Dank tells Mannah peptides are safe

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
The 747 said:
It's been an interesting topic and board. The information and analysis here is far better than in the commercial media (if you ignore the flaming) and definitely funnier. But yeah the crap music is on and people are looking for taxis now...
Click to expand...

The HTB will do it's normal trick though of flaring up for a few days with each major happening. Such as the appeal result, Jobe's Brownlow decision, compensation settlement.. Dank' appeals if they ever go ahead
 
sameolds33 said:
How would me speculating on the evidence placed before CAS prove anything? It would be just another opinion based on what I've read.

Do I think, from what I've read, that tb4 was administered to the players? It's certainly possible. James Hird has said as much and he's much closer to the action than I am. My point is that neither you or I can know or prove anything about tb4 from what we've read. We're not going to get definitive answers either way so it's just opinion.

I appreciate that you've put a lot of time and energy in coming to your opinion and want to debate it. What's your view on the CAS panel's comment that they were comfortably satisfied that all 34 players had had at least one injection? I seem to recall reading a lot of stuff about the accepted protocols of tb4 for there to be a beneficial effect. Why would a player have only one injection? I know that for the purposes of establishing the offence, the panel only needed to be satisfied that all 34 were administered with the prohibited substance once but at sentencing, the panel was also convinced that there was a systematic doping program in place (ie found intention to dope). How could that be if some players only had one injection and the tb4 protocol requires more than one?

I do think the entire process, from the self-reporting to the joint investigation and the media leaks in 2013 was inherently flawed. From what I've seen the WADA/CAS process is weighted in favour of the prosecutor.

I wonder whether ASADA/WADA will come to see this case as winning the battle but losing the war. There are enough questions about the transparency and the fairness of the both the process and the CAS decision that may work against the crusade against drugs in sport (and, for the record, I don't think that the supplements program can be defended or that doping is to be encouraged.) I'm not anti-ASADA or WADA even though I think that the CAS decision was unjust in this case.

I don't expect the HTB to respect my opinion or be persuaded by it. However, I don't believe that I've made personal potshots or gone after the HTB in a way that was intended to hurt your personal or collective feelings - but, to be honest, if your feelings were hurt, I'm not feeling a lot of contrition. I'm allowed to express my view, despite it being unpopular with the HTB narrative and the repeated requests that I stop.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your answer.
The problem both sides had here was that the defence bundled all candidates under the one umbrella. The players also did not help their case at all by not having a single recollection of an injection when asked by the anti doping people when collecting specimens. Obviously the CAS found that unbelievable. Players were able to recall paracetamol but not one player recalled a painful injection from the previous 7 days. I understand that not all players possibly received injections in the previous 7 days but it is inconceivable that not one player got any at any of the visits.
So, faced with this and no alternative to TB4, they were all found guilty. I probably would have been happier if they were all convicted of intending to use a banned substance. Just like those athletes that are found guilty for receiving drugs in the mail but not necessarily using them. They all signed consents for Thymosin and it was established that the only thymosin on site was TB4. That would have been a better "look" for the players who possibly didn't get injected with TB4 although I still believe they all received some TB4.
 
sameolds33 said:
Agree. That's why it is impossible to argue the evidence from the sidelines - none of us have the facts to support our opinions.

Edit: Sorry, poorly expressed. We've all got opinions but we're only speculating about the facts of the case because we weren't there and don't know how it was argued, what evidence was persuasive/rejected/why etc.
Click to expand...

For Gawd's sake, man, it doesn't matter about our speculation, or whether we were there, or on the moon, the case was proven to the satisfaction of those on the panel.

That's the only FACT that matters. That FACT has naught to do with opinions, what got the job done, or any other nebulous resort.

WADA won, Jimmy and The Machine lost, that's it, finito.

If you want to argue with me about all the charges they dodged, bring it on, and I'm suggesting well beyond an anti-doping code Then we're in the realm of opinion, and I defy you to best mine, because I DO know more about the underlying , under reported and under examined FACTS, than almost all. If you don't buy that assertion, search me, and then come back.

I also understand the nature of risk better than most, and it is the failure to understand that nature, even to acknowledge it, that built my mountain of contempt for every single responsibility dodging spiv at the EFC in 2012, and every single vested dissembler who has campaigned since.

