Appeal ASADA v Dank (AFL) WADA V Players CAS(Nov), WADA v Dank? New evidence players tested TB4

Remove this Banner Ad

Because
most likely using new advanced methods.
I actually don't think it's the final nail, just another small bit on top of the mountain of circumstantial evidence pointing to TB4.

Ta
 
So the two players should retest themselves, if naturally elevated levels they likely still elevated hence a retest now will help prove that.

If the two are now within the normal range it strengthens WADAs argument.

I'm sure Hirdy will be on the blower to Charters to get that sorted out.
 
can see a few scientists appearing as expert witnesses for both sides now, WADA finding some to support that "the samples from two players suggest external administration and argued that this result confirmed the substance sports scientist Stephen Dank injected into players was TB4"

and the players lawyers arguing that these are natural levels.

What I really now want to know is how many times did these players get tested? Did they have multiple tests done? If so did the abnormal levels only appear in the one test and other tests normal? which would in my mind support the brief window of detection argument and help discount natural level arguments.



Would be easy to target test the two players involved over a 6 month period to see if these "naturally" occurring abnormally high readings are seen again. Basis of biological passports, identify an athletes normal range of biological markers to see if an athletes markers spike. Here We have a spiked reading now to see if it is outside said athletes naturally occurring ranges.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Would be easy to target test the two players involved over a 6 month period to see if these "naturally" occurring abnormally high readings are seen again. Basis of biological passports, identify an athletes normal range of biological markers to see if an athletes markers spike. Here We have a spiked reading now to see if it is outside said athletes naturally occurring ranges.

Yup that's my thinking, if I was the players defence team I be getting a few tests done and hoping like hell they elevated.

And just in case they not we not telling WADA we doing the testing.
 
Ummmm.... where have the 'experts in the lab said that it was certainly administered'... or are we just assuming that from the article...

its certainly naturally occurring as well... and that is stated.
Not assuming anything. That's why I sad "if". And it's a big if.
 
Could someone please change the title of this thread to more accurately reflect what has been reported.
Can someone please accurately report on what this development means...

They have got plenty of comment from Esendon and players lawyers with predictable responses but WADA as usual says nada. Must peeve the s**t out of them all the leaks drying up like that, with only Ings to turn to.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

There is no test for TB4 which will just say "positive". Abnormally high levels is good evidence though.
You said tested positive just a minute ago in another thread and even used the word flipping lol - get your story straight. What happens for other naturally occuring substances in terms of 'positive' tests and athletes being stood down?
 
You said tested positive just a minute ago in another thread and even used the word flipping lol - get your story straight. What happens for other naturally occuring substances in terms of 'positive' tests and athletes being stood down?
That's actually a good question. What happens if you have abnormally high levels of HGH in your system?

Yeah I hadn't read the article properly then.
 
That's actually a good question. What happens if you have abnormally high levels of HGH in your system?

Yeah I hadn't read the article properly then.
Thorpe didn't get done for abnormally high testosterone
 
That's actually a good question. What happens if you have abnormally high levels of HGH in your system?

Yeah I hadn't read the article properly then.

There is a 'banned level' of hgh.

If it's too high, you'll be banned. If it's high enough to raise suspicions, but not over the limit, ASADA will investigate you.


This is the same. In isolation, it wouldn't get a player banned. But combined with the rest of the case, it's not good for Essendon.
 
There is a 'banned level' of hgh.

If it's too high, you'll be banned. If it's high enough to raise suspicions, but not over the limit, ASADA will investigate you.


This is the same. In isolation, it wouldn't get a player banned. But combined with the rest of the case, it's not good for Essendon.

With testing for peptides still in their infancy has WADA even established what a "banned" level is? There is certainly no public information available on how to interpret TB4 test results, or TB4 testing procedures that WADA has released. They tend to announce when there is a new official test.

Agree it's not good for the 34 players, remains to be seen how bad the news is.
 
You said tested positive just a minute ago in another thread and even used the word flipping lol - get your story straight. What happens for other naturally occuring substances in terms of 'positive' tests and athletes being stood down?
The terminology used in this thread reflects that of the doping world reported in the media.

If swimmer X test for high levels of a particular thingie then it is reported as a positive test. If swimmer Y test for a slightly lower level of the same thingie then there is no positive test.

The terminology is from the good old days when athletes pumped themselves with roids and hoped they didn't get tested.

Note: replace the word thingie above with appropriate medical terminology for stuff found in the body.
 
I didn't say anything like that. I was wondering exactly what abnormally high meant in this context, where 7.5% showed this. Can these results be explained by chance? What are the thresholds etc.

I was asking some pertinent questions Spackler, not the same old sh*t you just came up with.
There would obviously be an acceptable range for a naturally occurring substance, as it will vary from person to person and some will naturally produce more than others, but for them to say "abnormally high" would indicate that it's either at the high end of acceptability, or just over the limits. I guess the easiest thing to do would be to test those two players again. If they are back to "normal" levels, or significantly lower, then it would indicate that it was more than likely not a "natural" variance.
The fact that the other players didn't return those same high levels will be hotly debated by both sides at the hearing, but proving that those two players don't have naturally high levels would cast a massive shadow over the rest. The fact that the other samples didn't show the same results won't matter a great deal, as there is only a short window for a positive test.
 
What an amazing string of coincidences, it just keeps growing!

Dank was put in control of the "supplements" program at Essendon.
Dank ordered TB4 from Charter.
Charter ordered TB4 from China - a company that has stated the only Thymosin they produce is TB4.
The Chinese company delivered.
Charter received what he believed was TB4 and passed it on to Alavi.
Alavi received what he believed was TB4 and arranged compounding.
Alavi's assistant compounded what she believed was TB4.
Alavi delivered what he believed to be TB4 to Dank.
Dank received what he believed was TB4.
At some stage in here (I'm not sure when) the substance was tested and was consistent with the molecular weight of TB4.
Players consented to receive Thymosin.
Players were given subcutaneous injections.
Players talked among each other about their Thymo injections.
Dank has since been found guilty and banned for life from any WADA affiliated sport for being a bad man in Rugby League and Baseball, but he was allegedly a good man at AFL.
Twenty Seven players give urine to ASADA for anti-doping tests during the span of the "supplement" program.
Testing procedures have improved.
Two samples have since been tested and found to have elevated levels of TB4, a substance that only shows for a very, very short time.

Seriously, comfortable satisfaction should have been achieved two years ago.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top