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

[Donstuie]

Isn't it funny how the tact of the "independent observers" moves towards "TB4 shouldn't be banned" at the exact same time Hardie does the same thing....

 

[Gigantor]

Don't wish to intrude, but I believe your understanding is correct as it is not explicitly referred to under S2 of the WADA code, the interpretation being that it falls under the catchall for similar substances. For anyone interested, what seems to be a balanced overview can be found here: http://www.lawinsport.com/articles/...a-prohibited-list-catchalls-and-consistencies

Thanks for the link (it's our friend Dr Koh again).

I think most of us have reached this point, but the question remains: is an ASADA interpretation of the S2 catchall binding, or does it still have to be tested before the tribunal (that the conditions of the S2 catchall have been met).

Richard Ings says:

Richard Ings ‏@ringsau 38s38 seconds ago
@roadagain65Tb4 is not on the prohibited list by name. A player could rebut an allegation of TB4 use by asking ASADA to show it is banned

And this is Dr Koh's tweet on this very question:
Sports-Medicine-Law @DrBenKoh · 3h3 hours ago
@ringsau @ivan_of_blitz So how is TB500 and/or TB4 fit within catchall? It is certainly not based on chemical structure so you would have >>
@ringsau @ivan_of_blitz >>to be based on its biological function. If the greater medical community is still actually trying to understand>>
@ringsau @ivan_of_blitz >>how it TB4 actually work & yet to have consensus, I doubt ASADA is wiser to the fact?

 

[Gigantor]

If someone was accused of drinking chocolate milk, then the case would not got past the ADRV. You are the one arguing points of law, process, fine print etc. Well in the context of your argument, using your methods, it is a pretty important rubber stamp.

Well, to compare TB4 and chocolate milk.....

 

[Zgope1]

i am not a racist some of my best m8s are aborigine, asian, black, latino, jewsih, even medusala for chissakes

i know who you are and you are definitely racist

 

[Keys]

ASADA is ready - let's get it on!

I sincerely hope that Dank does front and try to convince the Tribunal that TB4 isn't banned!

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/supple...the-afl-tribunal-hearing-20141205-1215w8.html

From that article, a direct quote from Hardie

"I have been called an Essendon fan, a footy fan, I am neither of those things. I had no interest in defending Essendon but when I looked at the substances that were being used, I came to the pretty quick conclusion that none of them were banned under the WADA code," he said on Radio Sport National.

"More importantly, when we say there are two types of thymosin, the good thymosin and the bad thymosin, the substance thymosin beta 4, there has never been a decision of any sporting tribunal in the world, or the court of arbitration of sport, that has found that that substance is banned.

He claims to have seen the substances being used, then when he talks about thymosin rather than saying TB4 wasn't on the list he goes down the path of it not being banned despite acknowledging the discussion around good and bad thymosin. Why would he not just say TB4 wasn't on the list, unless of course it was on the list of substances being used

 

[coryne]

Question.

The EFC saga is probably one of the most highly publicized anti-doping events to occur in YEARS. WADA seems to be in regular contact with ASADA regarding this case. Does anyone actually believe that after 2 years that WADA hasn't asked ASADA which drugs are being perused and that WADA hasn't confirmed that they are in fact prohibited ???


I mean either WADA and ASADA are two of the most dysfunctional organizations on the face of the planet (and I would back a movement to disband ASADA if this was the case) or the concept that TB4 hasn't been ticked off by WADA as a prohibited substance is laughable.

Bumped so GG may respond to the question asked

 

[Gigantor]

So why wasn't this brought up at the SCN stage, the appropriate time?

AT
1. Neither the AFLPA or players are pushing this. We are merely looking at it her as an intellectual exercise (and a very interesting one at that).
2. The AFLPA and players were ultra keen to skip the SCN process to get to the tribunal as quickly as possible.

 

[blackcat]

i know who you are and you are definitely racist

yep, definitely racist innit holllywood

with ebola Zgope1

 

[Gigantor]

Bumped so GG may respond to the question asked

Have we not already touched on the example of AOD, and Fahey shouting from the rooftops that it was definitely banned and that action would ensue as certain as night follows day?

Similarly, I have no doubt that ASADA (and maybe WADA) are of the firm view that TB4 is caught by the catchall clause in s2, but when it comes to the tribunal, such opinions and interpretations can only be persuasive, and in the tribunal determining whether there has been an anti-doping rule violation, they will need to consider whether TB4 is in fact caught by the catchall definition in S2, and in doing so, they will allow the defence to put its case forward, as suggested by Ings in his tweet.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

I wanted to revisit this idea, and let me say also that I ask this as a layperson.

A few pages back, I innocently suggested that it makes some sense that the tribunal be satisfied they are dealing with a prohibited substance before continuing the hearing, because if it was deemed at the very start that there wasn't a prohibited substance involved, it would be pointless continuing the hearing.

Your view was that the question would not arise unless it was raised by the defence, otherwise it would be a given that TB4 is prohibited.