That might sound as if I'm emotionally invested, but that'd be wrong. It's merely mathematics, particularly the mathematics of risk, and healthily dosed with brutal rationalism.

If I am at all emotional, it stems from what I know about all those who succumb to the nonsense of Jimmy the Jabber as God, and buy into s**t like Melanotan II as a life maker, and the putrid predators who flog the same crap to schoolkids using Jimmy's admissions of a jolly up in his trouser as advertising. Even Jimmy the Great experienced adverse reactions, yet couldn't summon the gumption to fess up to having been dumb, thereby allowing other spivs to prosper.

And, that's but one example. Yep, much that stirred, and stirs, the emotions. But, the endlessly stirring mix includes that brutal rationalism of condemnation borne of undeniable fact.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

sameolds33 said:
And there you go arguing that, because of our ignorance of the evidence put before CAS, the claim that tb4 was administered must be true (ad ignoramus) and reversing the burden of proof by requiring people questioning the claim that the CAS decision proved that tb4 was administered to prove that it wasn't.
Click to expand...

Seriously?! "Ad ignoramus"? "Reversing the burden of proof"? Your argument starts at "ignorance of the evidence" and leaps to assuming the others are arguing it "must be true", without a bridge to get it there - it's illogical. As for the reversal of the burden, it flat out doesn't exist - the suggestion has always been that there is an imperative to offer an alternative to the narrative of the prosecution because, without one, the emperor will be seen to have had no clobber.
 
Muggs said:
The HTB will do it's normal trick though of flaring up for a few days with each major happening. Such as the appeal result, Jobe's Brownlow decision, compensation settlement.. Dank' appeals if they ever go ahead
Click to expand...

The big flare up should be when Howman stands at the whiteboard in Ley's ministerial office and says "Where would you like me to start?"

And, when Ley says "I'm not convinced that is the case", Howman says "Let's invite John Coates down for a chat."

I also note this week's news of a major, nay catastrophic, falling out between Coates and the Coyote, John Wylie. Reported in the Thin Review, too, so unlikely to be invention.
 
Like I've said before I'm not here to back up my opinion. You and I both know it would make a nought of difference to anyone changing their minds and I don't care to change anyone's anyway.
 
There's nothing to debate.

Essendon ran a team wide doping program under the instigation and direction of James Hird.

The relevant anti-doping bodies investigated, and after navigating the thicket of spin and lawsuits that always accompanies these things, the players were banned for the usual two years. The doping "chemist" was banned for life. Ho hum, all very standard.

The only thing worth debating now is how lucky Essendon are they didn't get done for all the other stuff we know they were using: CJC, hexarelin, GHRP et al.
 
MaddAdam said:
There's nothing to debate.

Essendon ran a team wide doping program under the instigation and direction of James Hird.

The relevant anti-doping bodies investigated, and after navigating the thicket of spin and lawsuits that always accompanies these things, the players were banned for the usual two years. The doping "chemist" was banned for life. Ho hum, all very standard.

The only thing worth debating now is how lucky Essendon are they didn't get done for all the other stuff we know they were using: CJC, hexarelin, GHRP et al.
Click to expand...
And Amino Acids :)
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Muggs said:
The HTB will do it's normal trick though of flaring up for a few days with each major happening. Such as the appeal result, Jobe's Brownlow decision, compensation settlement.. Dank' appeals if they ever go ahead
Click to expand...
A bit like gout. Or a boil on the end of the nose. Or a hemmaroid.
 
less than zero said:
Do you get paid by the word, the same words?
Click to expand...
You are falling off a building.
You have two choices.
1-.Grow some wings really very quickly.
2-.shut the * up and enjoy the ride.
Yet you are looking for that third choice.
Good luck finding it "I have a different opinion".
 
Just interested said:
For Gawd's sake, man, it doesn't matter about our speculation, or whether we were there, or on the moon, the case was proven to the satisfaction of those on the panel.

That's the only FACT that matters. That FACT has naught to do with opinions, what got the job done, or any other nebulous resort.

WADA won, Jimmy and The Machine lost, that's it, finito.

If you want to argue with me about all the charges they dodged, bring it on, and I'm suggesting well beyond an anti-doping code Then we're in the realm of opinion, and I defy you to best mine, because I DO know more about the underlying , under reported and under examined FACTS, than almost all. If you don't buy that assertion, search me, and then come back.

