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

[Ancient Tiger]

Ok. ( I think I'm out of my knowledge depth here).

Well JA,

If the accused believed that they were being charged with taking a drug not on the list then they should have appealed and Shown Cause as to why they should not proceed from that stage. It should have been argued there. Once the drugs legality had been established, then the case would either have been dropped (permitted substance) or continued (banned).

The players and their representatives did not argue this at that stage so they accept that they have been charged with a banned drug.

Simple.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Are you saying that TB4 is a VEGF?

In which case, ASADA merely needs to say as much because VEGFs are clearly banned under S2.

But if you are saying that TB4 is similar to a VEFG, then such a claim must be demonstrated to the comfortable satisfaction of the Tribunal.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15037013
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17632766
And the best one...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23749167
"The inhibition of Notch1 or Notch4 also blocked Tβ4-induced VEGF and HIF-1α expression. VE-cadherin is the major endothelial adhesion molecule in the control of angiogenesis."

So how much more obvious do you want it to be?

You are truly out of your depth GG.

I've told you to give up but you don't and continue to embarrass yourself.

 

[threesixpio]

Well JA,

If the accused believed that they were being charged with taking a drug not on the list then they should have appealed and Shown Cause as to why they should not proceed from that stage. It should have been argued there. Once the drugs legality had been established, then the case would either have been dropped (permitted substance) or continued (banned).

The players and their representatives did not argue this at that stage so they accept that they have been charged with a banned drug.

Simple.

Cool. Thanks AT.

 

[blackshadow]

He was able to escape punishment because he had received different materials to those he had ordered (he had ordered TB-500, which was considered prohibited under S2 and would have seen him banned), which was able to be determined based on analysis of materials, based on the Dutch and German language reporting at the time, so the version you state is quite different, whatever the reason for the discrepancy might be, as you seem to be suggesting that TB-500 had been deemed not to be doping product, but it was not TB500 to begin with.

This has been pointed out before on this board but it doesn't suit the fantasy The GG is trying to create.

It looks like an inconvenient truth The GG has chosen to ignore.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[mxett]

Well JA,

If the accused believed that they were being charged with taking a drug not on the list then they should have appealed and Shown Cause as to why they should not proceed from that stage. It should have been argued there. Once the drugs legality had been established, then the case would either have been dropped (permitted substance) or continued (banned).

The players and their representatives did not argue this at that stage so they accept that they have been charged with a banned drug.

Simple.

agree. ASADA ask the athlete "show cause why you shouldnt receive an infraction for using substance ABC". The athlete responds with "we didnt use ABC because....." or "we shouldnt receive an infraction because ABC isnt a banned substances"

 

[blackshadow]

I don't think you're that stupid.

I do.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[threesixpio]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15037013
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17632766
And the best one...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23749167
"The inhibition of Notch1 or Notch4 also blocked Tβ4-induced VEGF and HIF-1α expression. VE-cadherin is the major endothelial adhesion molecule in the control of angiogenesis."

So how much more obvious do you want it to be?

You are truly out of your depth GG.

I've told you to give up but you don't and continue to embarrass yourself.

The Bombers need a poster with a pharmacy background on their retainer. Gotta give GG credit for trying though....nah

 

[threesixpio]

agree. ASADA ask the athlete "show cause why you shouldnt receive an infraction for using substance ABC". The athlete responds with "we didnt use ABC because....." or "we shouldnt receive an infraction because ABC isnt a banned substances"

And thank you too

 

[threesixpio]

I'm sure he was sent SCN months ago and did not respond. He has now been issued IN along with players.

Jenny - this is a really important point that isn't being spoken about enough on the HTB. Is his matter also at the tribunal? I think so and so do you. To me this is hugely important to the way things will run across the board

 

[compact72]

Jenny - this is a really important point that isn't being spoken about enough on the HTB. Is his matter also at the tribunal? I think so and so do you. To me this is hugely important to the way things will run across the board

Absolutely correct. He has been appointed to the Tribunal, however he has stated (i'm pretty sure) he will not attend it, only the Essendon one

 

[threesixpio]

Absolutely correct. He has been appointed to the Tribunal, however he has stated (i'm pretty sure) he will not attend it, only the Essendon one

Other posters have stated that without cooperation that adverse findings can be made - one can assume that those findings would be made against Dank. i still haven't received a view from people about 15(c) of the AFL doping code:

15. PROOF OF DOPING

15.2 Methods of Establishing Facts and Presumptions

Facts related to Anti-Doping Rule Violations may be established by any reliable means, including admissions.31 The following rules of proof shall be applicable in Doping cases:

(c) The facts established by a decision of a court or professional disciplinary tribunal of competent jurisdiction which is not the subject of a pending appeal shall be irrebuttable evidence against the Player or other Person to whom the decision pertained of those facts unless the Player or other Person establishes that the decision violated principles of natural justice.

If Dank's matter proceeds undefended the above clause in the code leads me to think that any finding of fact in his matter can be used as evidence in the player's matters.

Would be more than happy to be proved wrong but I am struggling to see how I'm wrong.

 

[threesixpio]

And if I'm right
(A) This could explain why Dank is going to give evidence;
(B) The players are in big trouble and
(C) The natural justice "onus" appears to be on the players. To what extent would the players NEED to ensure Dank's presence ie subpoeana him if, by not doing so, the established facts in his case could be accepted as evidence

 

[jenny61_99]

Jenny - this is a really important point that isn't being spoken about enough on the HTB. Is his matter also at the tribunal? I think so and so do you. To me this is hugely important to the way things will run across the board

I don't think so because Dank already said he wouldn't be turning up. Then of course Martin Hardie said he would be turning up. Anyone's guess I suppose, but if it's true that dank will be arguing why the drug shouldnt be on the prohibited list, it will make for a very entertaining couple of days.

