Martin Hardie: I write the forms... I think Evans ran the program

[hairy biker]

Richard Ings @ringsau · 3h3 hours ago
“@bigfootyforum: #AFL Martin Hardie: I write the forms... I think Evans ran the program http://ow.ly/2QhSWM” What an odd disclosure.

Anyone opened a market yet on which journo is going to run with the story (with the appropriate disclaimers)?

 

[DesertRoo]

Evans attended the meeting at Hird's house with Dank and Weap where they discussed how to make the club great again.

That's where it started.

But that's a long cry from saying he "ran it".

Hird ran it. From go to woe.

I often wonder if Evans payed for the black ops part of the program.

He who pays the piper, calls the tunes..

 

[hairy biker]

I often wonder if Evans payed for the black ops part of the program.

He who pays the pipper calls the tunes..

Seed money?

 

[Satan]

Anyone opened a market yet on which journo is going to run with the story (with the appropriate disclaimers)?

Someone from the nt news so the rest of news can run it and say it came from nt

 

[FuManchu]

Someone from the nt news so the rest of news can run it and say it came from nt

Hardie got his degree in the NT

 

[hairy biker]

Someone from the nt news so the rest of news can run it and say it came from nt

Headline;

"Aborigine AFL players linked to drug scandal"

 

[kfc1]

Oh, FFS - how in the bejesus do you justify R & D tax deducibility for an experimental program that hasn't been ratified by the relevant research regulatory overseers? Just who gave this the nod as a compliant scientific research program? Calzada? The same mob who issued statements to the ASX claiming they didn't even know where the gear came from, and, wherever it came from, it was a patent infringement, and they were going to hunt down the perpetrators.

A football club (business) might be able to claim tax deductibility if they actually bothered to register their wondrous research project with those who authorise such projects, and then had the requisite scientific authorities give them the nod to go ahead.

Other than all that, your argument's a winner.

Whats my argument? Im repeating what Dank said to Bates.

 

[Satan]

Headline;

"Aborigine AFL players linked to drug scandal"

"Croc ate the drugs claims Dank"

 

[blackcat]

Hardie's timeframes re involvement are very shaky. I've heard him give a few versions, some in public, some in private correspondence.

and Richard Ings is on Essendon's dime. I told them I knew it on twitter, and they flurried over denials and telling me about tinfoil fedoras

 

[blackcat]

I'm not a member of the twitterverse but i'd really love to see #seakayaker begin trending in a major way.

twitterverse never should be uttered in polite conversation

 

[blackcat]

"Croc ate the drugs claims Dank"

dank bit footscray bulldogs

 

[compact72]

To be honest, wouldn't be surprised if Hardie, Ings, football players & some journalists troll through here to find bits of information, or anything they can get their grubby hands on

 

[kfc1]

To be honest, wouldn't be surprised if Hardie, Ings, football players & some journalists troll through here to find bits of information, or anything they can get their grubby hands on

Trawl

 

[deltablues]

Which as I pointed out in another thread, as an 'informed consent' form, it actually failed. The NHMRC guidelines are that true informed consent is when someone can discuss the matter with another party before making their decision. By restricting them not being able to discuss it with others, it means that there is pressure and power being used that can not allow true informed consent. The guidelines are in relation to research being conducted, but they are ones that any ethics committee will follow when approving a consent form or not. What they are concerned about is if a participant is able to give informed consent. If you look at it in that respect, then the consent forms that Essendon used are not about allowing true informed consent to be given by the players.

Re the bolded - sure, if you look at it in that respect and make a number of factual assumptions - but in this particular focused context we are not discussing research being conducted and the associated motherhood statements of upwardly mobile ethics committees. The NHMRC guidelines (as paraphrased by you), laudable though they may be, don't trump general legal contractual principles in respect of signing documents, including waivers/consents (unless enshrined in a statute).

Were the player signatories, prior to signing, legally restricted from discussing the matters with a third party, or from seeking legal advice? And why does there have to be "informed consent"? What does that phrase mean? That is not a legal requirement in respect of eligible adults of legal age signing documents (unless raised under the usual legal qualifications of e.g. fraud, duress, signing while under a legal disability etc.).

Re the consent forms themselves - I haven't read them, but unless waivers/consents and their ilk are very carefully drafted then they can be useless/counterproductive, and are usually interpreted very narrowly and construed strictly contra proferentem.

 

[Broken_Chairs]

Trawl

Tbh there's an unholy 3 of posters who could be one of them trollin'

 

[Satan]

Tbh there's an unholy 3 of posters who could be one of them trollin'

The 3 Stooges?

 

[blackshadow]

The 3 Stooges?

Nyuk, nyuk, nyuk.

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

 

[FuManchu]

The 3 Stooges?

In this case it's a tri(pe)

 

[Satan]

In this case it's a tri(pe)

but i reckon there stooges for someone or something

 

[Spongebob]

"Croc ate the drugs claims Dank"

Croc ate the records claims Dank.

Thompson claims some of the drugs cure croc bites.

