Dramoth
Premium Platinum
Lets take this over to the football chat or the rebuild thread or one of the other threads not dedicated to talking about a bunch of w(h)ining tossers who just follow the hird...
Certified Legendary Thread 34 Essendon* Players suspended for doping violations - No opposition fans. Check OP for thread rules
- Thread starter Aphrodite
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
You should try it... You'd be surprised at how often it would be advantageous for you to correct your own posts...
Please, my posts are already exploding with quality. Essendon and cartels, are envy.You should try it... You'd be surprised at how often it would be advantageous for you to correct your own posts...
Well... What do you know, you were right, ODNBlue.
wtf how did I miss my birthday
Jabba73
Hall of Famer
Blue Warrior
Club Legend
From HTB Board:
According to the Australian today.
A member of the panel appointed three weeks ago, Dr Peter Fricker former director of the Australian Institute of Sport can take no part in deliberations involving Danks use of substances in the AFL or NRL becouse of his previous dealings with Dank in relation to AOD9604.
It is understood that Dank while employed by Essendon in Apr 2012 visited Fricker in Qatar to discuss a proposed clinical trial involving AOD9604. Dank was in company with David Kenley, CEO of Metabolic Pharmaceuticals.
The article also goes on to give more details of the show clause notice. Including saying that the notice accuses Dank of administering Thymosin Beta 4 to Essendon players and confirms that AOD9604 does not appear in the notice.
I am all eeked out. But this may explain what was meant by the "AOD Project".
Will this s**t ever end? What an absolute farce.
The Australian reports Fricker visited Dank in Qatar in 2012 to discuss a proposed clinical trial involving controversial anti-obesity drug AOD6904.
At the time Dank was not under investigation over his role in Essendon’s supplement program.
Click to expand...
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...lict-of-interest/story-fni5f6kv-1226893360963
According to the Australian today.
A member of the panel appointed three weeks ago, Dr Peter Fricker former director of the Australian Institute of Sport can take no part in deliberations involving Danks use of substances in the AFL or NRL becouse of his previous dealings with Dank in relation to AOD9604.
It is understood that Dank while employed by Essendon in Apr 2012 visited Fricker in Qatar to discuss a proposed clinical trial involving AOD9604. Dank was in company with David Kenley, CEO of Metabolic Pharmaceuticals.
The article also goes on to give more details of the show clause notice. Including saying that the notice accuses Dank of administering Thymosin Beta 4 to Essendon players and confirms that AOD9604 does not appear in the notice.
I am all eeked out. But this may explain what was meant by the "AOD Project".
Will this s**t ever end? What an absolute farce.
The Australian reports Fricker visited Dank in Qatar in 2012 to discuss a proposed clinical trial involving controversial anti-obesity drug AOD6904.
At the time Dank was not under investigation over his role in Essendon’s supplement program.
Click to expand...
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...lict-of-interest/story-fni5f6kv-1226893360963
Last edited:
I don't get it.
Means the panel that rules on the show causes is back down to 5 members and we'll have to wait for another member to be appointment.
These delays are very odd. We laugh at how corrupt Baseball/Cycling etc are but the second it happened to a big Australian club we have gone all Breaking Bad.
Didn't the panel only need 4? Remember reading something like that in the articles following the realisation that they didnt have enough members for the April 10 hearing. If so, surely old mate could abstain from the Dank hearings and the rest sit.
* man. Why don't they just get their s**t together? This is embarrassing.
Seems like there's a concerted effort to make sure they don't
Really?
Maybe I'm more naive than I thought.
Realistically, the bloke has to stand aside or there is the chance Dank could claim undue process at some stage later.
It's not really a stretch of the imagination to believe that issues like this would come up from time to time when you consider the ADRV Panel will always have some sports/drug scientists on board for their expertise, plus the ADRV Panel does a lot more than just hear about the odd AFL case. When the guy under the microscope is from that same field, it's understandable that they may have crossed paths before.
I work full time, have two young kids and still play ammos footy so I am pretty busy but because I am a nice guy, I will put my hand up and will accept a role on the panel.
I don't know Dank, Charters or anyone at Essendon, so I am sure I would be very impartial.
alchemy333
Senior List
I second that motionI work full time, have two young kids and still play ammos footy so I am pretty busy but because I am a nice guy, I will put my hand up and will accept a role on the panel.
I don't know Dank, Charters or anyone at Essendon, so I am sure I would be very impartial.
Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk
Dramoth
Premium Platinum
Ok... Shandog nailed it.
Fricker has had to stand aside because of past dealings with Dank. Dealings that could potentially cause a conflict of interest which would render any decision made by the panel invalid.
As for the fears that the panel cant sit, a quorum is the minimum number of members of an assembly that can meet to deliberate on a decision. In this case, the quorum of the panel is 4... we still have 5 unless both of the other new guys have had some sort of dealing with Dank.
If we lose one more member of the panel to a conflict of interest, no great loss. If we lose 2, then there is some outside agency trying to influence the decision and the ACC and the DPP needs to step in.
Fricker has had to stand aside because of past dealings with Dank. Dealings that could potentially cause a conflict of interest which would render any decision made by the panel invalid.
As for the fears that the panel cant sit, a quorum is the minimum number of members of an assembly that can meet to deliberate on a decision. In this case, the quorum of the panel is 4... we still have 5 unless both of the other new guys have had some sort of dealing with Dank.
If we lose one more member of the panel to a conflict of interest, no great loss. If we lose 2, then there is some outside agency trying to influence the decision and the ACC and the DPP needs to step in.
Jabba73
Hall of Famer
Now I understand the questions on the application form and why I missed out on the job, no previous links to Dank.
Thought it was a good thing I didn't, apparently not ....
Dramoth
Premium Platinum
It was the one about knowing Dave Evans that got me... I blagged the sports science stuff... faked writing a published paper on the use of illegal peptides in full contact sports to aid in muscle growth and recovery. But the Essendon* link blew me out of the water.
Hirdy you have 4 kids mate,and a wife that takes notesI work full time, have two young kids and still play ammos footy so I am pretty busy but because I am a nice guy, I will put my hand up and will accept a role on the panel.
I don't know Dank, Charters or anyone at Essendon, so I am sure I would be very impartial.
These governing bodies who look at drugs and corruption in sport around the world almost always take an extraordinary amount of time to tie these things up, particularly in complex cases. Lance Armstrong is a case in point. I think the ones that get through relatively quickly are the ones with positive tests such as Saad.
It's less the time taken and more the stories about not enough members, etc when they knew people were leaving. It feels like a real lack of organisation and planning.
No arguments from me on that...
- Status