I also understand the nature of risk better than most, and it is the failure to understand that nature, even to acknowledge it, that built my mountain of contempt for every single responsibility dodging spiv at the EFC in 2012, and every single vested dissembler who has campaigned since.

That might sound as if I'm emotionally invested, but that'd be wrong. It's merely mathematics, particularly the mathematics of risk, and healthily dosed with brutal rationalism.

If I am at all emotional, it stems from what I know about all those who succumb to the nonsense of Jimmy the Jabber as God, and buy into s**t like Melanotan II as a life maker, and the putrid predators who flog the same crap to schoolkids using Jimmy's admissions of a jolly up in his trouser as advertising. Even Jimmy the Great experienced adverse reactions, yet couldn't summon the gumption to fess up to having been dumb, thereby allowing other spivs to prosper.

And, that's but one example. Yep, much that stirred, and stirs, the emotions. But, the endlessly stirring mix includes that brutal rationalism of condemnation borne of undeniable fact.
Click to expand...

As I've said all along, you're perfectly entitled to your opinion - as I am to mine. What I said was nonsensical - and impossible - was asking EFC supporters to provide facts that disprove the opinion of the HTB that the CAS decision "proves" that the players were administered with tb4. It doesn't.
 
sameolds33 said:
As I've said all along, you're perfectly entitled to your opinion - as I am to mine. What I said was nonsensical - and impossible - was asking EFC supporters to provide facts that disprove the opinion of the HTB that the CAS decision "proves" that the players were administered with tb4. It doesn't.
Click to expand...

So another who won't accept the umpire's decision.
 
sameolds33 said:
As I've said all along, you're perfectly entitled to your opinion - as I am to mine. What I said was nonsensical - and impossible - was asking EFC supporters to provide facts that disprove the opinion of the HTB that the CAS decision "proves" that the players were administered with tb4. It doesn't.
Click to expand...
You are blatantly WRONG. The CAS decision did prove the players took TB4 to a comfortable level of satisfaction.

The proof that that statement is true is that 12 current Essendon players, including its captain, are sitting on the sidelines for the entire 2016 season.

Have a look at the games this year if you don't believe me. Also, the earth is not flat although you probably won't change your mind on that either.
 
Just interested said:
Seriously?! "Ad ignoramus"? "Reversing the burden of proof"? Your argument starts at "ignorance of the evidence" and leaps to assuming the others are arguing it "must be true", without a bridge to get it there - it's illogical. As for the reversal of the burden, it flat out doesn't exist - the suggestion has always been that there is an imperative to offer an alternative to the narrative of the prosecution because, without one, the emperor will be seen to have had no clobber.
Click to expand...

No, the suggestion was always, the CAS decision proves that tb4 was administered to all 34 players and, if you don't agree with this narrative, provide evidence that disproves this "fact". And I said that it was impossible to do that because we haven't seen the evidence, we haven't heard the arguments or know how to consider the expert evidence. We can't just make up facts.

Here are some of the elements of the CAS decision that I have questions about:

1. The Panel itself stated (para 131) “there is no evidence that what Mr Dank injected into the Players was Thymosin Alpha or, indeed, any other form”. Having put the complete lack of evidence on the record, they then assume that TB 4 was used, based on the benefits of different forms of Thymosin.

Natalie Hickey has provided dispassionate analyses of the legal proceedings in her excellent blog, The Social Litigator. She says that a scientific expert she spoke to about WADA's analytical case (based on the scientific tests conducted by Dr. Cox persuaded the Panel that ‘Thymosin’ was ‘TB-4’) said that "the detailed reading of Para 132 seems to be written for people who attended the hearings and know what it means." The comment is also made, “That they don’t even explain what Bio21 is seems to show that is treated either a periphery issue or, more likely, bleeding obvious to anyone involved.”

So, we can't debate the tb4 evidence here on the sidelines because you had to be there to know why CAS was so persuaded, it's not there in the decision.

2. It's not clear to me, from what I've read, how the analytical case based on Dr Cox's evidence, that it was tb4 that was compounded by Vania Giordani, ties into whether and how that tb4 made its way to Essendon. From the same scientific expert, “The next few clauses are intriguing. Vania Giordani was part of the chain as Alavi’s lab assistant; she did the compounding. She evidently must have ‘replicated’ her action at Bio21 (a Melbourne University facility) and produced what was analysed to be TB-4. (was she required to do this or volunteer?) The para goes on to note that other compounds were also analysed using the same technique and found to be correct – so the technique works. [this must be mass spectroscopy of which mention has been made.] This seems to have been done under the eyesight of ‘Dr Cox’ who is so respected."

