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

[Gigantor]

The Tb4 item seems most likely to end up a red herring: The code states that the respective national authority is to be consulted for any substances not explicitly listed, and ASADA advises that it is prohibited. Given that research points to its role in vascularization etc., any challenge would have little chance of success. And given that Dank at stages directly communicated with WADA, and in that correspondence was informed to consult his national authority with queries on various substances, and players are also counseled to consult ASADA if in doubt, ignorance of its status would be hard to argue. And arguing that they knew of its status but don't agree with it and administer / took it anyway would be strange.

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.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

I don't see any Thymosin on the WADA prohibited list.

You just run with that, Martie.

 

[Gigantor]

You just run with that, Martie.

He is right though.

Others migh respond: it's caught up under another grouping or catchall clause, which is fine, but that in itself becomes something which must be demonstrated to the comfortable satisfaction of the Tribunal.

 

[gutsroy]

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.

Understood, but I haven't sought to confer any such power to ASADA and that wouldn't be necessary for ASADA to be able to classify its status. The necessity of catch-all provisions means that being able to point to explicit references in the WADA code text is not necessary.Is it your assertion that ASADA has autonomously and without consultation with WADA placed TB4 on the list?

 

[LuvtheKangas]

He is right though.

Others migh respond: it's caught up under another grouping or catchall clause, which is fine, but that in itself becomes something which must be demonstrated to the comfortable satisfaction of the Tribunal.

As a betting man, I'd happily take odds on for the comfortable satisfaction standard being met.

Stating it's not specifically listed is yet another one of their insipid attempts at getting off on a technicality.

 

[Gigantor]

Understood, but I haven't sought to confer any such power to ASADA and that wouldn't be necessary for ASADA to be able to classify its status. The necessity of catch-all provisions means that being able to point to explicit references in the WADA code text is not necessary.Is it your assertion that ASADA has autonomously and without consultation with WADA placed TB4 on the list?

I am agreeing with BC's argument, which was actually supported by one of your quotes above.

The WADA Code is what matters (inclusive of the prohibited list).

There is nothing in the WADA code which confers any authority on NDOs to add to the prohibited list or to run their own special lists alongside the prohibited list.

There is one Prohibited List.

Where a substance is named on the Prohibited List, it cannot be challenged, it is Law (so to speak).

Where you have categories of substances, group descriptions and catchall clauses, as exist in S2, then that becomes part of the case in demonstrating to the comfortable satisfaction of the Tribunal that there has been an ADRV.

For ASADA to decide that TB4 falls under the catchall, or within one of the other groupings in S2, is NOT binding on the Tribunal, and this is why your quote said quite clearly that such interpretations can be challenged, or are contestable, before the tribunal.

 

[Gigantor]

As a betting man, I'd happily take odds on for the comfortable satisfaction standard being met.

Stating it's not specifically listed is yet another one of their insipid attempts at getting off on a technicality.

No problem at all, neither BC or I have argued how easy or difficult it would be for ASADA to demonstrate such a thing to the comfortable satisfaction of the tribunal, although one knowledgeable poster referred to tests on mice in proof of the properties of TB4. Now I'm not saying that that is insufficient evidence, but, it would not surprise me if the defence could put up a few renowned scientists against that evidence and argue it is not enough to draw definitive opinions on the efficacy of TB4.

 

[gutsroy]

I am agreeing with BC's argument, which was actually supported by one of your quotes above.

The WADA Code is what matters (inclusive of the prohibited list).

There is nothing in the WADA code which confers any authority on NDOs to add to the prohibited list or to run their own special lists alongside the prohibited list.

There is one Prohibited List.

Where a substance is named on the Prohibited List, it cannot be challenged, it is Law (so to speak).

Where you have categories of substances, group descriptions and catchall clauses, as exist in S2, then that becomes part of the case in demonstrating to the comfortable satisfaction of the Tribunal that there has been an ADRV.

For ASADA to decide that TB4 falls under the catchall, or within one of the other groupings in S2, is NOT binding on the Tribunal, and this is why your quote said quite clearly that such interpretations can be challenged, or are contestable, before the tribunal.

But again, are you asserting that ASADA has determined the status of Tb4 without consultation with WADA? If so, on the basis of what evidence? I agree with the statement that is classification is fundamentally contestable, although as stated above, any challenges don't appear promising. It looks like that horse won't run, but there's nothing stopping them from leading it to the starting gate.

