Peptides! The *Essendrug Dopers: come smell the bull****! -PART 2

[Ned Ryerson]

Dude, that is a submission by the prosecution and nothing to do with cas, lol poor 89Adopter

It's the submission that CAS sided with. Hence why in section 131 'the panel' are satisfied that * players took TB4. Hence why your grubby little drug cheats were banned for being drug cheats. Lol, poor Lance.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

It's the submission that CAS sided with. Hence why in section 131 'the panel' are satisfied that * players took TB4. Hence why your grubby little drug cheats were banned for being drug cheats. Lol, poor Lance.

If you're going to debate it, try and do it properly.

Just because a panel makes a decision does not mean it validates every dot point made on a submission made before the case is heard.

No one is arguing here that the EFC players took tb4, the debate was around a question asked specifically about the test.

Do try and keep up

 

[Brishawk]

I know the scientists who made it think it works. From memory there was a fairly amusing exchange where one of the time centres scientists was quite blunt about what it signified.

And your thesis about appeals may be right but that's precisely because of what I just said: that being that tb4 is naturally occurring and the defence would have had a field day as a result.

All a far cry from it being merely disallowed because the test was "too new"

The court isn't a scientific body. It can rule on admissibility but not on the scientific merit. Tb4 being naturally occurring is not denied by the scientists so it's really not an argument to say that it is and the court has no way to verify that the test can't identify doping because there is no science to say it doesn't.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

The court isn't a scientific body. It can rule on admissibility but not on the scientific merit. Tb4 being naturally occurring is not denied by the scientists so it's really not an argument to say that it is and the court has no way to verify that the test can't identify doping because there is no science to say it doesn't.

Yet by the exact same logic, given the court isn't a scientific body, is that there's no way for the court to verify the test can identify doping because there's no science to say that it does.

Hence, it wasn't admitted nor considered for exactly the reason I said.

And let's face it, if it was in any way a reliable test it would have been admitted and considered. It wasn't.

 

[Brishawk]

Yet by the exact same logic, given the court isn't a scientific body, is that there's no way for the court to verify the test can identify doping because there's no science to say that it does.

Hence, it wasn't admitted nor considered for exactly the reason I said.

And let's face it, if it was in any way a reliable test it would have been admitted and considered. It wasn't.

Total rubbish. The best available Science says it is a test of merit. There is no available science to say it isn't. It's just that the body of science behind is juvenile and thus the caution shown by the court is understandable.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Total rubbish. The best available Science says it is a test of merit. There is no available science to say it isn't. It's just that the body of science behind is juvenile and thus the caution shown by the court is understandable.

Ah, no. The test can't prove to a high enough standard that the elevated levels of tb4 are proof of external factors. Hence it not being used.

What are you trying to say, that the junior test will have grown up in 5 years and be usable? That's your total rubbish right there.

No, in time they might improve the test; make it more capable of detecting synthetic versus natural tb4; work out a better set of markers, or whatever.

But that all is improving upon what is now an inadequate scientifically rigorous test. And the proof of that is in the very fact nobody considered it valid to be entered into evidence despite appearing to prove exactly what the prosecution were arguing.

 

[Brishawk]

Ah, no. The test can't prove to a high enough standard that the elevated levels of tb4 are proof of external factors. Hence it not being used.

What are you trying to say, that the junior test will have grown up in 5 years and be usable? That's your total rubbish right there.

No, in time they might improve the test; make it more capable of detecting synthetic versus natural tb4; work out a better set of markers, or whatever.

But that all is improving upon what is now an inadequate scientifically rigorous test. And the proof of that is in the very fact nobody considered it valid to be entered into evidence despite appearing to prove exactly what the prosecution were arguing.

That is your opinion. The opinion of the scientist that made the test is that you are wrong. There is no opposing scientific view. You are wrong.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

That is your opinion. The opinion of the scientist that made the test is that you are wrong. There is no opposing scientific view. You are wrong.

Haha if there was no opposing scientific view it would have been accepted at CAS! And more so, rather than creating "a chance for appeal" it would have been as much a slam dunk as any other established PED test is. You know, where a detected ADRV is taken as a guilty unless proven otherwise?

 

[cryptor]

I don't get why * supporters still bother arguing that the players weren't drug cheats. The evidence was put forward, they were determined guilty and have since served the punishment. No amount of internet debating changes that.

 

[Brishawk]

Haha if there was no opposing scientific view it would have been accepted at CAS! And more so, rather than creating "a chance for appeal" it would have been as much a slam dunk as any other established PED test is. You know, where a detected ADRV is taken as a guilty unless proven otherwise?

Not true. ITs a lack of confidence by the court, based on a hypothesis, that gave the court reason from caution. As I said, they didn't need it so it was an easy call to make it inadmissible.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

I don't get why * supporters still bother arguing that the players weren't drug cheats. The evidence was put forward, they were determined guilty and have since served the punishment. No amount of internet debating changes that.

Who's arguing that?

 

[Lance Uppercut]

Not true. ITs a lack of confidence by the court, based on a hypothesis, that gave the court reason from caution. As I said, they didn't need it so it was an easy call to make it inadmissible.

What do you mean "they didn't need it"?!

Who are "they"? What are you suggesting?? CAS ruled it inadmissible during the proceedings, before the ruling was made, but you think that they somehow knew that the prosecutors wouldn't need it made admissible, and acted accordingly?

You seem to be saying you think the prosecutor and the court are indistinguishable and working together somehow. Um, yeah nah...

And the reason they "don't have confidence" is because the science of the test isn't proven! Obviously!

 

[cryptor]

Who's arguing that?

So you agree they're drug cheats?

 

[Lance Uppercut]

So you agree they're drug cheats?

Yes

 

[Mr Lizard]

genuine query Lance, how many of your near 55k posts would you estimate are on this topic?

I tip my hat to you, sir.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

1 or 2

 

[OzJohnnie]

genuine query Lance, how many of your near 55k posts would you estimate are on this topic?

I tip my hat to you, sir.

Slow learner.

 

[Mr Lizard]

Slow learner.

I'm guessing he's devoted more posts than you and I combined, just to the accurate portrayal of facts on this subject.

I can't help but admire the effort.

 

[Brishawk]

What do you mean "they didn't need it"?!

Who are "they"? What are you suggesting?? CAS ruled it inadmissible during the proceedings, before the ruling was made, but you think that they somehow knew that the prosecutors wouldn't need it made admissible, and acted accordingly?

You seem to be saying you think the prosecutor and the court are indistinguishable and working together somehow. Um, yeah nah...

And the reason they "don't have confidence" is because the science of the test isn't proven! Obviously!

By saying science isn't proven you demonstrate your lack of understanding of science.

 

[B&GBlood]

What do you mean "they didn't need it"?!

Who are "they"? What are you suggesting?? CAS ruled it inadmissible during the proceedings, before the ruling was made, but you think that they somehow knew that the prosecutors wouldn't need it made admissible, and acted accordingly?

You seem to be saying you think the prosecutor and the court are indistinguishable and working together somehow. Um, yeah nah...

And the reason they "don't have confidence" is because the science of the test isn't proven! Obviously!

What you might find is there is nothing problematic with the test, the problem is with the application. Not enough people have been tested to establish what typical baseline levels are in none drug cheats. Courts can also be jumpy about creating precedent with something new.

 

[grumbleguts]

What do you mean "they didn't need it"?!

Who are "they"? What are you suggesting?? CAS ruled it inadmissible during the proceedings, before the ruling was made, but you think that they somehow knew that the prosecutors wouldn't need it made admissible, and acted accordingly?

You seem to be saying you think the prosecutor and the court are indistinguishable and working together somehow. Um, yeah nah...

And the reason they "don't have confidence" is because the science of the test isn't proven! Obviously!

This is actually close enough to my field of research that I could answer this definitively, but my dog just took a massive essendon on my neighbour's lawn, and I have to go clean it up.

 

[Gold Member]

"A cheat by any other name would smell so filthy"

 

[Kil Phearns]

So...* get another "blockbuster" game - the "country" game vs. Geelong.

Further proof of the irredeemable corruptness of the AFL.

 

[Lance Uppercut]

So...* get another "blockbuster" game - the "country" game vs. Geelong.

Further proof of the irredeemable corruptness of the AFL.

"Get"?

We invented it! Came up with the concept and executed it.

Further proof of the innovation of essendon

 

[OzJohnnie]

"Get"?

We invented it! Came up with the concept and executed it.

Further proof of the innovation of essendon

Yes, * certainly are willing to innovate.