 

[threesixpio]

I don't think so because Dank already said he wouldn't be turning up. Then of course Martin Hardie said he would be turning up. Anyone's guess I suppose, but if it's true that dank will be arguing why the drug shouldnt be on the prohibited list, it will make for a very entertaining couple of days.

His absence and lack of cooperation has implications for the finding of fact though - see above

 

[NamibianBlue]

To be honest I just find Essendon's spin machine so tiring at the moment. They are like a cat in a tumble dryer .... painful to listen to before the eventual fatality!

 

[Gigantor]

He was able to escape punishment because he had received different materials to those he had ordered (he had ordered TB-500, which was considered prohibited under S2 and would have seen him banned), which was able to be determined based on analysis of materials, based on the Dutch and German language reporting at the time, so the version you state is quite different, whatever the reason for the discrepancy might be, as you seem to be suggesting that TB-500 had been deemed not to be doping product, but it was not TB500 to begin with.

I didn't suggest anything, I reported what happened.

Aren't all peptides just amino acids?

At what point does a peptide become "doping material"?

 

[Gigantor]

What I don't understand is why you referred to ASADA not having the authority to add or remove items / to ASADA's 'interpretation' not being binding, when there is no evidence ASADA has done anything other than administer the code locally.

They can administer the code locally.

But when it comes to determinining whether there has been an ADRV, the authority of what is prohibited is the Prohibited List.

The ASADA website carries zero authority.

 

[Gigantor]

I don't think you're that stupid.

There are several things wrong with you statement. Firstly the "Prohibited List" is the name of a document published by WADA that describes the substances that are prohibited. When the anti-doping code refers to the Prohibited list it is referring to this document, not to the few substances that are named within it.

Secondly, the anti-doping code does not say (as you seem to imagine) that only those substances named in the document titled "Prohibited List" are banned. It says any substances described in the Prohibited List are banned.

Thirdly, in addition to describing a small number of substances by naming them, the WADA code specifically renders a potentially infinite number of substances prohibited by describing their effects. In other words, it bans them by function, not by name.

TB4 is explicitly prohibited because it functions in a manner that is banned. Naming it is not necessary, it would be redundant.

This has patiently been explained to you many times.

You have accused BC of making statements he has NOT made.

At no stage as BC said that TB4 may or may not fall into any of these categories or catchall clauses, but ASADA's interpretation of that is not binding on the Tribunal, and if requested, ASADA would have to demonstrate that a substance does fit into a certain category or catchall clause to the comfortable satisfaction of the Tribunal.

 

[threesixpio]

They can administer the code locally.

But when it comes to determinining whether there has been an ADRV, the authority of what is prohibited is the Prohibited List.

The ASADA website carries zero authority.

What about what MXETT and AT have said which is essentially that the tribunal is the wrong stage of the process to raise this issue? NB: I ask that you be open to looking at this because you're a smart bloke

 

[threesixpio]

You have accused BC of making statements he has NOT made.

At no stage as BC said that TB4 may or may not fall into any of these categories or catchall clauses, but ASADA's interpretation of that is not binding on the Tribunal, and if requested, ASADA would have to demonstrate that a substance does fit into a certain category or catchall clause to the comfortable satisfaction of the Tribunal.

He said unequivocally that it was not on the list. The answer is that it might not be or it might be

 

[Ancient Tiger]

I didn't suggest anything, I reported what happened.

Aren't all peptides just amino acids?

At what point does a peptide become "doping material"?

When it clearly transgresses the rules as written clearly by WADA.
I noticed you didn't respond to my post showing that TB4 works through VEGF too.
And you then said those drugs are clearly banned...,

 

[Gigantor]

I'm fine with that GG - but I think it is deceptive to say definitively that it's not on the list. "It might not be" on the list is a better answer

It's correct to say that it is not specifically named, and that it may or may not fit into one of the categories or catchall definitions.

Once we reach that point, the next question becomes: how binding on the Tribunal is an ASADA ruling that something does fit into one of the categories or catchall definitions?

Is not the defence entitled to ask ASADA to demonstrate to the Tribunal on what basis it has classified TB4 as falling within the ambit of S2, and to challenge any evidence ASADA puts forward on that score (if the defence does not share ASADA's view)?

 

[threesixpio]

It's correct to say that it is not specifically named, and that it may or may not fit into one of the categories or catchall definitions.

Once we reach that point, the next question becomes: how binding on the Tribunal is an ASADA ruling that something does fit into one of the categories or catchall definitions?

Is not the defence entitled to ask ASADA to demonstrate to the Tribunal on what basis it has classified TB4 as falling within the ambit of S2, and to challenge any evidence ASADA puts forward on that score (if the defence does not share ASADA's view)?

But can this issue be raised at the tribunal stage. MXETT and AT say no

 

[hfchfc]

Are BC and the GG the same person? They never seem to be posting at the same time, but GG refers to BC frequently in his posts.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

You have accused BC of making statements he has NOT made.

At no stage as BC said that TB4 may or may not fall into any of these categories or catchall clauses, but ASADA's interpretation of that is not binding on the Tribunal, and if requested, ASADA would have to demonstrate that a substance does fit into a certain category or catchall clause to the comfortable satisfaction of the Tribunal.

I have demonstrated how it fits into S2. Scientific studies given. No response.