- Mar 8, 2011
- 1,477
- 978
- AFL Club
- Essendon
So let me get this straight, danks evidence is good sometimes and the word of a liar on others? Sound about right?
-
LIVE: Sydney v Port Adelaide - 7:40 / 7:10 Fri
Squiggle tips Swans at 57% chance -- What's your tip? -- Teams on Thurs »
-
LIVE: Geelong v Brisbane Lions - 7:30PM Sat
Squiggle tips Cats at 54% chance -- What's your tip? -- Teams on Thurs »
-
Weekly Prize - Join Any Time - Tip Prelim Finals
The Golden Ticket - MCG and Marvel Medallion Club tickets and Corporate Box tickets at the Gabba, MCG and Marvel.
Round SF Winner: And_ROOS
-
AFLW 2024 - Round 4 - Chat, game threads, injury lists, team lineups and more.
ASADA seeks evidence from Fairfax
- Thread starter FuManchu
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Of course it is good evidence if what you say incriminates yourself! Then you take a day to correct yourself.
Of course someone may lie to exonerate themselves.
What is your explanation for Dank admitting to using TB4 then retracting the story a whole day later? Why didn't he just say it was a slip of the tongue and correct himself immediately like almost everybody else I know would?
- Thread starter
- #403
When you actually admit you've done something wrong, you can bank that.
When you try and hide things contrary to previous statements or evidence available, then you don't bank that.
It's quite simple really.
Sir Hugh Percy
BigFooty Aristocrat
Is that a question or a suggestion?
1. Do you believe Dank when he orders TB4 from Charters and Alavi? Yes or No
2. Do you believe Dank's story about the TB4 being 'fried' by exposure to sunlight and unusable? Yes or No
3. Do you believe Dank when he told that ACC that he didn't give Essendon players TB4? Yes or No
4. Do you believe Dank when told Nick McKenzie that he gave Essendon players TB4? Yes or No
5. Do you believe Dank when he called a day later and said he meant to say Thymomodulin? Yes or No
If you answered No, Yes, Yes, No, Yes you're an Essendon supporter.
If you answered Yes, No, Irrelevant, Yes, No then you've graduated from being an Essendon supporter to a higher life form. Congratulations!
http://www.metabolicalchemy.com/biography/
Sounds like a legit, well regarded source from the scientific community
Relevance? We all know Dank was a witch doctor. This is just the sort of thing he would lap up.
Sir Hugh Percy
BigFooty Aristocrat
In my opinion, it breaks down something like this:
1. Dank thinks that TB4 is s0 and he has a loophole for that. As an additional layer of subterfuge, he also figures that only referring to it as “Thymosin” allows him to claim that he actually means TA1 if anybody asks too many questions. So, he then is happy to specify “Thymosin” on the player consent forms and in conversation with people at the club.
2. When he’s actually texting or emailing his suppliers, Charters and Alavi, he then usually specifies TB4; partly because he doesn’t expect his personal messages to ever see the light of day and partly because he wants to make sure his suppliers know exactly what he wants. You don’t call an auto parts store and ask for brake pads for a Toyota, you need to be more specific than that. There is no evidence that he ever says to Charters or Alavi, “Oops, scratch that TB4 I ordered. I actually meant Thymomodulin.”
3. When Alavi sends an invoice for – in black and white – TB4, Dank gets a bit nervous that this is a ‘public’ document for the supply of what he thinks is an s0 prohibited substance. We’re also yet to see invoices for AOD9604. So he badgers Alavi to change the invoice; possibly ending up forging his signature.
4. When interviewed by McKenzie, Dank thinks that his s0 loopholes are all good and happily stirs the pot by regaling McKenzie with his AOD and TB4 adventures with the Essendon players – he’s smarter than some journo and his sheep audience. But, he’s careful to talk up the immunity system benefits of TB4 rather than encouraging the sheep to start bleating about perceived performance enhancing aspects.
5. McKenzie tells him that TB4 is actually banned, Dank goes quiet then blusters about taking that up with ASADA ‘cause that’s not right. He goes home and does a bit of googling and, “F*** me dead, it is banned!” has a think and falls back on his previous excuse about mistaking Thymomodulin and Thymosin.
PS – You’ll also notice that when Dank is texting with Dan Bates at Melbourne, Thymosin is never mentioned once. It’s all about Thymomodulin. So, at Essendon he mostly refers to Thymosin, but we’re expected to believe that he actually means Thymomodulin, because that’s a simple mistake to make, right? Yet with Dan Bates, he solely refers to Thymomodulin about 5 times and doesn’t make this mistake. Thankfully.
1. Dank thinks that TB4 is s0 and he has a loophole for that. As an additional layer of subterfuge, he also figures that only referring to it as “Thymosin” allows him to claim that he actually means TA1 if anybody asks too many questions. So, he then is happy to specify “Thymosin” on the player consent forms and in conversation with people at the club.
2. When he’s actually texting or emailing his suppliers, Charters and Alavi, he then usually specifies TB4; partly because he doesn’t expect his personal messages to ever see the light of day and partly because he wants to make sure his suppliers know exactly what he wants. You don’t call an auto parts store and ask for brake pads for a Toyota, you need to be more specific than that. There is no evidence that he ever says to Charters or Alavi, “Oops, scratch that TB4 I ordered. I actually meant Thymomodulin.”
3. When Alavi sends an invoice for – in black and white – TB4, Dank gets a bit nervous that this is a ‘public’ document for the supply of what he thinks is an s0 prohibited substance. We’re also yet to see invoices for AOD9604. So he badgers Alavi to change the invoice; possibly ending up forging his signature.
