Martin Hardie alleges Dank will give evidence to AFL anti doping tribunal

[Bobby Charlton]

I'm shocked that Bobby Charlton would stoop to selective quoting to push his laughable agenda...

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

We are told not to post whole articles. The part I posted was very relevant to Ancient Tiger's reference to an international panel study of the relevance of TB4 to the S2 category. Pierik did not put quote marks on the part I posted and he did not attribute those statements to anybody else. I assume the words were Pierik's own and represented his own understanding.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Thank you that but it does not answer my question regarding your statement that "a panel of international experts have deemed it comes under the S2 catch all phrase.".
I was asking you for the identity of that international panel which deemed it comes under the S2 catch all phrase and some output from that study. It is just surprising if such an international panel met for that purpose and came to that conclusion that WADA have not adopted what that panel "deemed" and specifically included TB4 in their list of prohibited substances along with all the many other substances they have specifically included in the S2 category. Perhaps it's just a matter of time. When did that international panel make their report? Was it recently? A link to the study by the international panel with their conclusions would be helpful.

Do you want the names of the current panel or the panel that deemed TB4 as part of S2? They do change members I believe and finding out who was in that panel in the past may be difficult.

 

[blackcat]

maybe, just maybe, it is time for Dank to bring in the Parkinsons peptides and the cognitive enhancers.

 

[Bobby Charlton]

Do you want the names of the current panel or the panel that deemed TB4 as part of S2? They do change members I believe and finding out who was in that panel in the past may be difficult.

As I explained much earlier in the thread I'd be interested to see the study on which ASADA made their decision to include TB4 in their own list of prohibited substances (I wouldn't understand the details but an abstract would help). I wasn't aware that such an international panel of experts existed and it seems odd that ASADA have acted on its conclusions for TB4 and specifically included TB4 in its prohibited list whilst WADA has not. Such a study by such a body, having sufficient official status, would presumably be all that ASADA would have to produce if its prohibition was challenged.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

We are told not to post whole articles. The part I posted was very relevant to Ancient Tiger's reference to an international panel study of the relevance of TB4 to the S2 category. Pierik did not put quote marks on the part I posted and he did not attribute those statements to anybody else. I assume the words were Pierik's own and represented his own understanding.

Actually why should I do all the work for you?
Why don't you contact Dr Mario Thevis, who I think heads the panel (or often does). I last remember talking to him when he was at UCLA but he may have left there since we last spoke.

Good luck.

Edit: found him. He has moved back to Germany as head of the Center for Preventive Doping Research, German Sport University, in Cologne.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

As I explained much earlier in the thread I'd be interested to see the study on which ASADA made their decision to include TB4 in their own list of prohibited substances (I wouldn't understand the details but an abstract would help). I wasn't aware that such an international panel of experts existed and it seems odd that ASADA have acted on its conclusions for TB4 and specifically included TB4 in its prohibited list whilst WADA has not. Such a study by such a body, having sufficient official status, would presumably be all that ASADA would have to produce if its prohibition was challenged.

They do not conduct studies themselves. They review the current literature and then decide which drugs fall into which categories. The panel may not have put TB4 by name into the S2 classification because they felt the catch all clause captures it 100%. They cannot possibly list each new drug individually or else the list would be too long. The WADA code gives us categories of drugs. It does not profess to name every drug. As such, it says that you should check with your local authority (ASADA) for individual drugs. ASADA had been advidsed that TB4 was caught by the catch all clause in the S2 category by WADA and so they added this to their banned list when checking drugs. Does that make sense?

 

[threesixpio]

As I explained much earlier in the thread I'd be interested to see the study on which ASADA made their decision to include TB4 in their own list of prohibited substances (I wouldn't understand the details but an abstract would help). I wasn't aware that such an international panel of experts existed and it seems odd that ASADA have acted on its conclusions for TB4 and specifically included TB4 in its prohibited list whilst WADA has not. Such a study by such a body, having sufficient official status, would presumably be all that ASADA would have to produce if its prohibition was challenged.

It is on their prohibited list. See previous page with my links.

 

[jenny61_99]

isnt it funny, now that TB4 is being challenged as being banned all of a sudden by laurel and hardie, we have a certain poster or two who immediately have jumped on that bandwagon and are fighting that fight specifically. Makes you wonder if indeed Hardie is amongst us in certain guises. Word to the wise marty, your fight is with ASADA, you wont win any battles here.

Or there.

 

[Spongebob]

Dear ASADA,

why is thymosin Beta 4 listed on your checkmysubstances as a prohibited substance in land out of competition?

Love and kisses....Spongebob

Dear Spongebob,

we receive ongoing advice from WADA about certain substances. One such substance is thymosin beta 4, also known as TB500.

When we receive such advice, WADA tells us the category under which a substance is prohibited and provide links to scientific evidence that has been used to make the determination.

You will note that it is not just ASADA that says this substance is prohibited. Global DRO, used by USADA and UKAD, among others, specifies this substance as prohbited under S2.

Group Hug.......ASADA

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Until someone remotely connected to the players floats this option, why are we giving it so much cred?

As of now only two people are advocating it, Dank and Hardie, and neither has any involvement with the players defense.

Ffs it's like listening to Terry Wallace on why Richmond drafted ABC in this years draft.

 

[threesixpio]

Dear ASADA,

why is thymosin Beta 4 listed on your checkmysubstances as a prohibited substance in land out of competition?

Love and kisses....Spongebob

Dear Spongebob,

we receive ongoing advice from WADA about certain substances. One such substance is thymosin beta 4, also known as TB500.

When we receive such advice, WADA tells us the category under which a substance is prohibited and provide links to scientific evidence that has been used to make the determination.

You will note that it is not just ASADA that says this substance is prohibited. Global DRO, used by USADA and UKAD, among others, specifies this substance as prohbited under S2.

Group Hug.......ASADA

Gotta love this board sometimes

 

[jenny61_99]

Last time I checked this is an AFL tribunal.

The AFL have no authority to challenge ASADAs classification of TB4. How does the AFL do that?

As I said, it's too bad they wanted to rush this at the SCN stage. That is where these arguments could have been made. In front of ASADA.

According to WADA, nobody can question the classification of any drugs.

 

[FuManchu]

According to WADA, nobody can question the classification of any drugs.

Hardie has special dispensation.

 

[GarnerSmash]

So, at the last, those linked with the public defence of Essendon and Danks methods are now questioning the legality of the substance they deny using?

Sounds legit.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

So, at the last, those linked with the public defence of Essendon and Danks methods are now questioning the legality of the substance they deny using?

Sounds legit.

who connected with the players defence is questioning the legality of the substances?

EFC is not at the tribunal hearing, so Hardie's option is of little meaning as he is not working for the players or the AFLPA.

 

[jenny61_99]

Hardie has special dispensation.

He's got a special something alright. Just not sure what!

 

[jenny61_99]

who connected with the players defence is questioning the legality of the substances?

EFC is not at the tribunal hearing, so Hardie's option is of little meaning as he is not working for the players or the AFLPA.

No, he's on the Dank side now.

 

[FuManchu]

No, he's on the Dank side now.

There was always going to be a divergence of the players interests and other parties that were seen to be on the one side.

 

[threesixpio]

Until someone remotely connected to the players floats this option, why are we giving it so much cred?

As of now only two people are advocating it, Dank and Hardie, and neither has any involvement with the players defense.

Ffs it's like listening to Terry Wallace on why Richmond drafted ABC in this years draft.

Don't agree. If Dank gets up and says this the players are f&cked

 

[threesixpio]

Or says he used TB4 more specifically

 

[threesixpio]

who connected with the players defence is questioning the legality of the substances?

EFC is not at the tribunal hearing, so Hardie's option is of little meaning as he is not working for the players or the AFLPA.

Can I request some clarification - is Danks own SCN listed (for want of a better phrase) with the Players' SCNs at the tribunal? Jenny seemed to imply it was. This is super important I reckon

 

[coryne]

As I explained much earlier in the thread I'd be interested to see the study on which ASADA made their decision to include TB4 in their own list of prohibited substances (I wouldn't understand the details but an abstract would help). I wasn't aware that such an international panel of experts existed and it seems odd that ASADA have acted on its conclusions for TB4 and specifically included TB4 in its prohibited list whilst WADA has not. Such a study by such a body, having sufficient official status, would presumably be all that ASADA would have to produce if its prohibition was challenged.

Multiple organizations have TB4 as a prohibited substance from their "check substance" tools, and the clauses will NEVER list ALL the substances that fall under them (thus being "catch-all" clauses. It is however stated repeatedly that if an item is not specifically identified then that does not mean that it is free to use and to contact the anti-doping agency in the region to verify its status.


Why is TB4 banned you ask ??? Because studies have linked it to properties which suggest that it is performance enhancing ........... Once a substance has such properties linked to it then the MO appears to be to ban it until it is shown that it isn't performance enhancing (thus why caffeine was been bounced on and off of the prohibited substance list). The premise seems to be to ban anything which may provide the athlete with an unfair advantage until it is proven otherwise. Yes this is one of those cases where you have to prove a negative but hey, I couldn't care less if some substance are ultimately banned then approved because the alternative is that some PED will be available when they shouldn't be. It isn't a god given right that athletes should be able to access drugs which may improve their performance, if they require a substance to recover from an injury then TUE are available in special circumstances but otherwise drugs should not be being accessed for no other reason than to change an athletes physiology or biochemistry to improve recovery or enhance muscle growth/regeneration. If you don't like the system then don't participate in a WADA-compliant sport.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

No, he's on the Dank side now.

that means his connection to the players defence is even weaker

 

[coryne]

Dear ASADA,

why is thymosin Beta 4 listed on your checkmysubstances as a prohibited substance in land out of competition?

Love and kisses....Spongebob

Dear Spongebob,

we receive ongoing advice from WADA about certain substances. One such substance is thymosin beta 4, also known as TB500.

When we receive such advice, WADA tells us the category under which a substance is prohibited and provide links to scientific evidence that has been used to make the determination.

You will note that it is not just ASADA that says this substance is prohibited. Global DRO, used by USADA and UKAD, among others, specifies this substance as prohbited under S2.

Group Hug.......ASADA

Actual communication ??? Would love a group hug from ASADA ...... lol

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Don't agree. If Dank gets up and says this the players are f&cked

get up where? at court as he promised? or at the tribunal as he may or may not (but only might if the session is public)

he's been saying he will tell all only at court, and has failed to do so for two years. do you honestly think he will go to the tribunal?