ASADA "stitch-up" over Essendon PED scandal

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Ancient Tiger

πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†
Sep 18, 2007
15,941
32,682
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
One of my wife's family friend is a massive Essendon supporter and as is ahem reading the tiser she is teeing off in Facebook, still standing by the club and hird and this "stitch up article" is now the new basis.

In fact let's just call it a meltdown now. Watch out AFL, she's coming for you.
Somehow I don’t think the AFL are going to be too worried.......:cool:
 

Duckimus Prime

Premiership Player
Apr 26, 2008
4,104
6,231
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
This would never happen BUT if it did, it would be permitted as it would be classed as an NSAID which I believe are permitted drug types. If it were discovered to be an anabolic steroid it would obviously be banned.
Saying it would never happen is not realistic because the situation actually does happen a lot.

The classification of drugs does change.

And the example of a country pushing through a dodgy approval isn't even needed. It happens with other drugs as well. A recentish example is trimetazidine, the substance that Chinese swimmer Sun Yang was caught using. It was originally classified as a stimulant, so banned from use in competition. So outside of competitions an athlete could take this with no issue. It was later reclassified to not be a stimulant, but to be banned at all times.

Then there's Maria Sharapova and meldonium. She'd been taking it for years, perfectly legally. Approved for human use by many countries and all that. Until 2015 when WADA went through investigations and decided it was a performance enhancing drug, banned from the start of 2016 onwards. Anyone taking it before then was fine, after that time, like Sharapova and you're in trouble.

None of this helps the Bombers players, because Thymosin Beta IV has always been banned. AOD-9076 was a weird one though, it never went through the trials to get therapeutic use approval because it has no therapeutic use. But it could be legally (not the same as allowed in sports) used by humans in body building supplements. So there were lots of questions about whether it should be really caught under S0. Thats why they never really pursued that substance.
 

Ancient Tiger

πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†
Sep 18, 2007
15,941
32,682
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
Saying it would never happen is not realistic because the situation actually does happen a lot.

The classification of drugs does change.

And the example of a country pushing through a dodgy approval isn't even needed. It happens with other drugs as well. A recentish example is trimetazidine, the substance that Chinese swimmer Sun Yang was caught using. It was originally classified as a stimulant, so banned from use in competition. So outside of competitions an athlete could take this with no issue. It was later reclassified to not be a stimulant, but to be banned at all times.

Then there's Maria Sharapova and meldonium. She'd been taking it for years, perfectly legally. Approved for human use by many countries and all that. Until 2015 when WADA went through investigations and decided it was a performance enhancing drug, banned from the start of 2016 onwards. Anyone taking it before then was fine, after that time, like Sharapova and you're in trouble.

None of this helps the Bombers players, because Thymosin Beta IV has always been banned. AOD-9076 was a weird one though, it never went through the trials to get therapeutic use approval because it has no therapeutic use. But it could be legally (not the same as allowed in sports) used by humans in body building supplements. So there were lots of questions about whether it should be really caught under S0. Thats why they never really pursued that substance.
I’m not sure why you quoted me and then used completely different examples to what I was talking about.

The situation does not happen a lot if at all. Trimetazidine is an antianginal drug. That’s how it got its approval for therapeutic use. It was used mainly in France in this fashion. It was not an experimental drug approved only by one country to get it past the S0 classification which was what I was I was eluding to.
 

avignon

Debutant
Oct 8, 2004
141
44
Other Teams
ESSENDON
Alvai refused to sign his transcript of evidence because it wasn't a true/accurate account of what he said. Thymosin Beta 4 never used. Too many incosistencies with the name in Walker's report. The one player proved to have been administered illegal substances (at the Suns) gets let off....OMG.
 

Ancient Tiger

πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†
Sep 18, 2007
15,941
32,682
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
Alvai refused to sign his transcript of evidence because it wasn't a true/accurate account of what he said. Thymosin Beta 4 never used. Too many incosistencies with the name in Walker's report. The one player proved to have been administered illegal substances (at the Suns) gets let off....OMG.
The only real inconsistencies are with the defence. Dank said he used thymomodulin and Essendon said that they used Thymosin alpha 1. The only invoice showing anything was bought by the supplier via the mule Shane Charters was thymosin beta 4. Not a single purchase order or invoice of those other agents have EVER been produced. If that’s not damming, I’m not sure what is.
 

