Remove this Banner Ad

Harcourt presentation "bombshell"

  • Thread starter Thread starter 60sbomber
  • Start date Start date
  • Tagged users Tagged users None

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Jam123 said:
It would be interesting to see the evidence. I'm assuming that the evidence of use must be stronger than the negative tests that came back after testing for illegal peptides in a laboratory that is able to detect peptides. Of course I know they are able to charge someone with doping without positive tests, but this seems pretty strong to me.
Click to expand...

Tb4 cannot be found in tests
 
So let's be clear on this, a report has emerged which raises issues such as possible cancers, possible hormonal issues, the shocking extent of the "experimental" drug regime and the lack of questioning by the players, Robbo's response to this is to try and cloud the issue by making it an AFL governance issue! And the response of the "we can't wait for the facts to come out" Hird camp is supress, supress and supress!
Speechless!
 
hirdylloydy1 said:
Just a question.

Do you honestly believe, that essendon was the only club on this type of program?
Click to expand...
I think the AFL had reviewed all clubs practices in this. Also workcover will look into it apparently. I'm sure other clubs would have had cutting edge programs however it seems as if key people at EFC encourged a program to push the boundries and took the word of the people running the program that it was above board. The program looks as though it was not overseen adequately by key people.
 
Baldur said:
Tb4 cannot be found in tests
Click to expand...
Cannot or is difficult? From what I know, a regular drug test wouldn't detect TB4, but the laboratory in Cologne is one of only a few that is able to detect peptides.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

hirdylloydy1 said:
Just a question.

Do you honestly believe, that essendon was the only club on this type of program?
Click to expand...

So tired of seeing this deflection constantly raised by EFC supporters. It takes me back to 2002 when many Carlton supporters were saying the exact same thing.

In 2002 the AFL were not interested in any other team. They got their big fish and the results sent shockwaves through the other clubs. The same situation applies here, we've already seen shockwaves sent through the competition and this is very likely to result in strict adherance to doping regulations by all other clubs for many years to come.

It matters not that some other clubs may have had poorly documented programs in place, the AFL have acknowledged this but deemed it, rightly or wrongly, unworthy of follow up. The last thing they want is for this saga to be seen as a "competition wide" problem.

You may be right in thinking that the EFC are scapegoats in this (just as many CFC supporters felt) but the reason your club is in this position is purely by their own making. Your own internal report is, in itself, damning enough without the constant attempts to deflect from the fundamental issue of whether the club did or did not institute a program in which prohibited drugs have been widely used. The decision to challenge the process rather than defend the legitimacy of the program and challenge whatever evidence ASADA have is the latest in this constant attempt to deflect.
 
hirdylloydy1 said:
Just a question.

Do you honestly believe, that essendon was the only club on this type of program?
Click to expand...
Honestly, it's irrelevant because Essendon was the only club to have James Hird.
 
Baldur said:
Cannot unless the sample is taken within a couple of hours of the inejction
Click to expand...
Hmm okay. It will depend on when they took the samples and how often they were given TB4 during the supplement program
 
Jam123 said:
It would be interesting to see the evidence. I'm assuming that the evidence of use must be stronger than the negative tests that came back after testing for illegal peptides in a laboratory that is able to detect peptides. Of course I know they are able to charge someone with doping without positive tests, but this seems pretty strong to me.
Click to expand...

able to detect 'most/some' peptides - only a guess of course.

believe me we are all very interested to see ALL the evidence no matter what direction it heads.

so far the evidence produced supports the foamers arguments.
so far the request to suppress evidence also supports the foamers argument.
 
vjknight said:
able to detect 'most/some' peptides - only a guess of course.

believe me we are all very interested to see ALL the evidence no matter what direction it heads.

so far the evidence produced supports the foamers arguments.
so far the request to suppress evidence also supports the foamers argument.
Click to expand...
I still think we need to know the full story before we can judge. Why is it that they want to 'suppress' the evidence? Is it to get off on technicality or do they legitimately believe that the investigation was not done correctly? It is plausible that some of the interviews may have 'forced' players to admit to taking something that they have no idea about. Either way, hopefully we find out about what happened sooner rather than later.
 
60sbomber said:
The contents of AFL Medical Officer Peter Harcourt's presentation in Zurich in late 2013 is indeed a "bombshell".

It sheds light on what led to the ASADA investigation into the EFC supplement program and, even more significantly, it helps us understand some aspects of the way the investigation has evolved.

It reveals that in 2012 the AFL, for reasons not explained, suspected EFC of using banned substances. Combine this with the revelation of the contents of a letter provided to Essendon players and officials prior to their ASADA interviews, which states that the investigation was aimed at the suspected use of 3 growth hormone related peptides (GRHP-2 GRHP-6 & CJC1295), and we start to understand what the AFL & ASADA expected to find when the EFC was pushed into "self reporting" in Feb 2013.

Harcourt's presentation shows the fears that the AFL & ASADA had about player safety and cancer risks etc were a major concern, and underlay the dramatic nature of what the AFL leaked to Fairfax during the investigation.

However, after an investigation lasting 16 months, the expected outcome of EFC being found to have given growth hormone related peptides to its players has failed to emerge.

Despite their best attempts, the combined efforts of ASADA & the AFL have produced absolutely no evidence to support the original suspicion!

In July 2013, the AFL, having carefully laid the groundwork by selective leaks of damning tidbits of "evidence" via its Fairfax mouthpiece, is left in an awkward position. Essendon is winning enough games to make it a likely finals participant. The AFL has convinced the public that EFC has used illegal performance enhancing supplements. But there is still no sign of any damning evidence to support the original suspicion.