4. When interviewed by McKenzie, Dank thinks that his s0 loopholes are all good and happily stirs the pot by regaling McKenzie with his AOD and TB4 adventures with the Essendon players – he’s smarter than some journo and his sheep audience. But, he’s careful to talk up the immunity system benefits of TB4 rather than encouraging the sheep to start bleating about perceived performance enhancing aspects.
5. McKenzie tells him that TB4 is actually banned, Dank goes quiet then blusters about taking that up with ASADA ‘cause that’s not right. He goes home and does a bit of googling and, “F*** me dead, it is banned!” has a think and falls back on his previous excuse about mistaking Thymomodulin and Thymosin.
PS – You’ll also notice that when Dank is texting with Dan Bates at Melbourne, Thymosin is never mentioned once. It’s all about Thymomodulin. So, at Essendon he mostly refers to Thymosin, but we’re expected to believe that he actually means Thymomodulin, because that’s a simple mistake to make, right? Yet with Dan Bates, he solely refers to Thymomodulin about 5 times and doesn’t make this mistake. Thankfully.
You guys are all hilarious.
On the one hand you're suggesting that Dank gave the players tb4 in 2012, realised it was banned in 2012, sent an invoice for tb4 back to alavi in 2012, changed all the documentation in 2012 so that it said thymodulin (sic) or thymomodulin on consent forms, left a vial of thymomodulin in his fridge in 2012 for the evidence trail and went on his merry way. That's a whole lot of effort to hide tb4 use.
On the other hand you're suggesting that in 2013 he slipped up in an interview and revealed that he'd given tb4 to the players.
If you can't see that those two scenarios cannot possibly happen together then you're delusional.
Back to my earlier point, if ASADA are chasing this for evidence then we're in a really good place. Firstly it puts a higher likelihood on the fact that they have only a circumstantial case of TB4 use. A circumstantial case requires a full evidence trail.
Secondly, when you actually look at this evidence in context of all the circumstantial evidence of thymomodulin at the club in 2012 then it makes it less likely that Dank used TB4 on the players. He's not going to spend all that time hiding evidence and then just go on record as saying he'd used it.
On the one hand you're suggesting that Dank gave the players tb4 in 2012, realised it was banned in 2012, sent an invoice for tb4 back to alavi in 2012, changed all the documentation in 2012 so that it said thymodulin (sic) or thymomodulin on consent forms, left a vial of thymomodulin in his fridge in 2012 for the evidence trail and went on his merry way. That's a whole lot of effort to hide tb4 use.
On the other hand you're suggesting that in 2013 he slipped up in an interview and revealed that he'd given tb4 to the players.
If you can't see that those two scenarios cannot possibly happen together then you're delusional.
Back to my earlier point, if ASADA are chasing this for evidence then we're in a really good place. Firstly it puts a higher likelihood on the fact that they have only a circumstantial case of TB4 use. A circumstantial case requires a full evidence trail.
Secondly, when you actually look at this evidence in context of all the circumstantial evidence of thymomodulin at the club in 2012 then it makes it less likely that Dank used TB4 on the players. He's not going to spend all that time hiding evidence and then just go on record as saying he'd used it.
Doesn't explain Dank's injection schedule spreadsheets which listed "thymodulin" nor Robinson's thymomodulin injection email, nor the photographed presence of thymomodulin on site.
Google "sunk cost".
There's no hypothetical scenario I can think of under which Dank would go to extreme lengths to hide TB4 use in 2012 and then admit to TB4 use in a 2013 interview.
- Thread starter
- #415
Sunk costs are if its not going to cost you anymore if you proceed.
This is indeed costing ASADA at every step they continue in the process.
ASADA will have had their case and evidence tested and indeed it was by the retired Federal court judge Downes.
Secondly, this a showpiece case for ASADA, this is their chance to impact on the sporting landscape in Australia, to go after an 'untouchable' in Hird whom I believe is their penultimate target in all of this, Dank being their number 1 target. If they win this, they stand to impact on the clandestine drug use within the biggest sporting code in the country. They will know to proceed and to fight this case they will have to have the evidence and dotted their i's and crossed their t's.
If they didn't believe they stood a better than reasonable chance to win this, they would have walked away and lived to fight another day.
And you will note, Hird and EFC are trying to make certain evidence collected inadmissible, not letting it be tested at the appropriate tribunal. What does that say about the evidence they are trying to make inadmissible?
This isn't about 'sunk cost' its about winning on a scale they never had contemplated before and changing sporting landscape in this country.
JohnnyFontane90
Norm Smith Medallist
- Feb 14, 2014
- 6,481
- 10,001
- AFL Club
- Carlton
they actually do.
- Thread starter
- #417
The various agencies will proceed with a case they believe has a high chance of winning based on evidence and comfortable with the process being followed.
That's not to say they will win them all. And that's not to say that the cases they have lost meant the other party was innocent.
You didn't google sunk costs, did you?
Describe to me these hypothetical scenarios which have Dank going to extraordinary lengths to hide TB4 use in 2012 and then revealing TB4 use in a 2013 interview.
My closed mind can't see them.
- Thread starter
- #420
I don't need to, I've worked in a govt audit area. I know the processes and considerations when deciding on prosecuting cases and when and if they proceed beyond certain points.
REDACTED
I'll help you out.
Sunk costs are costs that you've incurred that you won't recover.
Sunk costs should not affect decision making because it's only prospective costs that are relevant, however behavioural economics shows that sunk costs influence decision making because humans are prone to loss aversion and framing effects.
- Thread starter
- #424
Good god, I understand the concept.
I've also sat in meetings where the agency had spent 100's and 100's K dollars and all of a sudden walked away from a prosecution based on nothing other than bad publicity.
