Melbourne - 7:25PM Wed
Squiggle tips Demons at 77% chance -- What's your tip? -- Team line-ups »
The Doping Tribunal Report: The Age
- Thread starter Chief
- Start date
- Tagged users None
The AFL Commission will be pleased with today - another mess swept away and legal problems avoided.
However, for AFL as a sport, it is a sad day indeed.
However, for AFL as a sport, it is a sad day indeed.
WADA can always take this to the CAS, you realise? The AFL has swept it under the rug, but half of the mess is still showing.
Dank implied it. "Ask the Essendon IT department..."
Paradoxical statements. Was the tribunal satisfied that Dank received TB4 in some other guise? What form of thymosin did they believe he used on the players?
Thymosin appeared on the waiver, it appeared at the player interviews, it appeared on Dank's messages to Hird. If not thymomodulin or TB4, what was it? How could ASADA have possibly ****ed this up in their representation?
GarnerSmash
They tried to make me go to rehab
10k Posts
Ex-Moderator
North Melbourne - 2015 Daw & MacMillan Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2014 Daw, Black, Gibson Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - 2013 Daw, Black and Gibson Player Sponsorship
North Melbourne - North 2012 Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - North 2011 Player Sponsor
North Melbourne - North 2010 Player Sponsor
- Jun 2, 2009
- 26,836
- 52,085
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
This basically implies that a non-presence case is impossible to prosecute in the eyes of the tribunal. Which, IMO, is precisely the preferred position of an organisation which behaves as the AFL does.
#AFLIntegrity
So when do we find out more about this magical 3rd type of thymosin?
- Sep 5, 2011
- 8,256
- 15,935
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Dallas Cowboys, STL Blues
The same paradox as - we dont know what the players received, but are confident that it wasnt anything illicit or illegal.
Strapping Young Lad
Moderator
- Apr 19, 2006
- 97,419
- 235,848
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Storm, Spurs, Socceroos
- Moderator
- #58
If there's alpha and beta, surely the third is Omega...
TB4, unfortunately.
"..... custodians of fair play are scrambling to keep up. Christiane Ayotte, the long-time director of the anti-doping lab at the INRS-Institut Armand-Frappier in Montreal, points to last winter’s scandal in Australia, where athletes were found to be taking amino acids called peptides that cause the body to release human growth hormone. Human growth hormone taken by direct injection is difficult enough to detect, notes Ayotte; the peptides the Aussies were taking (by skin cream or injection) are metabolized quickly, making them virtually impossible to detect through standard urine testing. “For us in the labs, these new drugs are the real problem,” she says. “This will keep me busy until I retire.”
- Jul 10, 2013
- 848
- 341
- AFL Club
- Sydney
I don't get it either. So what thymosin were they administered?
Totally unbiased comment here: I do not understand the tribunal's finding on what the players were injected with if not TB4. The evidence stated by the tribunal points to TB4, and away from other drugs previously claimed by Essendon . What other drugs do they think it might have been?
I'd like to hear from the tribunal something like: "It is possible because or blah blah blah it was TB4. It was not as claimed, T1. However other receipts and evidence provided suggest it could have been Drug A, B or C which are not prohibited."
I'd like to hear from the tribunal something like: "It is possible because or blah blah blah it was TB4. It was not as claimed, T1. However other receipts and evidence provided suggest it could have been Drug A, B or C which are not prohibited."
That line is so very hard to get around, isn't it?
telsor
Hall of Famer
They don't have to say what they thought it was. They only had to say they weren't 'comfortably satisfied' that it was TB4.
Everything out of Dank's mouth is s**t, nothing more. He is a weasel and the fact after all of this saga 34 players cannot be told what they were injected with is utterly disgraceful. Him, Hird, Essendon & likely the AFL would want to hope nothing happens to any of those players later in life because of what went at Essendon in 2012.