What can the AFL do? It solicits an interim report from ASADA with enough bits & pieces of emails & texts to make it look like something bad has happened (eventhough they can't find any evidence of it). They take strong action against the club, excluding them from the finals & imposing a ban on golden boy James Hird, who has threatened to upset the whole master plan by exposing the AFL manipulation of the investigation to its own chosen agenda. It then hopes the whole thing will fade away, with no further action against the players.

However, ASADA has a different need. Having been thrust into the role of prosecuting the case following the ACC "darkest day" press event, it can't just let the whole thing fade away.

The presumption of growth hormone use has proved to be a fallacy. Blood tests of the entire playing group have shown no sign of its use. No evidence of its use at EFC can found. But the whole investigation was founded on the belief it had been used.

ASADA is desperate to find something........anything, to justify its investigation, and not look like a lame duck pursuing something that doesn't exist.

AOD use is established, but ASADA can't prosecute it without looking incompetent for giving wrong advice.

What is left?
There is plenty of evidence that Dank used "thymosin", one form of which is banned. ASADA have enough in texts and emails involving Dank to be able to make a circumstantial case that it might have been the illegal TB4.

They have evidence from Charter that he ordered TB4 for Dank, and a non committal statement from Alavi that he could possibly have made up either the legal or the illegal form of "thymosin" for Dank from the raw materials provided by Charter.

The trouble is it is only a pathetically inadequate amount for the purpose it is supposed to have served. No matter, it is the best ASADA can come up with. Let's ignore that it might have been for use by Dank's customers other than EFC, let's ignore that there was only one invoice for this small amount of whichever form of thymosin it was, and that that invoice was withdrawn, presumably because the thymosin never reached the club.

TB4 it is then.

What started out as a hunt for human growth hormone related GRHP-2, GRHP-6 & CJC1295 ends up as a prosecution of an unlikely and trumped up case for the use of TB4.

Harcourt's fears for player health as a consequence of the use of HGH related substances is just an AFL illusion, conjured up by an over reaction to ACC suspicions that have proven unfounded.

Loveable Caroline's slanderous condemnation of James Hird and the EFC hierarchy turns out to be gutter journalism of award winning grandeur.

The heart wrenching story of "Sarah" remains a mystery to all those naive enough to doubt the depth to which the AFL is willing to stoop to manipulate public opinion.

Discuss.
Click to expand...
Discuss? The nonsense above is exactly what ASADA means by "white noise."
 
Jam123 said:
I still think we need to know the full story before we can judge. Why is it that they want to 'suppress' the evidence? Is it to get off on technicality or do they legitimately believe that the investigation was not done correctly? It is plausible that some of the interviews may have 'forced' players to admit to taking something that they have no idea about. Either way, hopefully we find out about what happened sooner rather than later.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, not if the EFC or Hird can help it.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Big Sim said:
So it being dangerous to their health is of no matter? Sheesh you guys.
Click to expand...
Nope, it's all about legalities. Morals aren't going to win in court or on gameday, they're comfort indulged in by losers attempting to justify their lack of success and achievement.
 
IggypopsTshirt said:
All of our supplements were legal, the infamous warning is non event. It's akin to us feeding the players 9 Pollywaffles each day after being told it's a bad idea by a dietician, it may not be best practice, but it ain't illegal, old china.
Click to expand...

AOD 9604 is only 'legal' in use on humans via approval from the TGA. Can you show those approvals?
 
hirdylloydy1 said:
Just a question.

Do you honestly believe, that essendon was the only club on this type of program?
Click to expand...

I know this question is not directed at me, but I would like to give my 2 bobs worth on it.

To the direct question of are other CLUBS on this type of program, I would say not a chance. If you asked if other PLAYERS are on the gear, then I would without any doubt whatsoever. How many and who - well that is open to conjecture and a reflection of ones beliefs in how wide spread the use of PED's are in pro sport.
Yonks and Yonks ago in response to a point mxett raised, I noted that imho, disregarding the use of the drugs themselves, the biggest mistake that Hird made was to bring it all in house. At the time I said that I thought this would all end horribly for the club itself. Nothing to date has changed my views.
 
IggypopsTshirt said:
Nope, it's all about legalities. Morals aren't going to win in court or on gameday, they're comfort indulged in by losers attempting to justify their lack of success and achievement.
Click to expand...
Pretty clear to me who the losers in this shameful affair are and will continue to be. And it hasn't done them a whole lot of good on game day either.
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

IggypopsTshirt said:
Nope, it's all about legalities. Morals aren't going to win in court or on gameday, they're comfort indulged in by losers attempting to justify their lack of success and achievement.
Click to expand...

Win an internet iggy for your forthright honesty. But nudge nudge wink wink. Honesty is not your friend.
 
The presentation by Dr Peter Hardcourt was posted on youtube 7 months ago

Why now is this video being referenced ????
 
telsa1962 said:
This is a more balanced view - but most of you in here will now have to add the AFLPA and Pendergast to your growing list of 'delusionals'

http://m.afl.com.au/news/2014-07-03/no-passive-acceptance
Click to expand...
They were already on that list for similar comments a few weeks back.

Remember when he said the players had taken all reasonable steps to ensure they'd followed ASADA rules... Except like, you know, check with ASADA.

And now he thinks it's unhelpful that a doctor is telling players there may be cancer risks? Yeah, that seems responsible.

Much better to tell them it's all fine, and give any possible cancers a good, long period where they'll get a chance to settle in before they can be detected.

Pendergast is rapidly putting himself on my "idiots to ignore" list on this issue, right up there with Robbo and pretty much the entire SEN roster.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom