Bruce Francis and TV legal dramas or the letter to the Minister for Sport

Remove this Banner Ad

Malifice said:
Lack of positive tests is irrelevant in this matter. A positive test is not an element to the offence.

That said, the fact the players were tested and nothing was found may be relevant.
Click to expand...
Hm not really. They "were on the right path". Just because it came back negative, doesn't mean there weren't potential indications to believe it was TB4
 
thegerman said:
That's the point.....THERE ONLY NEEDS TO BE A REASONABLE SATISFACTION.

This is not a court of law.

We cannot have a system where an Olympic athlete missed a few tests, is suspended for 19 months for merely the inference of taking something and a whole team getting off, with absolutely no scripts, notes of any kind, to what was injected into players.

Simply, that would be a travesty to the Australian sporting industry.
Click to expand...

Depends if you are an EFC supporter or not.
Sport is littered with supposed dumb asses being suspended for years for pathetic excuses for missing tests, etc ......

But to the Kool Aid brigade it all makes perfect sense.

It's just amazing that before being caught Dank decided to play a straight bat at EFC after doing dodgy stuff everywhere else.

JUST

MAKES

PERFECT

SENSE

....... Right!
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Malifice said:
Yes really.

I would put it forward for the players. The case is circumstantial. It does go to show that there was no TB4 detected prior to the date of the tests.
Click to expand...
Could it also be dependant on what the lab results were? Say if there was something odd in the blood samples, which can lead to TB4?
 
compact72 said:
Could it also be dependant on what the lab results were? Say if there was something odd in the blood samples, which can lead to TB4?
Click to expand...

Maybe.

All Im saying is that if a circumstantial case is put before you, you should place as much evidence as you can to refute anything that circumstantial evidence seeks to prove.

I would have thought that if ASADA was seeking to establish a circumstantial case against a person for 'using' TB-4, the person could (and should) put evidence forward of a blood test (conducted by ASADA at the time I was purported to be using) that showed I didn't use TB-4.

That said, remember - its my understanding that the charge is 'for use or attempted use'. Blood tests don't rule out the attempted use part. Also, didnt the blood tests at Essendon happen before the 'thymoisin' regime started?
 
Malifice said:
Maybe.

All Im saying is that if a circumstantial case is put before you, you should place as much evidence as you can to refute anything that circumstantial evidence seeks to prove.

I would have thought that if ASADA was seeking to establish a circumstantial case against a person for 'using' TB-4, the person could (and should) put evidence forward of a blood test (conducted by ASADA at the time I was purported to be using) that showed I didn't use TB-4.

That said, remember - its my understanding that the charge is 'for use or attempted use'. Blood tests don't rule out the attempted use part. Also, didnt the blood tests at Essendon happen before the 'thymoisin' regime started?
Click to expand...
And we don't what the rules of evidence are either.
 
Malifice said:
Yes really.

I would put it forward for the players. The case is circumstantial. It does go to show that there was no TB4 detected prior to the date of the tests.
Click to expand...
What test would they use to test for TB4? The ELISA test is not dependable enough to sanctioned by WADA and I am not aware of any other test for TB4. So how would they be able to test positive if there is no test?
 
Malifice said:
I would have thought that if ASADA was seeking to establish a circumstantial case against a person for 'using' TB-4, the person could (and should) put evidence forward of a blood test (conducted by ASADA at the time I was purported to be using) that showed I didn't use TB-4.
Click to expand...

It wouldn't show whether or not you had used TB4. It would detect that you had blood and one of the constituent ingredients of blood (TB4), and that you hadn't injected synthetic TB4 in the 30 minutes prior to the sample being taken. It is rather like submitting a blood test for alcohol taken in March as proof that you didn't have a drink in February.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Malifice said:
Maybe.

All Im saying is that if a circumstantial case is put before you, you should place as much evidence as you can to refute anything that circumstantial evidence seeks to prove.

I would have thought that if ASADA was seeking to establish a circumstantial case against a person for 'using' TB-4, the person could (and should) put evidence forward of a blood test (conducted by ASADA at the time I was purported to be using) that showed I didn't use TB-4.

That said, remember - its my understanding that the charge is 'for use or attempted use'. Blood tests don't rule out the attempted use part. Also, didnt the blood tests at Essendon happen before the 'thymoisin' regime started?
Click to expand...

