Peptides! *The * Dopers: come smell the bull****! ESSENDON FANS NOT WANTED

[Dinner Plate]

Drug induced boners defy gravity.

Side effects?

None that I'm aware of.

View attachment 126714

Apologies to those who have seen that which cannot be unseen.

 

[Boot Studder]

Apologies to those who have seen that which cannot be unseen.

Oh, my eyes, my eyes!

 

[arupist]

Apologies to those who have seen that which cannot be unseen.

There can be no apology for that DP. I will hate you forever.

 

[IdiotBox]

It's glyphosate not glyphosphate

Indeed. I was getting my weed-killers mixed up with my fertilisers. And probably, if I innocently include the word "diesel" in this post I can expect a 3 am visit from the 'authorities' concerned with my agricultural pursuits.

 

[grumbleguts]

Indeed. I was getting my weed-killers mixed up with my fertilisers. And probably, if I innocently include the word "diesel" in this post I can expect a 3 am visit from the 'authorities' concerned with my agricultural pursuits.

Although they'd get very suspicious if you included ammonium nitrate (the fertiliser that explodes with diesel) with the list.

 

[JoondalupJ]

Hi folks. Here's an update from my friend. I'm quoting directly what he's said. For those thinking WADA won't appeal as Australia isn't a big deal in world sport, take note of the bolded section in the 2nd quote...

Great. You still have to have proof, that you can present. No matter how many tribunals court cases what ever, world bodies or dills making knowing comments on guess work, or even peoples detailed descriptions of activities by chemists coaches players, presidents , federal cops , politicians AFL CEO's Mr Mc Devitt, crikey the Pope!!!! , if you can't prove what they or anyone said was true WHETHER IT IS OR NOT !!! , and you have to do it on your day in court , well even the President of the USA can't convict anyone. But Wada can, yes?/no? and they would still have to have absolute provable TRUTH to do it because it would be appealed.

So lets hope your right. and WADA can prove Danks and Essendon and Hird and everyone , EVERYONE !! that was charged is guilty, then you can have Essendon banned as a club for life , Hird well you can jail him and Danks , WHO ELSE DO YOU WANT DESTROY, ON THE WAY . iF YOU CAN PROVE IT. sOME OF THESE SPORTS PEOPLE WORKED FOR GC17 WHAT ABOUT GEELONG , MAYBE WE SHOULD INVESTIGATE THEM , OF COURSE BEING ABLE TO PROVE EVERYTHING IT WOULD BE A WORTH WHILE EXECRCISE, BUT NO ONE CAN PROVE ANYTHING NOW , Can they ???

 

[JoondalupJ]

Hi folks. Here's an update from my friend. I'm quoting directly what he's said. For those thinking WADA won't appeal as Australia isn't a big deal in world sport, take note of the bolded section in the 2nd quote...

Does Coates have the true details or does he have what ASADA think ? Is true . Because no one knows the truth to its fullest. Do they? or not.

Chairmen making bold statements doesn't mean they know what they are talking about. Try out Donald Rumsfeld and Dick Cheney? Powerful men and misinformed the President to have him end up causing a world disaster.
So really Essendon????WHO BLOODY WELL KNOWS? I bet not Coates.

 

[JoondalupJ]

Hi folks. Here's an update from my friend. I'm quoting directly what he's said. For those thinking WADA won't appeal as Australia isn't a big deal in world sport, take note of the bolded section in the 2nd quote...

Lastly , Essendon was a non issue because of the way it was investigated, and too many tricks and bulldust on both sides that it is so murky , any one who may suffer from WADA doing a NEW INVESTIGAION WILL APPEAL WITH GUSTO , because they have no choice. Its that simple and the onus is on the investigator to prove it. We are now playing a whole different ball game and this subject is getting very tedious.