Chief

Overlord
Dec 1, 1999
98,067
76,075
Brisbane
AFL Club
Carlton
The only real inconsistencies are with the defence. Dank said he used thymomodulin and Essendon said that they used Thymosin alpha 1. The only invoice showing anything was bought by the supplier via the mule Shane Charters was thymosin beta 4. Not a single purchase order or invoice of those other agents have EVER been produced. If that’s not damming, I’m not sure what is.
Where are the financials?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

avignon

Debutant
Oct 8, 2004
141
44
Other Teams
ESSENDON
Where are the financials?
The old threads in the cable weave argument. Dank had other clients and Alvai's testimonial wasnt signed due to it not being an accurate record. So he throws Nathan Bock under a bus and Bock confesses, but charges dropped. The ONLY player to have direct evidence and no charges....go figure.
 
Last edited:

Lavender Bushranger

Norm Smith Medallist
Aug 25, 2005
7,528
11,344
Grogansville
AFL Club
Gold Coast
The old threads in the cable weave argument. Dank had other clients and Alvai's testimonial wasnt signed due to it not being an accurate record. So he throws Nathan Bock under a bus and Bock confesses, but charges dropped. The ONLY player to have direct evidence and no charges....go figure.
Don't tell Bruce that.

It flies in the face of his 'the governmemt pressured ASADA to find someone guilty to back up their Blackest Day in Sport announcement' theory.
 

Ancient Tiger

πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†
Sep 18, 2007
15,941
32,682
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
The old threads in the cable weave argument. Dank had other clients and Alvai's testimonial wasnt signed due to it not being an accurate record. So he throws Nathan Bock under a bus and Bock confesses, but charges dropped. The ONLY player to have direct evidence and no charges....go figure.
Surely if you're performing a mass injection program you would have some record of where the drugs were purchased from. Even if you lost those records, Dank would know where he bought the drugs from and you could go and ask for another copy of the invoices. And yet not one iota of evidence was put forward by the defense to show any of these invoices. You talk about inaccuracies but what you really need to talk about is being comfortably satisfied they took banned substances because that is the burden of proof required at this level. It must be absolutely imperative that in any off-site injection program, the defence must have good evidence of what was given. I'm talking about real invoices that can be checked. If you cannot provide these one must assume that you are cheating because there is no other logical reason not to come forth with such evidence. That is why we still have the ridiculous situation where players are saying they are innocent because they didn't take banned substances but they're not sure what they had.
 

avignon

Debutant
Oct 8, 2004
141
44
Other Teams
ESSENDON
Surely if you're performing a mass injection program you would have some record of where the drugs were purchased from. Even if you lost those records, Dank would know where he bought the drugs from and you could go and ask for another copy of the invoices. And yet not one iota of evidence was put forward by the defense to show any of these invoices. You talk about inaccuracies but what you really need to talk about is being comfortably satisfied they took banned substances because that is the burden of proof required at this level. It must be absolutely imperative that in any off-site injection program, the defence must have good evidence of what was given. I'm talking about real invoices that can be checked. If you cannot provide these one must assume that you are cheating because there is no other logical reason not to come forth with such evidence. That is why we still have the ridiculous situation where players are saying they are innocent because they didn't take banned substances but they're not sure what they had.
And of course there was less comfort that Bock took anything? That's the only other one apart from some MFC 'cream' issues IIRC.
 

Ancient Tiger

πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†πŸ†
Sep 18, 2007
15,941
32,682
Richmond
AFL Club
Richmond
And of course there was less comfort that Bock took anything? That's the only other one apart from some MFC 'cream' issues IIRC.
This is not the Bock thread. That's another discussion. So too the Melbourne issue. I'm not sure how arguing about others excuses anything for Essendon.
 

avignon

Debutant
Oct 8, 2004
141
44
Other Teams
ESSENDON
This is not the Bock thread. That's another discussion. So too the Melbourne issue. I'm not sure how arguing about others excuses anything for Essendon.
Just a matter of fairness. isnt equalisation what the AFL is all about? Also adds to the general smell of a stitch up when others are overlooked with more compelling evidence like confessions. Besides I would have thought a thread about Essendon being stitched up here would lend itself pretty well to examples where stitch ups didnt occur in comparison.
 

Chief

Overlord
Dec 1, 1999
98,067
76,075
Brisbane
AFL Club
Carlton
The old threads in the cable weave argument. Dank had other clients and Alvai's testimonial wasnt signed due to it not being an accurate record. So he throws Nathan Bock under a bus and Bock confesses, but charges dropped. The ONLY player to have direct evidence and no charges....go figure.
Where are the receipts and documentation? Not produced. End of story.
 

Remove this Banner Ad