 

[jenny61_99]

Not sure how he could be identified as having received an SCN given the players have not been.

I'm sure he was sent SCN months ago and did not respond. He has now been issued IN along with players.

 

[Gigantor]

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?

 

[LuvtheKangas]

In case anyone missed, my good friend and fellow GWS supporter, AR, put up a link

Did LOL at the bolded bit.

 

[Gigantor]

But again, are you asserting that ASADA has determined the status of Tb4 without consultation with WADA? If so, on the basis of what evidence? I agree with the statement that is classification is fundamentally contestable, although as stated above, any challenges don't appear promising. It looks like that horse won't run, but there's nothing stopping them from leading it to the starting gate.

I don't quite understand what the consultation with WADA would add.

There is one Prohibited List, and as BC notes, WADA haven't bothered naming TB4 even in the 2015 version of the Prohibited List.

The Tribunal refers to the Prohibited List. Consultations between WADA and ASADA of themselves do not add to or alter the Prohibited List. Together they might have evidence which makes it clear cut that a particular substance falls within a certain category, or meets a catchall definition, and that might be such that no one would ever challenge it.

In the absence of that, the case has to be made out before the Tribunal.

 

[Gigantor]

Did LOL at the bolded bit.

I have never had any reason to doubt AR's allegiances.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

I have never had any reason to doubt AR's allegiances.

Me neither.

 

[gutsroy]

No problem at all, neither BC or I have argued how easy or difficult it would be for ASADA to demonstrate such a thing to the comfortable satisfaction of the tribunal, although one knowledgeable poster referred to tests on mice in proof of the properties of TB4. Now I'm not saying that that is insufficient evidence, but, it would not surprise me if the defence could put up a few renowned scientists against that evidence and argue it is not enough to draw definitive opinions on the efficacy of TB4.

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.

 

[gutsroy]

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?

He was able to escape punishment because he had received different materials to those he had ordered (he had ordered TB-500, which was considered prohibited under S2 and would have seen him banned), which was able to be determined based on analysis of materials, based on the Dutch and German language reporting at the time, so the version you state is quite different, whatever the reason for the discrepancy might be, as you seem to be suggesting that TB-500 had been deemed not to be doping product, but it was not TB500 to begin with.

 

[gutsroy]

I don't quite understand what the consultation with WADA would add.

There is one Prohibited List, and as BC notes, WADA haven't bothered naming TB4 even in the 2015 version of the Prohibited List.

The Tribunal refers to the Prohibited List. Consultations between WADA and ASADA of themselves do not add to or alter the Prohibited List. Together they might have evidence which makes it clear cut that a particular substance falls within a certain category, or meets a catchall definition, and that might be such that no one would ever challenge it.

In the absence of that, the case has to be made out before the Tribunal.

What I don't understand is why you referred to ASADA not having the authority to add or remove items / to ASADA's 'interpretation' not being binding, when there is no evidence ASADA has done anything other than administer the code locally.

 

[Argy]

It is not on the list. It may or may not fit into a prohibited category. Despite adding additional substances to their prohibited list each year as matters develop, WADA have not chosen to add TB4 even to next year's 2015 list.

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.

 

[threesixpio]

ASADA's interpretation on that aspect is not binding on the Tribunal. ASADA must demonstrate to the comfortable satisfaction of the Tribunal that it does have the properties mentioned in the catchall clause. The Tribunal refers to the Prohibited List, not the ASADA website.

I'm fine with that GG - but I think it is deceptive to say definitively that it's not on the list. "It might not be" on the list is a better answer

 

[threesixpio]

It might be banned, most probably it is, but since it is not named in the Prohibited List, ASADA must demonstrate to the comfortable satisfaction of the Tribunal that it meets the catchall definition.

The way you are putting is better than BC

 

[threesixpio]

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.

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?

 

[Ancient Tiger]

He is right though.

Others migh respond: it's caught up under another grouping or catchall clause, which is fine, but that in itself becomes something which must be demonstrated to the comfortable satisfaction of the Tribunal.

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

They didn't.


Too bad.


Move on.

 

[threesixpio]

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

They didn't.


Too bad.


Move on.

Ok. ( I think I'm out of my knowledge depth here).

 

[threesixpio]

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

 

[blackshadow]

How come you didn't reply to my take on it a couple of pages back?

No doubt it wouldn't have suited Bobby's agenda.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk