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

[Albert Ross]

Evans runs a broking firm, nothing unusual about a company coming in to present its case to try and raise funds/get support in the market. This has all been dealt with.

Nah just dank using the contacts he made at essendon to try and push an investment idea for aod. I've had three requests for meetings with biotechs in the last week.

The financial / conflict of interest angle is interesting but a distraction.

The reason the meeting is relevant is because it goes to prove that Evans and Hird knew that AOD had not passed final stage clinical trials and was not approved for sale in this country. It furthermore proves that they knew Dank was using a non-approved substance. It is clear evidence that they should have been more cautious around his activities and placed protocols in place - but they didn't.

It is the combination of knowing the product was not approved, then using it that is the smoking gun. Although in this case ASADA clearly feel that the TB4 stuff is easier to prosecute.

 

[Stumpy Pete]

Why don't you clear this up simply and categorically deny that the person posting on the Bobby Charlton account is the Deakin University lecturer Martin Hardie?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

Why should he?

The obsession this board is getting with "outing" people is getting a little over the top (drink!) and is getting in the way of useful debate.

As far as I am concerned the Bobby Charlton account, whether it is Martin Hardie or not, adds a useful degree of devil's advocate and tests all of us on what we think we know.

Regards

S. Pete

 

[blackshadow]

Why should he?

The obsession this board is getting with "outing" people is getting a little over the top (drink!) and is getting in the way of useful debate.

As far as I am concerned the Bobby Charlton account, whether it is Martin Hardie or not, adds a useful degree of devil's advocate and tests all of us on what we think we know.

Regards

S. Pete

Normally I'd agree with you but as Hardie keeps attempting to inject himself into the public discourse on the matter and has taken to publicly denigrating BigFooty I think it's a fair call to directly ask if Bobby Charlton is Hardie and for the poster to provide an honest response.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[Bobby Charlton]

Why don't you clear this up simply and categorically deny that the person posting on the Bobby Charlton account is the Deakin University lecturer Martin Hardie?

Sent from my Nexus 5 using Tapatalk

How would that clear it up? Anyway, it's fun that even mods get sucked into the HTB belief that non-anti-Essendon HTB views must all come from the same Essendon funded person. Amazing that peoples' confirmation bias is so strong and their minds so closed that they have to rationalise other views in that way.

 

[neutralguy]

How would that clear it up? Anyway, it's fun that even mods get sucked into the HTB belief that non-anti-Essendon HTB views must all come from the same Essendon funded person. Amazing that peoples' confirmation bias is so strong and their minds so closed that they have to rationalise other views in that way.

So that's a yes then.

 

[Stumpy Pete]

Normally I'd agree with you but as Hardie keeps attempting to inject himself into the public discourse on the matter and has taken to publicly denigrating BigFooty I think it's a fair call to directly ask if Bobby Charlton is Hardie and for the poster to provide an honest response.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

But why? Do you want him banned for having a crack at us "kiddies"?

I for one have posted a comment that had a bit of a go at his looks (although given my own appearance I thought I could do this, much like african-americans consider it okay to use the "N word" with each other) and I feel as though his comment on Twitter was fair doos.

Regards

S. Pete

 

[Satan]

Why should he?

The obsession this board is getting with "outing" people is getting a little over the top (drink!) and is getting in the way of useful debate.

As far as I am concerned the Bobby Charlton account, whether it is Martin Hardie or not, adds a useful degree of devil's advocate and tests all of us on what we think we know.

Regards

S. Pete

 

[FuManchu]

Great post for a moderator, real classy.

The truth is the truth.

 

[Just interested]

Mate that's just the way broking works.

It's a relationship based industry and this is how deals get done every day. In this case Evans did not proceed and aod was not an issue re infractions. No financial benefit was obtained by Evans or hird.

Been investing since the '80's, 'goth, so I understand this is one way the industry works.

I also understand the same industry has had more than its fair share of rogues and vagabonds, from Wall St to Collins St. From the "pump and dump" practitioners, to the inside traders (read Baker & McKenzie today, on the Vic Education Dept IT 'deal'), and on to the hedge fund types (read Matt Taibbi on what Chanos and his crowd did to the Canadian company, Fairfax Insurance).

I'm not suggesting Evans fits that bill, but I do see questions that seem to be lacking plausible explanations.

I also have some understanding of the way parts of the pharma industry work. Google "drug trial scandal" and you'll see what I mean.

And, as I've suggested elsewhere, the AOD issue ain't dead yet.

 

[blackshadow]

But why? Do you want him banned for having a crack at us "kiddies"?

I for one have posted a comment that had a bit of a go at his looks (although given my own appearance I thought I could do this, much like african-americans consider it okay to use the "N word" with each other) and I feel as though his comment on Twitter was fair doos.

Regards

S. Pete

No I don't want him banned but I'd appreciate some honesty and not hiding behind a facade.

The non confirmation above pretty much confirms it for me that Charlton is Hardie but he hasn't got the stones to express his opinions as himself.



Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[FuManchu]

The financial / conflict of interest angle is interesting but a distraction.

The reason the meeting is relevant is because it goes to prove that Evans and Hird knew that AOD had not passed final stage clinical trials and was not approved for sale in this country. It furthermore proves that they knew Dank was using a non-approved substance. It is clear evidence that they should have been more cautious around his activities and placed protocols in place - but they didn't.

It is the combination of knowing the product was not approved, then using it that is the smoking gun. Although in this case ASADA clearly feel that the TB4 stuff is easier to prosecute.

That is a good point. Knowing it wasn't yet approved surely was an indication that it would have WADA implications.

There has been suggestions that the AOD issue isn't yet dead. Interesting times.

 

[Cronos]

No I don't want him banned but I'd appreciate some honesty and not hiding behind a facade.

The non confirmation above pretty much confirms it for me that Charlton is Hardie but he hasn't got the stones to express his opinions as himself.

I wonder how it feels to know that people think so little of your opinion that the only way to get them to listen is to create a sock puppet to pretend someone agrees with you?

 

[Spongebob]

just on the financials and implications for $$, it is proposed that AOD is to be listed as a Schedule 4 drug. Did they get in on the groundfloor.

http://member.afraccess.com/media?id=CMN://6A692761&filename=20140929/CZD_01556926.pdf

 

[Stumpy Pete]

How would that clear it up? Anyway, it's fun that even mods get sucked into the HTB belief that non-anti-Essendon HTB views must all come from the same Essendon funded person. Amazing that some peoples' confirmation bias is so strong and their minds so closed that they have to rationalise other views in that way.

Bobby,

I think the word "some" in your post above might be useful - generalisations aren't helpful and I, for one, am particularly careful to avoid confirmation bias.

Regards

S. Pete

 

[Argy]

No I don't want him banned but I'd appreciate some honesty and not hiding behind a facade.

The non confirmation above pretty much confirms it for me that Charlton is Hardie but he hasn't got the stones to express his opinions as himself.

I tend to agree.

I'm not sure it is essential to know, but it would be interesting to know. They certainly behave the same way.

 

[Spongebob]

Bobby,

I think the word "some" in your post above might be useful - generalisations aren't helpful and I, for one, am particularly careful to avoid confirmation bias.

Regards

S. Pete

I agree totally with Stumpy

 

[FuManchu]

I wonder how it feels to know that people think so little of your opinion that the only way to get them to listen is to create a sock puppet to pretend someone agrees with you?

Mr hanke ...... hold it, he already exists!!!

 

[DesertRoo]

Who cares, Personally I wish they are two separate people.
Then Bobby Charlton and Martin Hardie one day can finally meet, fall in love and have deluded sea kayaking babies together.

 

[morgoth]

The financial / conflict of interest angle is interesting but a distraction.

The reason the meeting is relevant is because it goes to prove that Evans and Hird knew that AOD had not passed final stage clinical trials and was not approved for sale in this country. It furthermore proves that they knew Dank was using a non-approved substance. It is clear evidence that they should have been more cautious around his activities and placed protocols in place - but they didn't.

It is the combination of knowing the product was not approved, then using it that is the smoking gun. Although in this case ASADA clearly feel that the TB4 stuff is easier to prosecute.