 

[threesixpio]

Great. You still have to have proof, that you can present. No matter how many tribunals court cases what ever, world bodies or dills making knowing comments on guess work, or even peoples detailed descriptions of activities by chemists coaches players, presidents , federal cops , politicians AFL CEO's Mr Mc Devitt, crikey the Pope!!!! , if you can't prove what they or anyone said was true WHETHER IT IS OR NOT !!! , and you have to do it on your day in court , well even the President of the USA can't convict anyone. But Wada can, yes?/no? and they would still have to have absolute provable TRUTH to do it because it would be appealed.

So lets hope your right. and WADA can prove Danks and Essendon and Hird and everyone , EVERYONE !! that was charged is guilty, then you can have Essendon banned as a club for life , Hird well you can jail him and Danks , WHO ELSE DO YOU WANT DESTROY, ON THE WAY . iF YOU CAN PROVE IT. sOME OF THESE SPORTS PEOPLE WORKED FOR GC17 WHAT ABOUT GEELONG , MAYBE WE SHOULD INVESTIGATE THEM , OF COURSE BEING ABLE TO PROVE EVERYTHING IT WOULD BE A WORTH WHILE EXECRCISE, BUT NO ONE CAN PROVE ANYTHING NOW , Can they ???

SPEAK UP - I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!

 

[threesixpio]

Great. You still have to have proof, that you can present. No matter how many tribunals court cases BUT NO ONE CAN PROVE ANYTHING NOW , Can they ???

8(B) The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the former support person violated clause 11.7 of the AFL Code by attempting to traffick in, by selling, giving, transporting, sending, delivering and/or distributing to a third party or parties, namely the Essendon Football Club and athletes of the club, prohibited substances in a product known as Humanofort, namely Insulin Growth Factor 1 (IGF-1), Insulin Growth Factor 2 (IGF-2), Mechano Growth Factor (MGF), Fibroblast Growth Factor (FGF), Follistatin and Thymosin Beta 4, between about January 2012 and September 2012.

Yeah um....they did actually.

 

[threesixpio]

Lastly , Essendon was a non issue because of the way it was investigated, and too many tricks and bulldust on both sides that it is so murky , any one who may suffer from WADA doing a NEW INVESTIGAION WILL APPEAL WITH GUSTO , because they have no choice. Its that simple and the onus is on the investigator to prove it. We are now playing a whole different ball game and this subject is getting very tedious.

And this is why a WADA appeal makes sense - they got pretty darn close you'd say having found against Dank on that charge - there is a definitely a sniff here.

 

[Brishawk]

Lastly , Essendon was a non issue because of the way it was investigated, and too many tricks and bulldust on both sides that it is so murky , any one who may suffer from WADA doing a NEW INVESTIGAION WILL APPEAL WITH GUSTO , because they have no choice. Its that simple and the onus is on the investigator to prove it. We are now playing a whole different ball game and this subject is getting very tedious.

You are such a hypocrite. "WHAT IS THE TRUTH OF THE ASADA INVESTIGATION??? WHAT IS ??? THE ??? TRUTH?????? UNLESS YOU, PRODUCE A VIDEO OF ALL ACTIVITIES YOUR HYPOTHESIS WILL BE APPEALED WITH GUSTO!!!!! It is that simple the ONuS is on THE ACCUSER to prove the ASADA INVESTIGATION was FLAWED!!!"

 

[Crankyhawk]

Great. You still have to have proof, that you can present. No matter how many tribunals court cases what ever, world bodies or dills making knowing comments on guess work, or even peoples detailed descriptions of activities by chemists coaches players, presidents , federal cops , politicians AFL CEO's Mr Mc Devitt, crikey the Pope!!!! , if you can't prove what they or anyone said was true WHETHER IT IS OR NOT !!! , and you have to do it on your day in court , well even the President of the USA can't convict anyone. But Wada can, yes?/no? and they would still have to have absolute provable TRUTH to do it because it would be appealed.

