Martin Hardie alleges Dank will give evidence to AFL anti doping tribunal

[Argy]

You have accused BC of making statements he has NOT made.

At no stage as BC said that TB4 may or may not fall into any of these categories or catchall clauses, but ASADA's interpretation of that is not binding on the Tribunal, and if requested, ASADA would have to demonstrate that a substance does fit into a certain category or catchall clause to the comfortable satisfaction of the Tribunal.

Nonsense. He does not understand that the Prohibited List is a document that describes prohibited substances. It is not simply a list of banned substance names.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Are BC and the GG the same person? They never seem to be posting at the same time, but GG refers to BC frequently in his posts.

Surely they are just a couple of unrelated NSW-club supporting guys, coming here with independent, unbiased evaluations of the doping case?

Only Essendon supporters will be praying that neither (sic) of them is anywhere near advising the club, as running with their denial-based arguments would be one sure-fire way of ensuring that the players get hit with the maximum penalty.

 

[PrideOf]

I don't think you're that stupid.

There are several things wrong with you statement. Firstly the "Prohibited List" is the name of a document published by WADA that describes the substances that are prohibited. When the anti-doping code refers to the Prohibited list it is referring to this document, not to the few substances that are named within it.

Secondly, the anti-doping code does not say (as you seem to imagine) that only those substances named in the document titled "Prohibited List" are banned. It says any substances described in the Prohibited List are banned.

Thirdly, in addition to describing a small number of substances by naming them, the WADA code specifically renders a potentially infinite number of substances prohibited by describing their effects. In other words, it bans them by function, not by name.

TB4 is explicitly prohibited because it functions in a manner that is banned. Naming it is not necessary, it would be redundant.

This has patiently been explained to you many times.

This particular explanation would have been handy for Dank two years ago as it seems his same misunderstanding has started this whole soap opera.

Danky: "It's alright Albert, TB4 isn't on the list so it's sweet. Neither is super glue, paint thinner, wallpaper paste or liquid fertiliser. I'll get Shane-o to drop down to Bunnings."

 

[Argy]

Is not the defence entitled to ask ASADA to demonstrate to the Tribunal on what basis it has classified TB4 as falling within the ambit of S2, and to challenge any evidence ASADA puts forward on that score (if the defence does not share ASADA's view)?

The players have even more latitude than you imply here GG. If they disputed the status of TB4 they were entitled to ask the ADRVP to throw out the charges when the players were asked to show cause. They elected not to.

The players are being represented by Tony Hargreaves. He is one of the best criminal lawyers in Australia. He has successfully defended some of Australia's most "colourful" identities. He has a quick mind and an eagle eye for a technicality or a loophole that will get his clients out of a bind. He has access to expert witnesses of all types and in all disciplines.

If TB4 is not prohibited this would all have died at the ADRVP stage, believe me.

 

[coryne]

The note you refer to at the bottom of S2 is merely advisory, it does not delegate to ASADA the authority to add substances to the Prohibited List or to operate a separate prohibited list.

The Tribunal determines ADRVs pursuant to the WADA code (inclusive of the prohibited list). The Tribunal is not bound by whatever ASADA puts up on its website, or otherwise does in interpreting the WADA code. Such interpretations remain just that, they have no authority in themselves.

Yet 5 other anti doping agencies come to the same opinion on TB4 as ASADA dose. Maybe because this is how WADA has said TB4 should be treated? And if WADA doesn't classify TB4 as a banned substance then why have they not stepped in and said so? Or will you claim that WADA doesn't know what ASADA is charging the EFC with?

 

[Argy]

The note you refer to at the bottom of S2 is merely advisory, it does not delegate to ASADA the authority to add substances to the Prohibited List or to operate a separate prohibited list.

In practical terms it makes no difference. If not formally, WADA has effectively delegated this part of the administration of the code to ASADA.

If this was not the case the players would have been charged for AOD9604. The fact that ASADA's message to Dank was ambiguous meant that WADA allowed them to go unpunished.

 

[coryne]

In case anyone missed, my good friend and fellow GWS supporter, AR, put up a link to this case:
http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...ro-Vansevenant-said-to-have-been-dropped.aspx

The interesting thing about this case is that it involves TB-500. A cyclist, Wim Vansevenant was caught importing it, so he was actually found with the gear, and the local NDO brought a case against him using S2.