We also don't know what, if any, legal argument accompanied this expert evidence. Were objections made by defence counsel and rejected by the panel? If so, what were these? Was there sufficient time in the appeal (which, being de novo, was really a first instance hearing) to properly argue the expert evidence?

I've read elsewhere that the CAS hearing was set down for 5 days and the first 3 days were taken up by argument on the elevated levels of 2 players. Once this issue was dealt with there wasn't much time to address the other cables of WADA's case and the written submissions were, on the whole, accepted by CAS. Is this true? I don't know, I wasn't there. But, if this is true, it's possible that the apparently sinister failure to disclose alternative reasons for non-disclosure to ASADA might have been explained if there had been time at the hearing to properly argue this point.

3. Weighting of the hearsay evidence. How did the panel decide which parts of the evidence to accept and which to reject? What was the legal argument around this?

4. As I asked Ancient Tiger (and which discussion I'll come back to, AT!), "What's your view on the CAS panel's comment that they were comfortably satisfied that all 34 players had had at least one injection? I seem to recall reading a lot of stuff about the accepted protocols of tb4 for there to be a beneficial effect. Why would a player have only one injection? I know that for the purposes of establishing the offence, the panel only needed to be satisfied that all 34 were administered with the prohibited substance once but at sentencing, the panel was also convinced that there was a systematic doping program in place (ie found intention to dope). How could that be if some players only had one injection when the tb4 protocol requires more than one?"

There's more but the response of the HTB will no doubt be along the lines of "it's so boring I couldn't even read it." I stand by my opinion that we can all speculate about the evidence and and draw our own conclusions but we can't prove whether or not tb4 was taken from what we've read.
 
sameolds33 said:
No, the suggestion was always, the CAS decision proves that tb4 was administered to all 34 players and, if you don't agree with this narrative, provide evidence that disproves this "fact". And I said that it was impossible to do that because we haven't seen the evidence, we haven't heard the arguments or know how to consider the expert evidence. We can't just make up facts.

Here are some of the elements of the CAS decision that I have questions about:

1. The Panel itself stated (para 131) “there is no evidence that what Mr Dank injected into the Players was Thymosin Alpha or, indeed, any other form”. Having put the complete lack of evidence on the record, they then assume that TB 4 was used, based on the benefits of different forms of Thymosin.

Natalie Hickey has provided dispassionate analyses of the legal proceedings in her excellent blog, The Social Litigator. She says that a scientific expert she spoke to about WADA's analytical case (based on the scientific tests conducted by Dr. Cox persuaded the Panel that ‘Thymosin’ was ‘TB-4’) said that "the detailed reading of Para 132 seems to be written for people who attended the hearings and know what it means." The comment is also made, “That they don’t even explain what Bio21 is seems to show that is treated either a periphery issue or, more likely, bleeding obvious to anyone involved.”

So, we can't debate the tb4 evidence here on the sidelines because you had to be there to know why CAS was so persuaded, it's not there in the decision.

2. It's not clear to me, from what I've read, how the analytical case based on Dr Cox's evidence, that it was tb4 that was compounded by Vania Giordani, ties into whether and how that tb4 made its way to Essendon. From the same scientific expert, “The next few clauses are intriguing. Vania Giordani was part of the chain as Alavi’s lab assistant; she did the compounding. She evidently must have ‘replicated’ her action at Bio21 (a Melbourne University facility) and produced what was analysed to be TB-4. (was she required to do this or volunteer?) The para goes on to note that other compounds were also analysed using the same technique and found to be correct – so the technique works. [this must be mass spectroscopy of which mention has been made.] This seems to have been done under the eyesight of ‘Dr Cox’ who is so respected."

We also don't know what, if any, legal argument accompanied this expert evidence. Were objections made by defence counsel and rejected by the panel? If so, what were these? Was there sufficient time in the appeal (which, being de novo, was really a first instance hearing) to properly argue the expert evidence?