So lets hope your right. and WADA can prove Danks and Essendon and Hird and everyone , EVERYONE !! that was charged is guilty, then you can have Essendon banned as a club for life , Hird well you can jail him and Danks , WHO ELSE DO YOU WANT DESTROY, ON THE WAY . iF YOU CAN PROVE IT. sOME OF THESE SPORTS PEOPLE WORKED FOR GC17 WHAT ABOUT GEELONG , MAYBE WE SHOULD INVESTIGATE THEM , OF COURSE BEING ABLE TO PROVE EVERYTHING IT WOULD BE A WORTH WHILE EXECRCISE, BUT NO ONE CAN PROVE ANYTHING NOW , Can they ???

The late president of Singapore could jail people without (objective) proof.

 

[Brishawk]

Great. You still have to have proof, that you can present. No matter how many tribunals court cases what ever, world bodies or dills making knowing comments on guess work, or even peoples detailed descriptions of activities by chemists coaches players, presidents , federal cops , politicians AFL CEO's Mr Mc Devitt, crikey the Pope!!!! , if you can't prove what they or anyone said was true WHETHER IT IS OR NOT !!! , and you have to do it on your day in court , well even the President of the USA can't convict anyone. But Wada can, yes?/no? and they would still have to have absolute provable TRUTH to do it because it would be appealed.

So lets hope your right. and WADA can prove Danks and Essendon and Hird and everyone , EVERYONE !! that was charged is guilty, then you can have Essendon banned as a club for life , Hird well you can jail him and Danks , WHO ELSE DO YOU WANT DESTROY, ON THE WAY . iF YOU CAN PROVE IT. sOME OF THESE SPORTS PEOPLE WORKED FOR GC17 WHAT ABOUT GEELONG , MAYBE WE SHOULD INVESTIGATE THEM , OF COURSE BEING ABLE TO PROVE EVERYTHING IT WOULD BE A WORTH WHILE EXECRCISE, BUT NO ONE CAN PROVE ANYTHING NOW , Can they ???

You clearly do not understand what circumstantial evidence is and what it is capable of proving. As a primer for your own research, here is an extract from wikipedia:

Validity of circumstantial evidence
A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence.[2][citation needed] This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered more powerful. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial,University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence." [3] The 2004 murder trial of Scott Peterson was another high-profile conviction based heavily on circumstantial evidence.

Indeed, the common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the "smoking gun"—is an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence. Similarly, fingerprint evidence, videotapes, sound recordings, photographs, and many other examples of physical evidence that support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are considered very strong possible evidence.

In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other.[4] Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate at times,[5] and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony.[6] Thus, strong circumstantial evidence can provide a more reliable basis for a verdict. Circumstantial evidence normally requires a witness, such as the police officer who found the evidence, or an expert who examined it, to lay the foundation for its admission. This witness, sometimes known as the sponsor or the authenticating witness, is giving direct (eye-witness) testimony, and could present credibility problems in the same way that any eye witness does.

However, there is sometimes more than one logical conclusion inferable from the same set of circumstances. In cases where one conclusion implies a defendant's guilt and another his innocence, the "benefit of the doubt" principle would apply. Indeed, if the circumstantial evidence suggests a possibility of innocence, the prosecution has the burden of disproving that possibility.[7]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence

Here is an article which describes the burden of proof required to meet the level of comfortable satisfaction.

http://gamechangerindia.com/?p=2008

So essentially there is no need for anyone to proove anything in an absolute sense. Appeals are limited through a finite process to which CAS is a mere single step away from the highest possible court of appeal. I appreciate we are not all lawyers here but you are being willfully ignorant and completely dismissive of any FACT or matter of process which disagrees with your manifestly ridiculous position.

 

[HawksonFire]

8(B) The Tribunal is comfortably satisfied that the former support person violated clause 11.7 of the AFL Code by attempting to traffick in, by selling, giving, transporting, sending, delivering and/or distributing to a third party or parties, namely the Essendon Football Club and athletes of the club, prohibited substances in a product known as Humanofort, namely Insulin Growth Factor 1 (IGF-1), Insulin Growth Factor 2 (IGF-2), Mechano Growth Factor (MGF), Fibroblast Growth Factor (FGF), Follistatin and Thymosin Beta 4, between about January 2012 and September 2012.