The case was actually dismissed in the tribunal because:

The case against the 40 year old weakened recently when it was revealed that a chemical analysis had shown that the ampoules contained amino acids only rather than doping products.​

Interesting stuff.

This is pretty much the only known relevant case we have. Note that the bloke was actually caught red-handed with the gear, marked TB-500, etc.

But, they were able to test it and only found amino acids rather than doping products.

Now the obvious question is: what exactly would have constituted "doping products"?

Is it possible that TB-500 and TB4 does NOT consitute "doping products"?

Isn't that an appropriate question for the Tribunal?

So he was being prosecuted for TB500 use until it was found that TB500 wasn't provided? The status of TB500 wasn't disputed only that the guy got ripped off and supplied something else? Also thanks for demonstrating that in June of 2012 TB500 was considered a PED

 

[threesixpio]

Nonsense. He does not understand that the Prohibited List is a document that describes prohibited substances. It is not simply a list of banned substance names.

I think its worse Argy. He clearly did get it at one point but didn't admit it

 

[coryne]

I didn't suggest anything, I reported what happened.

Aren't all peptides just amino acids?

At what point does a peptide become "doping material"?

Amino acids are the units/building blocks of proteins and are themselves generally non functional. When people talk about amino acid powders they generally refer to whey powder which is basically the whey protein digested with enzymes into one/two/three amino acids which have no function outside of providing the amino acids to build muscle

Peptides are small stretches of amino acids (generally under say 60 residues long) which are joined together with peptide bonds and may be used to transmit signals/messages within the body.

Proteins are larger stretches of amino acids (e.g. hundreds of amino acids long) which have various functions within the body. Some are enzymes which carry out biochemical reactions, some are structural, some carry molecules around the body, some act as receptors and tell cells what to do.

So no peptides are not just amino acid mixes/blends they are amino acids joined together into functional units and it is this function which they are administered for.

 

[threesixpio]

I have demonstrated how it fits into S2. Scientific studies given. No response.

That's the thing about GG and BC. Don't engage when it doesn't help their cause. It shows their bias.

 

[jenny61_99]

Besides which, it is specifically listed on the asada prohibited substance list. The last however many pages of argument are completely irrelevant.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

That's the thing about GG and BC. Don't engage when it doesn't help their cause. It shows their bias.

Aka the “I’m not going to dignify that with a response” defence.

Not a very sound strategy in actual legal proceedings. But Martie avoids the real thing, anyway.

 

[neutralguy]

That's the thing about GG and BC. Don't engage when it doesn't help their cause. It shows their bias.

Same as Hardie on his Twitter account. As soon as someone asks something that goes against his drivel he blocks them claiming they are trolls.

 

[DonsRule]

Besides which, it is specifically listed on the asada prohibited substance list. The last however many pages of argument are completely irrelevant.

I agree it is banned. I think it is banned more for the reason Ancient Tiger describes, it fits into an acts like a banned category , so it is banned under the S2 catch all (I may be wrong there). Very hard seeing that overturned; even if it was, I'm afraid should do it before you plan to use it - if it was used.

 

[Gigantor]

I agree it is banned. I think it is banned more for the reason Ancient Tiger describes, it fits into an acts like a banned category , so it is banned under the S2 catch all (I may be wrong there). Very hard seeing that overturned; even if it was, I'm afraid should do it before you plan to use it - if it was used.

Whether something fits into a banned category, or fits within the catchall clause is a matter of scientific fact.

That ASADA puts it up on their website has got absolutely nothing to do with anything. The WADA Code does not give any legal prominence whatsoever to ASADA's website.

ASADA may well be of the opinion that TB4 meets the catchall definition, but if by chance there is doubt within the scientific community about the properties of TB4, then the defence would be well within its rights to question the validity of ASADA's interpretation, and the Tribunal would be duty bound to listen to the arguments before deciding whether there had been an ADRV pursuant to the WADA Code.

 

[Gigantor]

That statement, unintentionally, I am sure creates the impression that evidence concerning its properties is limited to testing in mice, and secondly refers to renowned, yet unspecified and unnamed scientists prepared to contest that view. Could you point to some published research of these scientists perhaps? That would be interesting.

I think the point is that scientific testing around the properties of TB4 and TB-500 is limited, which is precisely why it is dangerous for anyone to try and state definitively that TB4 meets the catchall definition within S2.