 

[Spongebob]

Croc ate sea kayaker.

 

[NikkiNoo]

Re the bolded - sure, if you look at it in that respect and make a number of factual assumptions - but in this particular focused context we are not discussing research being conducted and the associated motherhood statements of upwardly mobile ethics committees. The NHMRC guidelines (as paraphrased by you), laudable though they may be, don't trump general legal contractual principles in respect of signing documents, including waivers/consents (unless enshrined in a statute).

Were the player signatories, prior to signing, legally restricted from discussing the matters with a third party, or from seeking legal advice? And why does there have to be "informed consent"? What does that phrase mean? That is not a legal requirement in respect of eligible adults of legal age signing documents (unless raised under the usual legal qualifications of e.g. fraud, duress, signing while under a legal disability etc.).

Re the consent forms themselves - I haven't read them, but unless waivers/consents and their ilk are very carefully drafted then they can be useless/counterproductive, and are usually interpreted very narrowly and construed strictly contra proferentem.

This is where it gets murky as there is conjecture that Dank was using information from the players as research for Calzada. As a Masters student in biochemistry he should have been aware of ethics committees and having to get approval before undertaking any research on humans. There is the National Health and Medical Research Council Act requires that any research involving or impacting on humans conforms to the national statement (the guidelines). So there is legislation relating to the guidelines and there are penalties for not abiding by the guidelines.
We are still guessing a lot about what went on at Essendon.

 

[Satan]

H

This is where it gets murky as there is conjecture that Dank was using information from the players as research for Calzada. As a Masters student in biochemistry he should have been aware of ethics committees and having to get approval before undertaking any research on humans. There is the National Health and Medical Research Council Act requires that any research involving or impacting on humans conforms to the national statement (the guidelines). So there is legislation relating to the guidelines and there are penalties for not abiding by the guidelines.
We are still guessing a lot about what went on at Essendon.

has he a masters degree in biochemistry?
http://m.foxsports.com.au/afl/direc...-of-stephen-dank/story-e6frf33l-1226621545305
In February Dank told an interview with the ABC's 7.30 that he had a degree in biochemistry from the Queensland University of Technology, and was a PhD candidate (suspended last year) at the University of Sydney for a thesis on antioxidants.

It is believed Dank undertook a Masters degree in sports science at the University of NSW in the mid 1990s, but it is unclear whether he graduated.

"We have searched our system and have not been able to find a record of a Stephen Dank graduating from UNSW,'' a university spokeswoman said.

 

[deltablues]

Re the bolded - sure, if you look at it in that respect and make a number of factual assumptions - but in this particular focused context we are not discussing research being conducted and the associated motherhood statements of upwardly mobile ethics committees. The NHMRC guidelines (as paraphrased by you), laudable though they may be, don't trump general legal contractual principles in respect of signing documents, including waivers/consents (unless enshrined in a statute).

Were the player signatories, prior to signing, legally restricted from discussing the matters with a third party, or from seeking legal advice? And why does there have to be "informed consent"? What does that phrase mean? That is not a legal requirement in respect of eligible adults of legal age signing documents (unless raised under the usual legal qualifications of e.g. fraud, duress, signing while under a legal disability etc.).

Re the consent forms themselves - I haven't read them, but unless waivers/consents and their ilk are very carefully drafted then they can be useless/counterproductive, and are usually interpreted very narrowly and construed strictly contra proferentem.

This is where it gets murky as there is conjecture that Dank was using information from the players as research for Calzada. As a Masters student in biochemistry he should have been aware of ethics committees and having to get approval before undertaking any research on humans. There is the National Health and Medical Research Council Act requires that any research involving or impacting on humans conforms to the national statement (the guidelines). So there is legislation relating to the guidelines and there are penalties for not abiding by the guidelines.
We are still guessing a lot about what went on at Essendon.

We may have inadvertently been talking at cross-purposes, as my comments were on the binding nature (or otherwise) of the players' consent forms - but I take on board your comments re Dank and relevant legislative approvals.

 

[hairy biker]

This is where it gets murky as there is conjecture that Dank was using information from the players as research for Calzada. As a Masters student in biochemistry he should have been aware of ethics committees and having to get approval before undertaking any research on humans. There is the National Health and Medical Research Council Act requires that any research involving or impacting on humans conforms to the national statement (the guidelines). So there is legislation relating to the guidelines and there are penalties for not abiding by the guidelines.
We are still guessing a lot about what went on at Essendon.

Don't mean to be rude NikkiNoo, but you are clearly coming from a viewpoint where ethics/safety/procedure/oversight are important.
Mr Dank seems to have a more relaxed attitude.

Dank: Is it efficacious?

Pharmacist: Very much so. It's amazing and being used in the USA for elite horse racing. I can even put the thymosin and AOD in it.

Dank: Perfect let's get going.

Dank: Have we tried it on anyone yet?

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/a...l-racehorse-drug/story-fni5f6kv-1226706049266

Guidelines to protect research participants, guidelines to protect the health and welfare of individuals, pfft, health and safety gone mad I tells ya.