Yeah um....they did actually.

Wow! Is that an extract from the tribunal finding... so they are satisfied Dank brought TB4 into the Essendon Football Club- but they were not satisfied that the players were actually injected with it! We are supposed to buy that it was just sitting in the medicine cabinet for good looks?!! What am I missing? Nothing surer that WADA will appeal that.

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

I think a thread ban is in order.

 

[badgrill]

Lastly , Essendon was a non issue because of the way it was investigated, and too many tricks and bulldust on both sides that it is so murky , any one who may suffer from WADA doing a NEW INVESTIGAION WILL APPEAL WITH GUSTO , because they have no choice. Its that simple and the onus is on the investigator to prove it. We are now playing a whole different ball game and this subject is getting very tedious.

So why do you insist on coming back?

 

[Glacier]

Lastly , Essendon was a non issue because of the way it was investigated,

Bullshit
Stop falling for the media bullshit

 

[grumbleguts]

Great. You still have to have proof, that you can present. No matter how many tribunals court cases what ever, world bodies or dills making knowing comments on guess work, or even peoples detailed descriptions of activities by chemists coaches players, presidents , federal cops , politicians AFL CEO's Mr Mc Devitt, crikey the Pope!!!! , if you can't prove what they or anyone said was true WHETHER IT IS OR NOT !!! , and you have to do it on your day in court , well even the President of the USA can't convict anyone. But Wada can, yes?/no? and they would still have to have absolute provable TRUTH to do it because it would be appealed.

So lets hope your right. and WADA can prove Danks and Essendon and Hird and everyone , EVERYONE !! that was charged is guilty, then you can have Essendon banned as a club for life , Hird well you can jail him and Danks , WHO ELSE DO YOU WANT DESTROY, ON THE WAY . iF YOU CAN PROVE IT. sOME OF THESE SPORTS PEOPLE WORKED FOR GC17 WHAT ABOUT GEELONG , MAYBE WE SHOULD INVESTIGATE THEM , OF COURSE BEING ABLE TO PROVE EVERYTHING IT WOULD BE A WORTH WHILE EXECRCISE, BUT NO ONE CAN PROVE ANYTHING NOW , Can they ???

Herein lies the evidence that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You don't even know the names of the key people involved. Stay out of the argument until you get your facts straight then come back on your high horse.

His name is Dank not Danks.

 

[arupist]

Herein lies the evidence that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. You don't even know the names of the key people involved. Stay out of the argument until you get your facts straight then come back on your high horse.

His name is Dank not Danks.

Grumble guts.

 

[savagelunchbox]

I think a thread ban is in order.

Please and thank you!

 

[threesixpio]

So why do you insist on coming back?

Yeah - there is this annoying thing that keeps popping up at the bottom whenever I look at this thread (as well as the stupid Toyota ad).

 

[threesixpio]

Wow! Is that an extract from the tribunal finding... so they are satisfied Dank brought TB4 into the Essendon Football Club- but they were not satisfied that the players were actually injected with it! We are supposed to buy that it was just sitting in the medicine cabinet for good looks?!! What am I missing? Nothing surer that WADA will appeal that.

I won't go there. I did a few days ago and became unpopular (waaaaa).

But yeah - they should appeal

 

[savagelunchbox]

JoondalupJ please stop quoting my posts. I don't read your posts nor will I answer any of the questions.

 

[Glorious couch life]

I think a thread ban is in order.

Please. I'm not averse to rational debate - I think it's great to have some people sticking up for Essendon as a way of promoting alternative points of view.
But I think guys like Jedi and Argy are probably objective enough to play devil's advocate. No need for hysterics - we're not Bomberblitz.