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.

manboob said:
Anyone got a link to this presentation? It seems to have been taken down. Or is it all like the first season of Underbelly?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

It was loaded onto youtube amongst all the other presenters at this particular conference. There was nothing sinister in it coming out now other than everybody on all sides obviously missed it for many months as it sat there gathering dust. The full video could be seen at

https://www.youtube.com/user/dreicastgmbh/videos

but has since been taken down.

Here is a cut down version.



edit: Good work Demonalke beat me to it
 
Bunk Moreland said:
So Harcourt is worried about cancer but the players aren't?

Wonder which paid doctor we sent them to.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't be the same doctor as the one who wrote the following letter as he seems to have some concerns re long term side effects.

A club lacking ethics and morality.

Keep fighting the good fight.

Dear James/Paul


I have some fundamental problems being club doctor at present. This particularly applies to the administration of supplements. 
Although we have been giving supplements for approximately three months, despite repeated requests as to exactly what we are giving our players and the literature related to this, have at no time been given that until last Sunday [15 January 2012]. Last week the players were given subcutaneous injections, not by myself, and I had no idea that this was happening and also what drug was involved.

It appears to me that in Sydney with Rugby League the clubs do not answer to the governing body (e.g. A.F.L.). It seems that their whole culture is based on trying to beat the system as are close to the edge as one can. It is my belief in A.F.L. that we should be winning flags by keeping a drug free culture.

It is all very well to say this is not banned and that is not banned but for example, the injection that we have given our players subcutaneously, was a drug called AOD/9604, is an Oligomeric Peptide. This drug is derived from the growth hormone.

This molecule has been constructed so it has removed what we call IGF1, which is part of the growth hormone that causes muscle and organ growth and bone length and photosynthesis.

It is at the moment used for fat metabolism but also bone strength in children and may have some side effects that may be beneficial in bone growth. This to me just seem ludicrous at this stage where the only trials I have got are on how to lost weight and fat around the abdomen.

If we are resorting to deliver this altered growth hormone molecule, I think we are playing at the edge and this will read extremely badly in the press for our club and for the benefits and also for side effects that are not known in the long term, I have trouble with all these drugs.

I am still not sure whether AOD/9604 is approved by the drug authorities in Australia at this stage. Just because it is not classified as illegal, doesn’t mean that it can be used freely in the community, it cannot. The other interesting thing about AOD/9604, is that its market in America is in body builders. This also should raise a red flag if we are worried about perception.

When it comes to Actovegin, this has been used around the world for many years. There is some flimsy evidence that it may help in speeding up the healing of tendons when they are damaged, though after speaking to radiologists, the recent opinion is that platelets and one’s own blood, probably does a better job.

We are claiming that we should use it as a recovery agent. To me it seems ludicrous that a few mls of calf’s blood spun down, is going to give you a concentration of growth factors and other factors that would speed up recovery.

I am very frustrated by this and now feel I am letting the club down by not automatically approving of these things. I need to collect my thoughts as these drugs have been given without my knowledge.

I am sure Steve Danks believes that what we are doing is totally ethical and legal, however, one wonders whether if you take a long stance and look at this from a distance, whether you would want your children being injected with a derivative hormone that is not free to the community and whether calf’s blood, that has been used for many years and is still doubted by most doctors, is worth pursuing.

Kind Regards
Dr. Bruce Reid
M.B.B.S.

Senior Medical Officer​
 
spartanwa said:
Hoooly shit some people here are stupid.
I've given up on this board.
Click to expand...

You seem to be getting a little frustrated there. Truth does hurt though.

spartanwa said:
give me a positive test and we'll talk.

Until then, my balls are out, you may suck them
Click to expand...

And now you've started with the indignant, tough guy posting.
 
Last edited:
hirdylloydy1 said:
From asadas actions, I honestly believe they have nothing. Actually, after todays hearing and asada crapping themselves over sc evidence. This was confirmed
Click to expand...

So ASADA have brought in a former judge of the Federal Court of Australia and former President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to review their investigation / evidence and he felt it was good enough to issue SC notices. This is on top of bringing in the bloke who nailed Lance Armstrong to also consult to them and review their case. Both in addition to the ASADA lawyers felt that SC notices can be issued.

And yet you say that ASADA are "crapping themselves over sc evidence".

Pardon me if I don't think the same as you on this one.
 

Log in to remove this Banner Ad

The Scales said:
Good call, imho.
Absolutely FA will ever satisfy you, and many others posting in similar threads. Do you not appreciate that when posters, such as AscotBomber reply to you with candour, that the merest modicum of acknowledgement of this honesty, would be the appropriate response?

If you have foolishly gambled your first-born, or an internal / external organ on your desired?/needed? outcome, there is no need to panic - just yet.

If AB's chances of ever hearing the truth, without the agenda-driven spin are zero, what are your chances? Or mine? Or the majority of the HTB?

All we are relying upon is information released in the public domain. This is open to interpretation, dependent on viewpoint. But I am convinced that yourself, and several others, would cry foul if ASADA straight up swore that the EFC players had no case to answer. Their testimony would not be sufficient to alter your pre-determined guilt.

Feel free to correct me, if this is an erroneous opinion.
Click to expand...

nice rant.

you scales do not deserve any candour. AB was acknowledged and will continue to be acknowledged appropriately while he maintains an open mind, and not blindly refuse to accept any logical argument, as you do. your use of language but total lack of analysis on the saga suggests you are a plant.
 
nineteen eighty said:
It was loaded onto youtube amongst all the other presenters at this particular conference. There was nothing sinister in it coming out now other than everybody on all sides obviously missed it for many months as it sat there gathering dust. The full video could be seen at
Click to expand...
AFL definitely finding it awkward. Doc Larkins claims it was confidential. Others say that's not true.
  1. 6:44 PM - 4 Jul 2014
    @3AWisfootball @ringsau It was a CONFERENCE. Filmed professionally with three HUGE cameras.

  2. 6:31 PM - 4 Jul 2014
    @3AWisfootball the company filming the conference has confirmed there was multiple cameras. Can Larkins answer if Harcourt signed a consent?

  3. 6:26 PM - 4 Jul 2014
    Doc Larkins: 'It was a confidential meeting that Dr Harcourt was speaking at' Mick Warner: 'Well it wasn't very confidential was it?' #AFL
Click to expand...
 
Echols said:
Do you think it was just a coincidence that Shane Charter supplied his sports "scientist", years after working with Hird during his playing career?
Click to expand...

My understanding was that Charter was quite well known among a range of elite sportspeople. He also made it clear that Hird was always a stickler for the rules and any supplements had to be allowed. So I don't think Charter supplying Dank reflects badly on Hird.
 
Re Harcourt

1) not privy to any agreements and not told about any contents
And just treat his job in isolation to the big picture
2) totally naive that the material he Presented had the potential to be used in a courtcase. Surely doctors representing organizations get things approved or are they given a free run to avoid claims of interfering with their independency by third parties?
His comments about the admin of efc are no less condeming than the internal independent Ziggy report which was 7 month before the presentation . EFC board accepted the recommendations of the report so they accepted his views too. I dont recall any club official denying what Ziggy said was untrue and threatening to sue Ziggy. Wonder what was in sealed section of the report ?
 
AscotBomber said:
My understanding was that Charter was quite well known among a range of elite sportspeople. He also made it clear that Hird was always a stickler for the rules and any supplements had to be allowed. So I don't think Charter supplying Dank reflects badly on Hird.
Click to expand...
Was not Chartier a convicted drug dealer? If so he was not such a stickler to rules.
 
So when a bloke comes out and speaks the truth about the drugs that were used by EFC, a very large proportion of Essendon supporters who post in BigFooty ignore the drugs and focus on a legal angle which might assist their current case.

Yet, these same posters argue that they are concerned about the players well being. Doesn't wash, might be better to adopt Iggypops line not to give a heck what they use as long as the team wins.

I find it appalling that fit young people are required to take drugs as part of their employment in the entertainment business.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

JakeandFatman said:
By the way. What do you think ASADA have? Do you believe they are bluffing and have no evidence to ban?
Click to expand...

I don't know, I don't claim to know, which seems to be a minority opinion majority of the people on this board still operate under the presumption of innocence until proven guilty which although isn't the criteria WADA works to, is the right Australian's are afforded in this country.

