• Please read this post on the rules on BigFooty regarding posting copyright material, including fair dealing rules. Repeat infringements could see your account limited or closed.

Harcourt presentation "bombshell"

Remove this Banner Ad

Laphroaig said:
Little said he was appalled by Harcourt’s reference to cancer.

“If there is a serious health risk that he knows about that he hasn’t passed on to us, that is worse than irresponsible,” Little said.

“I’ve now done 10 presentations to parents ... and none of those have dealt directly with the cancer possibility ... and I feel, and I have made this very clear to the AFL, that my credibility with the parents is being drawn into question. Have I been avoiding it? Have I chosen not to mention it?”

Wouldn't it be nice if the wizened Little headkicker answered that question instead of just asking it.
Click to expand...
Yes you have chosen not to answers questions Little headkicker, you have avoided them at every turn and gone on the attack. Again classic defense of Hird/News Ltd and Co. Another question. Whose credit card was used by Dank to pay for peptides? Was it yours? We'd love to know the answers to those questions.
 
Laphroaig said:
Little said he was appalled by Harcourt’s reference to cancer.

“If there is a serious health risk that he knows about that he hasn’t passed on to us, that is worse than irresponsible,” Little said.
Click to expand...
Isn't this just tantamount to admitting they've taken a prohibited substance?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

lysp said:
Few corrections - peptides are not necessarily illegal. They may be against certain rules, but if they were illegal you would not be able to buy/import them which you can.

Second just because it's a peptide doesnt mean it's bad. Peptides are simply a chain of amino acids. You have peptides in milk, meat and many other common foods.
Click to expand...

your first point is valid - i should have said banned instead of illegal

your second point; yes that is true.

doesn't change the point of my post however
 
Laphroaig said:
Little said he was appalled by Harcourt’s reference to cancer.

“If there is a serious health risk that he knows about that he hasn’t passed on to us, that is worse than irresponsible,” Little said.

“I’ve now done 10 presentations to parents ... and none of those have dealt directly with the cancer possibility ... and I feel, and I have made this very clear to the AFL, that my credibility with the parents is being drawn into question. Have I been avoiding it? Have I chosen not to mention it?”

Wouldn't it be nice if the wizened Little headkicker answered that question instead of just asking it.
Click to expand...

April 2014
A LEADING cell biology expert has confirmed there is a hypothetical link between growth hormones and the development of cancer cells, claiming it was "bad practice" for an NRL player in remission from lymphoma to be given banned peptides.

.....


A six-year study into growth factor IGF-1 conducted by Harvard Medical School last decade determined that link was more prevalent in adults over 40 years of age.

It found that high levels of IGF-1 significantly increased the risks of breast, prostate and colorectal cancer, the latter to the tune of 2 1/2 times.

A study of more than 14,000 physicians by the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in the US found men who had the highest levels of IGF-1 were more than four times more likely to contract colorectal cancer.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...-of-cancer-cells/story-e6frexrr-1226630362174
 
Albert Ross said:
April 2014
A LEADING cell biology expert has confirmed there is a hypothetical link between growth hormones and the development of cancer cells, claiming it was "bad practice" for an NRL player in remission from lymphoma to be given banned peptides.

.....


A six-year study into growth factor IGF-1 conducted by Harvard Medical School last decade determined that link was more prevalent in adults over 40 years of age.

It found that high levels of IGF-1 significantly increased the risks of breast, prostate and colorectal cancer, the latter to the tune of 2 1/2 times.

A study of more than 14,000 physicians by the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in the US found men who had the highest levels of IGF-1 were more than four times more likely to contract colorectal cancer.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...-of-cancer-cells/story-e6frexrr-1226630362174
Click to expand...
What's a hypothetical link?

Does hypothetical have a different meaning in biological research; otherwise hypothetically you could link any two things together.
 
I Rock said:
What's a hypothetical link?

Does hypothetical have a different meaning in biological research; otherwise hypothetically you could link any two things together.
Click to expand...
Speculated but not proven. I think it has a stronger meaning than the colloquial usage. In that we really have to wait things out to see if cancers appear as a result of using these drugs.
 
I Rock said:
So we wait on the strength of this speculation
Click to expand...
Yeah I guess. I would liken it to the example of Boeing building a new plane. There is a strong theoretically evidence that it will fly based on 100 years of technology and research, but until it actually takes off... well then it's hypothetical and speculative.
 
Laphroaig said:
How many of the 160 have not been approved for ANY human therapeutic use anywhere in the world?
Click to expand...

and off label use is wonderful isn't it

"Pfizer paid $430 million in 2004 to settle allegations that it had promoted Neurontin, an anti-epilepsy medicine, for pain and bi-polar disorder"
 
I Rock said:
What's a hypothetical link?

Does hypothetical have a different meaning in biological research; otherwise hypothetically you could link any two things together.
Click to expand...

No doubt, I was commenting on Little's suggestion that talk of cancer was out of the blue and he hadn't addressed it. It has been discussed at length for a year. Little claiming that cancer talk is new to him is nonsense. Harcourt ends his speech talking about they have to monitor players because growth factors might have been used and they could lead to hormonal issues, even possibly cancers.

Similarly talk that 3 bombers players were pictured in the presentation and therefore had their privacy breached. All Harcourt had was a slide to introduce the club with the Bombers walking down the race onto the field. You see 3 faces because it is the 3 blokes shoulder to shoulder leading the team onto the field.

The spinning is getting worse. The only two things out of the Harcourt talk

1. AFL has more coercive power than ASADA and that will be the crux of the Bombers court case - but they didn't need Harcourt for that.
2. An interesting observation that the 'supplements program' had no nutritional context. If you were running a genuine supplements program it would be tightly tied to what they were eating.
 
I Rock said:
So we wait on the strength of this speculation
Click to expand...
A hypothetical link means that theoretically the drug/hormone/substance 'should' result in increase of cancer rates but there are no longitudinal studies that can affirm this. The use of these drugs will not be known for some time as populations are observed. So that is Harcourt was proposing to arrange. Monitor the players for any increase in cancers etc from an expected rate.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Albert Ross said:
Similarly talk that 3 bombers players were pictured in the presentation and therefore had their privacy breached. All Harcourt had was a slide to introduce the club with the Bombers walking down the race onto the field. You see 3 faces because it is the 3 blokes shoulder to shoulder leading the team onto the field.
Click to expand...

They would have said the same thing if he used a picture of the Don's logo. :rolleyes:
 
Hypothetical my arse? It's dependent on what sort of tumor you have. Is it GH (substitute PED of choice here) responsive or not?

Does GH promote or inhibit the cancer? Does the cancer have the ability to respond eg presence or absence of the hormone receptor.

Breast Cancer is an example, BRCA-1 positive cancers tend to lack hormone receptors and thus are unresponsive to hormone therapy which has the potential to inhibit the cancer at least in the early stage.

The pill is a hormone tablet it increases the risk of some cancers and lowers others.
 
well it's a good thing that their blood was tested overseas and nothing was found at all.
Kinda ****s your theories a little bit about teh drugzzorzz
 
Albert Ross said:
April 2014
A LEADING cell biology expert has confirmed there is a hypothetical link between growth hormones and the development of cancer cells, claiming it was "bad practice" for an NRL player in remission from lymphoma to be given banned peptides.

.....


A six-year study into growth factor IGF-1 conducted by Harvard Medical School last decade determined that link was more prevalent in adults over 40 years of age.

It found that high levels of IGF-1 significantly increased the risks of breast, prostate and colorectal cancer, the latter to the tune of 2 1/2 times.

A study of more than 14,000 physicians by the Journal of the National Cancer Institute in the US found men who had the highest levels of IGF-1 were more than four times more likely to contract colorectal cancer.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...-of-cancer-cells/story-e6frexrr-1226630362174
Click to expand...

I have it on good authority that all the Essendon players tested positive to IGF-1, surely with the mountain of good evidence against them, surely they must be guilty!
 
spartanwa said:
well it's a good thing that their blood was tested overseas and nothing was found at all.
Kinda ****s your theories a little bit about teh drugzzorzz
Click to expand...

Nothing banned was found. Would be really interesting if they found evidence of thymomodulin, doubt they would let that result go public though...
 
spartanwa said:
well it's a good thing that their blood was tested overseas and nothing was found at all.
Kinda ****s your theories a little bit about teh drugzzorzz
Click to expand...

So funny unless ASADA were in the clinic there was little chance of a positive test for the chosen peptides, they are used as they are practically undetectable and have a very short half life. No reliable test existed for ThyB4 in 2012.
 
all the windy sniping over testing. Positive tests are so 70's. That why grubs like Dank get jobs so they can circumvent testing.

As for cancer - why just cancer. There are more possible side effects that essendon have excuses.
 
Gavstar said:
So funny unless ASADA were in the clinic there was little chance of a positive test for the chosen peptides, they are used as they are practically undetectable and have a very short half life. No reliable test existed for ThyB4 in 2012.
Click to expand...

so....no positive tests to any banned substances correct?
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Harcourt presentation "bombshell"

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top