Mega Thread Thymosin Discussion - Update -AFL 21/8 - Bombers officially charged with Thymosin beta issues

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
IanW said:
11.2(b) The success or failure of the Use or Attempted Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method is not material. It is sufficient that the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method was Used or Attempted to be Used for an Anti Doping Rule Violation to be committed.10

10 Demonstrating the “Attempted Use” of a Prohibited Substance requires proof of intent on the Player’s part. The fact that intent may be required to prove this particular Anti Doping Rule Violation does not undermine the strict liability principle established for violations of Clause 11.1 and violations of Clause 11.2 in respect of Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method.
A Player’s Use of a Prohibited Substance constitutes an Ant Doping Rule Violation unless such substance is not prohibited Out-of-Competition and the Player’s Use takes place Out-of-Competition. (However, the presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in a Sample collected In-Competition is a violation of Clause 11.1 (Presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers) regardless of when that substance might have been administered.)
Click to expand...
Which I'd assume a consent form does...
 
Gavstar said:
The names of the 11 players admitting to taking thymosin are known (as are those taking AOD9604). It appears that the evidence suggests this Thymosin was TB4 a banned substance.

Are you sure that infraction notices won't be issued to these 11 players or players admitting to use or attempting to use AOD9604?
Click to expand...


No, nor will we know for some time me thinks. I guess I'm differentiating player personal responsibility under ASADA/WADA, & the Governance issues revolving around the EFC behavior in all this.
We may get a sanction of the EFC as a result of the Interin report & the 'Ziggy' report. Player notices may/maynot be a separate issue, certainly for the AFL who want some kind of movement on this issue. If anything its to address the public & concerns of the other clubs at this stage & prior to the finals.
 
Essendon weren't inept with there records.....they used the shredder.

The one and only thing they were able to do was protect its players. There was always going to be other proof outside of Essendon that they had involved themselves with these pep-tides. What they had full control over was the player records, without those records its hard to prove who took what.
How do you issue infraction notices on the players when you can't determine which player took what.......
 

Log in to remove this ad.

fishardansin said:
This is where an Essendon supporter bullies you. I will do it in point form.

(1) Systematic implies that doping was the intention.

(2) Essendon is accused of using a substance on 6 players to treat injuries

(3) Essendon believed that the substance was within the rules

(4) Hird denies using that particular one, but said he did have an amino acid injection when he was sick.

(5) Hird is allowed to use that substance anyhow.

Hopefully you, and some others, can understand that point (3) rules out "systematic" or "cheating". They can be replaced with "bungling" and "inadvertently gaining unfair advantage". This investigation has a way to go still.
Click to expand...
Are you sure about that or did Essendon hope that the rules could be circumvented/bent to suit the program?
 
rose jam said:
It's ridiculous that Essendon's incompetence might save them from their incompetence. Why would anyone keep records of anything then?
Click to expand...


Hence why they need to be punished more harshly for it, never mind the health issues involved by not tracking who took what.
 
Are the players going to escape infractions because they don’t know which players took the banned Thymosin Beta 4 or because there accepting the no fault plea of the players. If it’s the latter they are shifting drastically from the last 30 years of world wide anti doping policy that if it’s in your system your to blame.
 
The Falcon Strike said:
ASADA knows Saad took it because it came up in his test.

They apparently don't know who took what at Essendon (just that some players must have), so they can't hand out a ban to individuals.

Unless they ban everyone who was at the club - ala some weightlifting teams.

On Saad - wouldn't be surprised if he cops 6 months and is back playing early next year. What counts against him though is the drug is labelled clearly on the ingredients. It's not as though it has been contaminated.
Click to expand...



According to Baker & McKenzie:

11 players have admitted to taking Thymosin but claim to not know WHICH Thymosin.

ASADA have concluded that Thymosin was TB-4.
 
TerryWallet said:
According to Baker & McKenzie:

11 players have admitted to taking Thymosin but claim to not know WHICH Thymosin.

ASADA have concluded that Thymosin was TB-4.
Click to expand...


The conclusion that it is TB4 is only circumstantial according to Richard Ings.

He suggested on Twitter that circumstantial evidence isn't enough to warrant an ADRV

Happy to be wrong on this by the way. I'm not wedded to it one way or another.

I'm just trying to consider how an infraction might not be given.
 
IanW said:
10 Demonstrating the “Attempted Use” of a Prohibited Substance requires proof of intent on the Player’s part. The fact that intent may be required to prove this particular Anti Doping Rule Violation does not undermine the strict liability principle established for violations of Clause 11.1 and violations of Clause 11.2 in respect of Use of a Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method.
Click to expand...


This puts a different light on it. I don't see how the players who have admitted they believed they took AOD9604 and thymosin can avoid an infraction under this clause.
 
The Falcon Strike said:
The conclusion that it is TB4 is only circumstantial according to Richard Ings.
Click to expand...
He's constantly changing his story and was dumped from his role because of a bad culture at ASADA under his reign.

Whilst his resume might sound nice, he's not coming across as the most credible "expert".
 
The Falcon Strike said:
The conclusion that it is TB4 is only circumstantial according to Richard Ings.

He suggested on Twitter that circumstantial evidence isn't enough to warrant an ADRV

Happy to be wrong on this by the way. I'm not wedded to it one way or another.

I'm just trying to consider how an infraction might not be given.
Click to expand...
Lance Armstrong's case was almost entirely circumstantial, why ASADA will win this one is they can link purchases of TB4 to Essendon, but nobody can find any purchases of TB1.
Their circumstantial case is strong.
 