I tried to think of analogies from the non-sporting world.

This may not be the best analogy, but it's one that came to mind.

With "insider trading" under securities law, you would have to prove that an actual act occurred, and then you would also have to prove that that act met the definition of insider trading.

Similarly, in the present case, ASADA has to prove that the act occurred (took TB4), and from what I can see, they also have to prove that TB4 is prohibited under the WADA Code, ie that it actually constitutes an anti-doping rule violation, especially since it is now clear that TB4 is only prohibited in so far as it is covered by the catchall definition under S2.

you're mixing up a couple of things there.

your parallel for the insider trading case is ASADA proving that the prohibited material was at EFC and given to the players. This is what the EFC case will be.

ASADA will simply detail what TB4 is, and why its in breech of S2. What you want (a comprehensive defence of why this classification has been made) will only be made if the players choose to go down that path.

He's an analogy for you though. Your wife accuses you of cheating on her because he understands you got a handy from one of her friends. It didn't happen. Do you argue that the act never happened, or do you first argue that technically a handy is not a violation of your marital vows as its not sex strictly speaking - but also it never happened. I'll give you a tip, just as Bill Clinton found out, when you argue the technicalities of the definition of the violation rather than the violation itself, you are admitting it happened.

 

[Gigantor]

Isn't it funny how the tact of the "independent observers" moves towards "TB4 shouldn't be banned" at the exact same time Hardie does the same thing....

Actually, neither of us have have said that, not even close. Not even remotely close.

Pinnell raised the question (presumably because he heard Hardie talking about it somehwere).

Both BC and I see it as an interesting intellectual question, and nothing more.

Personally, I remain of the view that the ASADA case is an absolute train wreck and beyond salvaging.

 

[Gigantor]

you're mixing up a couple of things there.

your parallel for the insider trading case is ASADA proving that the prohibited material was at EFC and given to the players. This is what the EFC case will be.

ASADA will simply detail what TB4 is, and why its in breech of S2. What you want (a comprehensive defence of why this classification has been made) will only be made if the players choose to go down that path.

He's an analogy for you though. Your wife accuses you of cheating on her because he understands you got a handy from one of her friends. It didn't happen. Do you argue that the act never happened, or do you first argue that technically a handy is not a violation of your marital vows as its not sex strictly speaking - but also it never happened. I'll give you a tip, just as Bill Clinton found out, when you argue the technicalities of the definition of the violation rather than the violation itself, you are admitting it happened.

There you go, you have said it yourself: ASADA will simply detail what TB4 is, and why its in breach of S2.

And I am saying that that will be contestable by the defence.

I'm not saying that they will definitely contest it (in my view, the defence don't have to because the ASADA case is cactus), but theoretically at least, that interpretation by ASADA is contestable before the tribunal.

 

[blackcat]

Your wife accuses you of cheating on her because he understands you got a handy from one of her friends. It didn't happen. Do you argue that the act never happened, or do you first argue that technically a handy is not a violation of your marital vows as its not sex strictly speaking - but also it never happened. I'll give you a tip, just as Bill Clinton found out, when you argue the technicalities of the definition of the violation rather than the violation itself, you are admitting it happened.

is this person's wife a he? and can a he be a she? and a wife?

she has soft hands - Lester Nygaard Fargo

 

[Ned_Flanders]

There you go, you have said it yourself: ASADA will simply detail what TB4 is, and why its in breach of S2.

And I am saying that that will be contestable by the defence.

I'm not saying that they will definitely contest it (in my view, the defence don't have to because the ASADA case is cactus), but theoretically at least, that interpretation by ASADA is contestable before the tribunal.

There is a big difference between summing up the charge and defending the definition which is what you want them to do.

Let me underline it for you though, the definition of Tb4 under S2 will only be raised if the players lawyers have conceded this case, and this is their last chance to avoid a two year ban.

As I posted to you earlier, this argument in effect admits TB4 was administered, and asks the wonderful questions of if knowing the definition was in question, why did the club not verify this with ASADA as they did with AOD

I know you are saying its an interesting academic exercise, but its not. Its a distraction from a desperate man who is trying to put ASADA on trial. I am no fan of how ASADA and the AFL have run this case, but the time to argue the definition of TB4 was long ago.

 

[Gigantor]

There is a big difference between summing up the charge and defending the definition which is what you want them to do.

Let me underline it for you though, the definition of Tb4 under S2 will only be raised if the players lawyers have conceded this case, and this is their last chance to avoid a two year ban.

As I posted to you earlier, this argument in effect admits TB4 was administered, and asks the wonderful questions of if knowing the definition was in question, why did the club not verify this with ASADA as they did with AOD

I know you are saying its an interesting academic exercise, but its not. Its a distraction from a desperate man who is trying to put ASADA on trial. I am no fan of how ASADA and the AFL have run this case, but the time to argue the definition of TB4 was long ago.

But where else can one argue the status of TB4?

Who has the responsibility for questioning that?

I just don't accept that ASADA has the authority to unilaterally declare a substance as being definitively prohibited under the WADA Code. They can interpret a clause within the code, but that interpretation is contestable before the tribunal.

 

[Argy]

I'm not sure anyone would believe that the ADRVP would delve deeply enough into anything which comes before it.

If you believe the ADRVP is incompetent that's your call.

But if you do you must concede that the players and their legal counsel are equally incompetent not to have challenged TB4's status when given the opportunity to respond to the show cause notices.

The boat has sailed GG. Move on.

 

[Argy]

But where else can one argue the status of TB4?

Who has the responsibility for questioning that?

The appropriate place would be to respond to the Show Cause notice and dispute its status there. The players and their legal representatives had an opportunity but chose not to.

Boat sailed long ago my friend.

 

[Ned_Flanders]

But where else can one argue the status of TB4?

Who has the responsibility for questioning that?

I just don't accept that ASADA has the authority to unilaterally declare a substance as being definitively prohibited under the WADA Code. They can interpret a clause within the code, but that interpretation is contestable before the tribunal.

1) during the investigation as the club did with AOD

2) during the recent hearing responding to the SCN's

if the case was a blatant error, why not say boo about it until now?

Also why are you only raising this as an issue today? If this was a genuine issue, you should have been screaming about it from the hilltops for months. Same with Hardie, same with Dank.

 

[base615]

But where else can one argue the status of TB4?

Who has the responsibility for questioning that?

I just don't accept that ASADA has the authority to unilaterally declare a substance as being definitively prohibited under the WADA Code. They can interpret a clause within the code, but that interpretation is contestable before the tribunal.

Maybe when they call ASADA before using it to ask if it's banned or not. Oh, your team/players didn't do that did they?

 

[Gigantor]

This is a good time to raise something AR linked very early in the piece, in relation to the cyclist, Wim Vansevenant (ik vind te fietsen fijn).

Wim was caught importing TB-500, which was viewed as falling within the peptides section of the WADA Code.

At the anti-doping hearing, the case was thrown out, 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​

Just thought people would find this of interest, especially the reference to amino acids.

I thought all peptides were amino acids (I'm starting to sound like Dank).

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/1...ro-Vansevenant-said-to-have-been-dropped.aspx

 

[Gigantor]

1) during the investigation as the club did with AOD

2) during the recent hearing responding to the SCN's

if the case was a blatant error, why not say boo about it until now?

Also why are you only raising this as an issue today? If this was a genuine issue, you should have been screaming about it from the hilltops for months. Same with Hardie, same with Dank.

But the players were keen to skip the SCN process to get to the tribunal.

So the question will not arise because we already know the ASADA case is a train wreck.

However, I'm not sure any of your suggestions are useful or practicable, afterall, if the EFC started arguing the toss about whether TB4 was prohibited or not...

EFC actually admitted to the use of AOD, but never did admit to the use of TB4.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Actually, neither of us have have said that, not even close. Not even remotely close.

Pinnell raised the question (presumably because he heard Hardie talking about it somehwere).

Both BC and I see it as an interesting intellectual question, and nothing more.

Personally, I remain of the view that the ASADA case is an absolute train wreck and beyond salvaging.

But both you and Bobby Charlton refuse to read the WADA code, last paragraph in the S2 section which specifically says to check with your local authority about an unlisted drug! If you go and check with ASADA it says its banned!
This fulfills the WADA code to a tee!
But you are trying to be too clever and you end up looking like fools. That includes Ings who is looking more like a paid stooge more and more........

 

[FuManchu]

But where else can one argue the status of TB4?

Who has the responsibility for questioning that?

I just don't accept that ASADA has the authority to unilaterally declare a substance as being definitively prohibited under the WADA Code. They can interpret a clause within the code, but that interpretation is contestable before the tribunal.

Lols. You need to move on, this is one fight you have no chance in. It's universally accepted by all the participants in this that TB4 is banned. Dank doesn't count because he's an amateur who can't be trusted to get anything right, all on the back of advice from a self proclaimed twat in Hardly

 

[Gigantor]

But both you and Bobby Charlton refuse to read the WADA code, last paragraph in the S2 section which specifically says to check with your local authority about an unlisted drug! If you go and check with ASADA it says its banned!
This fulfills the WADA code to a tee!
But you are trying to be too clever and you end up looking like fools. That includes Ings who is looking more like a paid stooge more and more........

Sorry AT, I see that as advisory only.

I do NOT see it as authorising ASADA to start listing substances under the WADA code.

The catchall clause in S2 stands on its own for the tribunal to interpret.

 

[Gigantor]

Lols. You need to move on, this is one fight you have no chance in. It's universally accepted by all the participants in this that TB4 is banned. Dank doesn't count because he's an amateur who can't be trusted to get anything right, all on the back of a self proclaimed twat in Hardly

I think BC and I have argued quite convincingly that it is not definitively banned (and that it would be for ASADA to make the case that it is banned before the tribunal).