I've read elsewhere that the CAS hearing was set down for 5 days and the first 3 days were taken up by argument on the elevated levels of 2 players. Once this issue was dealt with there wasn't much time to address the other cables of WADA's case and the written submissions were, on the whole, accepted by CAS. Is this true? I don't know, I wasn't there. But, if this is true, it's possible that the apparently sinister failure to disclose alternative reasons for non-disclosure to ASADA might have been explained if there had been time at the hearing to properly argue this point.

3. Weighting of the hearsay evidence. How did the panel decide which parts of the evidence to accept and which to reject? What was the legal argument around this?

4. As I asked Ancient Tiger (and which discussion I'll come back to, AT!), "What's your view on the CAS panel's comment that they were comfortably satisfied that all 34 players had had at least one injection? I seem to recall reading a lot of stuff about the accepted protocols of tb4 for there to be a beneficial effect. Why would a player have only one injection? I know that for the purposes of establishing the offence, the panel only needed to be satisfied that all 34 were administered with the prohibited substance once but at sentencing, the panel was also convinced that there was a systematic doping program in place (ie found intention to dope). How could that be if some players only had one injection when the tb4 protocol requires more than one?"

There's more but the response of the HTB will no doubt be along the lines of "it's so boring I couldn't even read it." I stand by my opinion that we can all speculate about the evidence and and draw our own conclusions but we can't prove whether or not tb4 was taken from what we've read.
Click to expand...

Irrelevant. Provide an alternative explanation for what happened at EFC as you have been repeatedly and politely asked to. If you have a half decent explanation, then the above becomes more relevant. At the moment you are arguing about the umpiring in a game you didn't show up to play.
 
The 747 said:
Irrelevant. Provide an alternative explanation for what happened at EFC as you have been repeatedly and politely asked to. If you have a half decent explanation, then the above becomes more relevant. At the moment you are arguing about the umpiring in a game you didn't show up to play.
Click to expand...

Why do I need to provide an alternative explanation for what happened at the EFC in 2012 - isn't it well documented that there was a disastrous supplements program that we're all still talking about 4 years later? We all agree that it happened, that there was a joint enquiry, AFL Tribunal proceedings and the CAS hearing. These all happened too. The specific point I am debating here is that, as a result of all of this, no matter how strongly you believe it, the CAS decsion did not "prove" that tb4 was administered at Essendon. And that we are just speculating about the evidence put to the Panel.
 
sameolds33 said:
Why do I need to provide an alternative explanation for what happened at the EFC in 2012 - isn't it well documented that there was a disastrous supplements program that we're all still talking about 4 years later? We all agree that it happened, that there was a joint enquiry, AFL Tribunal proceedings and the CAS hearing. These all happened too. The specific point I am debating here is that, as a result of all of this, no matter how strongly you believe it, the CAS decsion did not "prove" that tb4 was administered at Essendon. And that we are just speculating about the evidence put to the Panel.
Click to expand...

It did to their comfortable satisfaction though, what's not clear about that?
 
Ancient Tiger said:
You are blatantly WRONG. The CAS decision did prove the players took TB4 to a comfortable level of satisfaction.

The proof that that statement is true is that 12 current Essendon players, including its captain, are sitting on the sidelines for the entire 2016 season.

Have a look at the games this year if you don't believe me. Also, the earth is not flat although you probably won't change your mind on that either.
Click to expand...

Absolutely agree that the CAS panel was comfortably satisfied that the players were administered with tb4. That is a fact. What is not fact is our speculation on the evidence placed before the CAS panel which led to this decision. That is opinion.
 
The 747 said:
You can't "prove" a man landed on the moon either. You are talking nonsense.

As for why the alternative explanation, it has been explained several times to you but you just ignore that, similar to the way another long-on-ignore poster used to post here. Reckon you know him ;)
Click to expand...

Interesting point. The THB ridiculed Bruce Francis for debating his take on the evidence with the board and you now say that I'm "talking nonsense" when I say that debating the evidence is pointless because we're just debating our opinions.
 
sameolds33 said:
Interesting point. The THB ridiculed Bruce Francis for debating his take on the evidence with the board and you now say that I'm "talking nonsense" when I say that debating the evidence is pointless because we're just debating our opinions.
Click to expand...

Another strawman; that's not what I said at all. This is why I gave you that advice earlier about the rules of logic; a casual reader might see you post that and then repeatedly break those rules, leading the inevitable conclusion that you don't know what you are talking about ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top