CAS79 said:
Are the players going to escape infractions because they don’t know which players took the banned Thymosin Beta 4 or because there accepting the no fault plea of the players. If it’s the latter they are shifting drastically from the last 30 years of world wide anti doping policy that if it’s in your system your to blame.
Click to expand...

Actually the no fault defence has a rich history. A few examples.

Dieter Baumann - nandrolone
Javier Sotomayor - cocaine
Merlene Ottey - nandrolone
Emmanuel Magnien - corticosteroids
Samantha Riley - dextropropoxyphene
Ben Tune - probenecid
Ian Thorpe - testosterone, luteinizing hormone
Carl Lewis - forpseudoephedrine, ephedrine, phenylpropanolamine, bronchodilators

All except for Thorpe claimed inadvertent use, Thorpe maintains his innocence. All escaped sanctions and they failed drug tests.

In the lead up to the Atlanta games 86 US athletes failed tests, none were banned.
 
The Falcon Strike said:
On Saad - wouldn't be surprised if he cops 6 months and is back playing early next year.
Click to expand...


Not sure if anyone can confirm, but when a WADA/ASADA ban is passed down, it means that the offender cannot even train with the club, or any club. I remember Warnie was banned from any form of cricket or training with any club for the period of his ban. If this is right, a six month ban on a number of players would make it very hard for Essendon to be competitive next year.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Jobe Watson said:
I don't think that first suggestion is even legal.

And hey, I thought my suggested draft penalties were a little harsh for a team that isn't guilty.
Click to expand...

It's not illegal for him to donate $2 million though is it?
 
Flying Cloud said:
Not sure if anyone can confirm, but when a WADA/ASADA ban is passed down, it means that the offender cannot even train with the club, or any club. I remember Warnie was banned from any form of cricket or training with any club for the period of his ban. If this is right, a six month ban on a number of players would make it very hard for Essendon to be competitive next year.
Click to expand...


Not really, Ben Cousins employed a personal trainer to keep him fit.

It just depends how disciplined the person is
 
The Falcon Strike said:
The conclusion that it is TB4 is only circumstantial according to Richard Ings.

He suggested on Twitter that circumstantial evidence isn't enough to warrant an ADRV

Happy to be wrong on this by the way. I'm not wedded to it one way or another.

I'm just trying to consider how an infraction might not be given.
Click to expand...


How about STRONG circumstantial evidence;)

That was the wording used in the article.

PS: whether Ings supports my beliefs or refutes my belief, i have learned to take zero notice of him. A deadset clown and nothing but a weathervane looking to be a somebody.
 
The Falcon Strike said:
The conclusion that it is TB4 is only circumstantial according to Richard Ings.

He suggested on Twitter that circumstantial evidence isn't enough to warrant an ADRV

Happy to be wrong on this by the way. I'm not wedded to it one way or another.

I'm just trying to consider how an infraction might not be given.
Click to expand...

wow this looks messy. Regardless of what happens to the players, the AFL IMO will still have plenty of headaches if they are unable to determine exactly what happened in 2012 - some sort of closure or resolution one way or the other would be highly desriable I would have thought for the AFL. Not sure they are going to get it though...
 
Chameleon75 said:
Actually the no fault defence has a rich history. A few examples.

Dieter Baumann - nandrolone
Javier Sotomayor - cocaine
Merlene Ottey - nandrolone
Emmanuel Magnien - corticosteroids
Samantha Riley - dextropropoxyphene
Ben Tune - probenecid
Ian Thorpe - testosterone, luteinizing hormone
Carl Lewis - forpseudoephedrine, ephedrine, phenylpropanolamine, bronchodilators

All except for Thorpe claimed inadvertent use, Thorpe maintains his innocence. All escaped sanctions and they failed drug tests.

In the lead up to the Atlanta games 86 US athletes failed tests, none were banned.
Click to expand...

In those days the USATF/USADA swept them under the carpet. A huge inquiry a few years later brought those things to light. Many of those cases, WADA has since tightened their rules. In the case nandralone there was problems with food supplements. As I said WADA have tightened their rules since then to make the athlete totally responsible for what goes into their body. Under the rules back then Matthew Clarke and Ahmed Saad would end up clear. Not now.

In Thorpe's case, while his testosterone was elevated compared to normal it didn't cross the legal threshold to constitute an infraction. Armstrong never got nailed in a psoitive test. He took EPO, testosterone etc...but, while numder were elevated, kept levels below the threshold that could produce an infraction. They nailed him later with other evidence as we know.
 
TerryWallet said:
How about STRONG circumstantial evidence;)

That was the wording used in the article.

PS: whether Ings supports my beliefs or refutes my belief, i have learned to take zero notice of him. A deadset clown and nothing but a weathervane looking to be a somebody.
Click to expand...

So this is looking like it will all come down to how "strong" does the evidence need to be for WADA to detrmine a violation has occured?

I imagine this is where a lot of the debate will centre in coming days/weeks
 
The Falcon Strike said:
Hmmm - I've just re-read the rules, turns out I misread Rule 2 which does talk about attempted use.
I guess it comes down to whether consent to taking a drug is tantamount to an attempt to take it.
Click to expand...

They will couple the signed consent forms with other supporting evidence. Attending the Botox clinics, admitting to being injected, invoices, SMS messages, testimonies etc...

In the end they don't need proof beyond all reasonable doubt.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top