I know that. But since they discount other Thymosins, and they accept Charter bought in Thymosin, I'm not comfortably satisfied with their conclusion.
I'm comfortably satisfied this is horse s**t.
Devington
Brownlow Medallist
- Jun 4, 2013
- 17,547
- 45,344
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
Serious question. What possible piece of evidence, that they couldn't have cheated their way around, could have existed that would have sealed the deal?
What more did they need to prove? Did ASADA need to disprove EVERY other conceivable substance leaving TB4 being the only one?
What the *. That articles says to me that they're ******* guilty.
What more did they need to prove? Did ASADA need to disprove EVERY other conceivable substance leaving TB4 being the only one?
What the *. That articles says to me that they're ******* guilty.
Lol, the Bec Wilson "we know they are guilty please listen!!" thread. What a pisser
Strapping Young Lad
Moderator
- Apr 19, 2006
- 97,419
- 235,848
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Storm, Spurs, Socceroos
- Moderator
- #69
Now, come on Lance, you were so eager to apply Occam's Razor to the Collingwood players this morning.
You've been served up a plate of TB4 connections, but you seem to have lost that razor.
This is probably the most interesting thing to come out of the tribunal. It also contradicts Dank's sworn evidence to the ACC.
Having rejected both Thymosin Alspha and Thymosin Beta-4, exactly what type of Thymosin did the tribunal find it was? As far as I can tell they never answered this very important question.
They basically found it wasn't thymosin alpha, but there wasn't enough evidence to prove players actually received tb-4, in part, it would seem, because they chose to ignore the player evidence that they were injected with "thymosin". It's not another type of thymosin, they just basically found ASADA didn't do enough to prove it was TB-4.
my feeling is the leap of faith to say they didn't get tb-4 is greater than the one required to find they did. But I'm not the one making the decision that affects a lot of people's lives!
2one2
Premiership Player
- May 30, 2012
- 3,569
- 5,429
- AFL Club
- Essendon
Don't you mean "insufficient evidence to suggest Thymosin Alpha"?
Tribunal rejects Thymosin Alpha used.
Tribunal comfortably satisfied that Charter sourced TB4 for Dank.
Some inference in correspondence from Alavi that he had compounded the drug.
Player admits Thymosin injected into him (based on what Dank told him).
Once it was known that this was going to the AFL tribunal, I stated it would be just another "AFL fix". I had quite a few posters convince me otherwise due to the calibre of people sitting in on the tribunal. Well, not happy to say to say that I was right the first time.
This was a "fix".
And to repeat before I'm attacked...I'm happy for the players. They were lied to and duped. The coaching staff and club though I have zero respect for (not that they care).
I'm convinced this was an AFL fix.
My sentiments exactly.
Last edited:
Agree.
What I would really like to know is how they did not find to comfortable satisfaction that Alavi received and compounded the drug.
The break in the chain is what got the players and Essendon off. Well that and the fact that no records were produced.
Last edited:
why do you keep trying to make that ridiculous point? The AFL have not done any such thing. The indpedendent tribunial made up of some pretty impressive people have objectively sat and deliberated. Its just plain, unsubstantiated mud-slinging to try to make this out as some kind of 'AFL fix".
If your problem with the tribunial is that its appointed by the AFL then you have a problem with about 90% of bodies of this nature - both in the private, public, NGO and sporting sectors. Its the correct and appropriate way to deal with many items at arm length, while under the proper auspicus of the appropriate governing/legislating/enforcing body. It does not imply or even suggest that the tribunal members are open to manipulation; unless you can demonstrate that any of the tribunial members were subject to a conflict of interest that is just a baseless slur on their character. If you want to go howl at the moon at the outcome, then go ahead, but don't come here and pretend your howling is anything more than you trying to find someone to blame for an outcome you don't like. Agree/disagree with their determination based on the facts all you like, but you've got nothing NOTHING on the tribunal members themselves so pull your head in.