My understanding was that the AFL requested that ASADA test the Essendon players and there was elevated levels that raised eyebrows and ASADA then continued target testing of Essendon after that. As others have said there is no accepted WADA test for TB4, but there are elevated levels than can indicate a balance of probabilities that it may have been used.
 
NikkiNoo said:
My understanding was that the AFL requested that ASADA test the Essendon players and there was elevated levels that raised eyebrows and ASADA then continued target testing of Essendon after that. As others have said there is no accepted WADA test for TB4, but there are elevated levels than can indicate a balance of probabilities that it may have been used.
Click to expand...
The continued testing could also build a case could it not. Showing that the levels started to taper off after the testing commenced?
 
Cat Attack 08 said:
The continued testing could also build a case could it not. Showing that the levels started to taper off after the testing commenced?
Click to expand...

They can't actually do much with the levels themselves. Your levels vary during the day, whether you are tired, hungry, sick etc. They go up when you exercise and fall when you rest.

The test relies on the fact that the body produces a few types of HGH. However the stuff you inject is only 1 type. So if you inject a heap of that 1 type the ratios of the different types will change (for about 24-36 hours).

Whether stuff like TB4 which triggers HGH production triggers all types of HGH or just some I don't know. If it triggers all types then the ratios will be fine and it will be almost impossible to return a positive test.

Unless HGH levels are massivly high (over a threshold) you will never be able to look at HGH levels and tell if someone is doping or is simply sick, tired, hungry, fresh, obese etc etc etc.
 
Albert Ross said:
They can't actually do much with the levels themselves. Your levels vary during the day, whether you are tired, hungry, sick etc. They go up when you exercise and fall when you rest.

The test relies on the fact that the body produces a few types of HGH. However the stuff you inject is only 1 type. So if you inject a heap of that 1 type the ratios of the different types will change (for about 24-36 hours).

Whether stuff like TB4 which triggers HGH production triggers all types of HGH or just some I don't know. If it triggers all types then the ratios will be fine and it will be almost impossible to return a positive test.

Unless HGH levels are massivly high (over a threshold) you will never be able to look at HGH levels and tell if someone is doping or is simply sick, tired, hungry, fresh, obese etc etc etc.
Click to expand...
34 though?
 
LoungeLizard said:
34 though?
Click to expand...

All you could tell is that a group of samples didn't look random enough. However that could be because everyone was at the same 21st the night before, or a bug was going through a club, or they had all spent the afternoon getting manicures and spa treatments.

It is why Harcout has said the results indicate 'something' but are not conclusive.

The Bruce Francis OH+S crusade that the AFL should have detected and stopped Essendon really ignores that the chances of any form of analytical detection are zero. When Harcourt sends the tests away to Cologne he would have done so shrugging his shoulders, knowing there was no chance of them finding anything but there being nothing else he could really do.
 
Not sure there is enough clouds left for Bruce to yell at.
 
One's heart is warmed by the rhetorical techniques employed by Mr Francis.

As he so ably displayed in his dismantling of the pseudo-medical ramblings of Ancient Tiger, Bruce employs logical, analytic, non-emotional ways of demonstrating he is the only person in the world who is correct about everything.

Well played.
 
Ancient Tiger said:
What test would they use to test for TB4? The ELISA test is not dependable enough to sanctioned by WADA and I am not aware of any other test for TB4. So how would they be able to test positive if there is no test?
Click to expand...

Correct there is no accredited test, so the tests conducted were not for TB4. I would suggest they were similar to those done by Dank looking for elevated secondary hormones (again probably those related to the administration of HGH, Hexarelin, CJC, GHRP6 etc). That fact that they were interesting could mean that the samples may have had close to threshold levels for multiple players? Who knows.


Eg Armstrong et al would EPO dope to just under the hemocrit threshold as there was no test.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Bruce Francis and TV legal dramas or the letter to the Minister for Sport

Similar threads

The_Wookie
The Andrew Wilkie Allegations
Replies
17
Views
1K
pattymalone00
pattymalone00
A
This is the way to treat drug cheats
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
PoppedCorn
PoppedCorn
sosos
The Joel Smith Bust
Replies
0
Views
587
sosos
sosos
The_Wookie
Play Nice Happy 10th Anniversary (of the Essendon/ASADA Saga)
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
blackcat
blackcat

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top