 

[Gigantor]

The way you are putting is better than BC

I honestly think BC is saying the exact same thing (to be honest, I thought he was expressing it better than me).

Thank you for the courteous response.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

I think the point is that scientific testing around the properties of TB4 and TB-500 is limited, which is precisely why it is dangerous for anyone to try and state definitively that TB4 meets the catchall definition within S2.

Rubbish.
I have given you several studies that point to its role in angiogenesis. It is clear cut but you refuse to look at the evidence.

 

[Gigantor]

Are you sure of that? It actually makes sense to me what you're saying btw but that little caveat down the bottom - is their any delegation there and any legislative power for such delegation?

I would rely more on your opinion on such a question, but I could ask:

• are there any clauses which cover the authority to delegate, or describe such a process, or describe the expectations WADA has in the manner in which such a delegation is fulfilled, e.g. documentation, communications, maintaining formal lists on the part of the NDOs, etc
• apart from whacking info up on its website, does ASADA have a formal process by which it supposedly adds items to its own "list"?
• is there anything, anywhere which would compel the Tribunal to look beyond the exact wording contained in S2?
• is there anything which makes this so-called ASADA "list" binding on the Tribunal?

 

[Gigantor]

In a way BCs point is relatively moot even if he is right. It appears to fit under that category anyway. Much ado about nothing

If it is accepted within the scientific community that TB4 fits one of the categories, or meets the definition of the catchall clause, then you are right, that's the end of the matter.

But that is a different argument to saying that ASADA can unilaterally add substances to the prohibited list or maintain a separate list with the equivalent status of the prohibited list.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

I would rely more on your opinion on such a question, but I could ask:

• are there any clauses which cover the authority to delegate, or describe such a process, or describe the expectations WADA has in the manner in which such a delegation is fulfilled, e.g. documentation, communications, maintaining formal lists on the part of the NDOs, etc
• apart from whacking info up on its website, does ASADA have a formal process by which it supposedly adds items to its own "list"?
• is there anything, anywhere which would compel the Tribunal to look beyond the exact wording contained in S2?
• is there anything which makes this so-called ASADA "list" binding on the Tribunal?

Give up GG.

 

[coryne]

Whether something fits into a banned category, or fits within the catchall clause is a matter of scientific fact.

That ASADA puts it up on their website has got absolutely nothing to do with anything. The WADA Code does not give any legal prominence whatsoever to ASADA's website.

ASADA may well be of the opinion that TB4 meets the catchall definition, but if by chance there is doubt within the scientific community about the properties of TB4, then the defence would be well within its rights to question the validity of ASADA's interpretation, and the Tribunal would be duty bound to listen to the arguments before deciding whether there had been an ADRV pursuant to the WADA Code.

It isn't just ASADA which has classified it as coming under the S2 clause, anti-doping agencies from the USA, UK, Canada and Japan have also classified it under S2, as confirmed by the presence of TB4 on the "check substance" tools, while Belgium were pursuing a case against someone for using TB-500 (a derivative of TB4) in 2012. That is AT LEAST 6 organization which recognize TB4 as a S2 substance.


Question. Do you think that they are all wrong, that they all came to the incorrect decision independently of one another or do you think that they were told by WADA to classify TB4 as a S2 substance ??? Also is there a single example of an anti-doping organization which doesn't classify TB4 as banned ???

 

[Gigantor]

Wrong. That is something that should have been argued at the SCN stage.

They didn't.


Too bad.


Move on.

I don't quite understand why you are giving this special status to the SCN process.

The Tribunal must decide whether there has been an ADRV, and will do so with reference to the words contained in S2.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

If it is accepted within the scientific community that TB4 fits one of the categories, or meets the definition of the catchall clause, then you are right, that's the end of the matter.

But that is a different argument to saying that ASADA can unilaterally add substances to the prohibited list or maintain a separate list with the equivalent status of the prohibited list.

ASADA add things when advised by WADA. Other agencies are contacted but what they do is their own business.

 

[Gigantor]

Rubbish.
I have given you several studies that point to its role in angiogenesis. It is clear cut but you refuse to look at the evidence.

At one point, I thought you were arguing that TB4 fitted into one of the categories.

Are you now saying that it is caught by the catchall clause?

And if that is the case, are you confident that there have been sufficient tests for there to be a consensus within the scientific community on the properties of TB4?