Sigh, it was being used as a supplement by that time and the regulatory path for supplements is completely different and in the US is self regulating ie no approval process. The whole program was unethical on a number of levels so isolating AOD is neither here or there. In reality Evans probably had zero interest but only agreed to the meeting with Dank re AOD funding to keep the peace. Evans and Partners is hardly a noted funder of biotech.

Can't believe I am quasi defending these campaigners, I feel dirty.

 

[morgoth]

Been investing since the '80's, 'goth, so I understand this is one way the industry works.

I also understand the same industry has had more than its fair share of rogues and vagabonds, from Wall St to Collins St. From the "pump and dump" practitioners, to the inside traders (read Baker & McKenzie today, on the Vic Education Dept IT 'deal'), and on to the hedge fund types (read Matt Taibbi on what Chanos and his crowd did to the Canadian company, Fairfax Insurance).

I'm not suggesting Evans fits that bill, but I do see questions that seem to be lacking plausible explanations.

I also have some understanding of the way parts of the pharma industry work. Google "drug trial scandal" and you'll see what I mean.

And, as I've suggested elsewhere, the AOD issue ain't dead yet.

Yeah but do you invest in Biotech? Different world again, these companies are so starved of capital they constantly beat on doors and use any relationship they can to open a door. Evans and Partners is highly unlikely to even normally allow them in the door.

 

[Just interested]

just on the financials and implications for $$, it is proposed that AOD is to be listed as a Schedule 4 drug. Did they get in on the groundfloor.

http://member.afraccess.com/media?id=CMN://6A692761&filename=20140929/CZD_01556926.pdf

Schedule 4, Appendix D, so the Sept announcement says. So. from P 12 of this: https://www.tga.gov.au/sites/default/files/scheduling-policy-framework.pdf , comes this:

"Appendix D – Additional controls on possession or supply of poisons included in Schedules 4 or 8

Inclusion of a substance in Appendix D may be considered by the delegate for any human

medicine where the assessment of the proposal identifies:

· a specific health risk that may be mitigated by restricting availability through

specialist medical practitioners; or

· significant potential for illicit diversion and/or abuse which does not warrant

inclusion in Schedule 8 but warrants particular control of possession; or

· a specific high potential for abuse, particular international treaty restrictions on

availability or other matters of national public health policy which when weighed

against the need for access the substance, warrants in addition to inclusion of the

substance in Schedule 8, further restrictions on access such as authorisation by the

Secretary of the Department of Health and Ageing or some other appropriate

authority;

taking into account the implications for professional practice by affected healthcare

practitioners and regulatory control by the states and territories.

Inclusion of a substance in Appendix D should be made following consultation with the

ACMS."

 

[Just interested]

Yeah but do you invest in Biotech? Different world again, these companies are so starved of capital they constantly beat on doors and use any relationship they can to open a door. Evans and Partners is highly unlikely to even normally allow them in the door.

Yep, (e.g.) Clinuvel (nee Epitan) about a dozen years ago, and I've stuck, too. Been a few others along the way, so I do understand the capital starvation a lot of them suffer. A lot of them get starved because they've got dud technology, too.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

Yeah but do you invest in Biotech? Different world again, these companies are so starved of capital they constantly beat on doors and use any relationship they can to open a door. Evans and Partners is highly unlikely to even normally allow them in the door.

Biotech is Godzilla.

 

[CozzaD]

Epic first post.

Thank you, I will deliver more gifts in the coming days.

 

[Bobby Charlton]

No I don't want him banned but I'd appreciate some honesty and not hiding behind a facade.

I assure you I am very honest and you can just get stuffed with the insinuation that I am not honest.
Yes, I am hiding behind a facade and I confirm that my real name is not Bobby Charlton. Thinking as you do that hiding behind a facade on an anonymous forum displays a lack of honesty I must assume that "blackshadow" is your real name. You have my sympathy.

The non confirmation above pretty much confirms it for me that Charlton is Hardie but he hasn't got the stones to express his opinions as himself.

It's quite fun leading you jerks on a fishing expedition but perhaps enough is enough. The mods have quite enough information to establish whether or not I am the person you and your circle suspect me to be but perhaps Echols has not been given those access privileges in his very junior mod role of establishing and maintaining traffic via a circle jerk. When it comes to having "stones", as you term them, I would have thought it takes only very small ones to be a member of a group think community which attempts to censor other views.