JakeandFatman said:
Athletes who have been banned who have never testing positive to a banned drug

Amina Aït Hammou (runner) 1 year ban
Robert Dietrich (Ice Hockey)
Isabell Donath (Swimming)
Lindsay Devaney (Swimming) 2 year ban
Mary Hofer 2 year ban
Rio Ferdinand (Soccer) 8 month ban
Amanda Gerhart (Wrestling) 2 year ban
Kelly Heuchan (Swimming) 2 year ban

All up around 150 athletes have been banned under "suspicion" and it "being likely" they had a banned drug.... but you should get the point by now.

None of them ever returned a positive sample yet in most cases they were given 2 year bans. 1 Athlete was banned for 2 years for missing drug tests that were actually not his fault.

You and your club do not have a leg to stand on. So until your players are cleared you can suck my balls.
Click to expand...

From the way you've posed that you don't seem to care if outcome is fair, you just want Essendon punished. A common sentiment on the board for people who are yet to see all the evidence.

Satan said:
Was not Chartier a convicted drug dealer? If so he was not such a stickler to rules.
Click to expand...

Guilt by association? Yeah that is not how that works in court, having an affiliation with a law breaker doesn't make yourself one - only in the twisted view of the PR battles does one mean the other.
 
Bobby Charlton said:
AFL definitely finding it awkward. Doc Larkins claims it was confidential. Others say that's not true.
Click to expand...

I've spoken at numerous conferences and it really comes down to the T's&C's between the conference organisers and the speakers themselves. Usually they are allowed to be distributed but I do know of some speakers who don't like their stuff distributed and hence only speak on condition that their speech is not distributed.

Anyone who claims they know either way whether confidential or not is talking through their arse. Including Doc Larkins.

This is still part of EFC's PR101 misdirection and diversion strategy as far as I'm concerned.
 
nineteen eighty said:
So ASADA have brought in a former judge of the Federal Court of Australia and former President of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to review their investigation / evidence and he felt it was good enough to issue SC notices. This is on top of bringing in the bloke who nailed Lance Armstrong to also consult to them and review their case. Both in addition to the ASADA lawyers felt that SC notices can be issued.

And yet you say that ASADA are "crapping themselves over sc evidence".

Pardon me if I don't think the same as you on this one.
Click to expand...

The guy that got lance hey, didnt realise they had geoff novitsky?
 
JDavey said:
I don't know, I don't claim to know, which seems to be a minority opinion majority of the people on this board still operate under the presumption of innocence until proven guilty which although isn't the criteria WADA works to, is the right Australian's are afforded in this country.



From the way you've posed that you don't seem to care if outcome is fair, you just want Essendon punished. A common sentiment on the board for people who are yet to see all the evidence.



Guilt by association? Yeah that is not how that works in court, having an affiliation with a law breaker doesn't make yourself one - only in the twisted view of the PR battles does one mean the other.
Click to expand...
A lot of this stufff in held in the court of public opinion . A lot of public are sick of this crap dragging down the game.
Hird meeting charter in qld a coincidence na
 
we are playing at the edge and this will read extremely badly in the press for our club and for the benefits and also for side effects that are not known in the long term, I have trouble with all these drugs.

so that was the clubs medical advice dirct to Hird.
No problem for players short term I guess. Spin the chocolate wheel long term.
 
nineteen eighty said:
I've spoken at numerous conferences and it really comes down to the T's&C's between the conference organisers and the speakers themselves. Usually they are allowed to be distributed but I do know of some speakers who don't like their stuff distributed and hence only speak on condition that their speech is not distributed.

Anyone who claims they know either way whether confidential or not is talking through their arse. Including Doc Larkins.

This is still part of EFC's PR101 misdirection and diversion strategy as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...
what network sacked Larkins?
 

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

nineteen eighty said:
Correct. And this time around you will be punished for injecting PED's into the players. Only issue is that it may not be a team punishment per se but rather player punishments with the team to suffer because of these player punishments.

It's the players turn to be thrown under the bus.
Click to expand...
chill out dude
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

🥰 Love BigFooty? Join now for free.

Back
Top Bottom