Ley keeps Sport in her portfolio. I imagine it will take some time before composition of relevant Senate Committees is sorted.
Thats a Canberra electorate? No wonder she is a mate of Benny boy…
Ley keeps Sport in her portfolio. I imagine it will take some time before composition of relevant Senate Committees is sorted.Thats a Canberra electorate? No wonder she is a mate of Benny boy…
Ley electorate is Farrer. NSW, mostly Riverina
More contradictory evidence was omitted. This time, its Brent Stanton’s testimony.
21 JUL 2016 — Peter C Christie has written an essay ‘Whats Don is Don. But is it good’ about the plight of the 34 Essendon players. The following extract refers to Brent Stanton’s evidence:
“…How does ASADA claim to know, and how is CAS satisfied, that the 34 players who were infracted and eventually banned took TB-4 when the only thing they have in common that brought them into the “loop” of players who had allegedly doped was that they received “an” injection from Dank? Simple. At paragraph 126 of the CAS judgment, CAS states that Thymosin was the “jewel in the crown” for the regime and “for Mr Dank to have arbitrarily omitted to give any player injection [sic] of Thymosin would make no sense.” CAS uses an interesting choice of “evidence” in supporting this assertion. Dank sent a text message to coach James Hird which read: “all … injections completed” and a week later “all injections completed for the week.” To quote CAS: “this supports the inference that this was a program in operation for all the players…”
Just re-read those messages and the conclusion that CAS arrived at.
I pray that one day I meet a member of the CAS panel so that I can ask them what on earth brought them to that conclusion from those messages. That they could be seen as satisfactory evidence that all players were on a program (and not that Dank simply dispensed with his obligations for the week) defies belief. Furthermore, how this has anything to with TB-4 much less apparently proving that all 34 players took TB-4 is something I, despite my best efforts, do not understand.
More interesting than what CAS uses is what they omit to rely on or even address at all. Brent Stanton is a senior player at Essendon. In his testimony, among other things, he gave evidence as follows:
“And then he [Dank] sort of just went through the four supplements that we could possibly take. ‘You won’t be taking them all. It will be down to needs or how you’re feeling.’ And he will be doing regular blood tests to see your blood levels.”
Six players stated that they received Thymosin (not TB-4). Six more weren’t sure or weren’t certain (two of these were seen as likely to have received Thymosin after the assessment of other evidence, primarily text messages). Even if all 12 of these players had been duped and received TB-4 and not Thymomodulin, 22 players have been banned because of what? Per CAS: “It wouldn’t make sense not to give TB-4 to everyone”.
And this is in light of Brent Stanton’s evidence that the program was not administered as a “one size fits all” regime.
ASADA and CAS know who Brent Stanton is. He is in the leadership group at Essendon. They read his testimony, because he is quoted at another point in the judgement. Bizarrely, CAS ignores this testimony and fails to even mention or provide an explanation for it.
It’s not the only time ASADA and CAS ignores the evidence of the players without an explanation…”
I encourage any impartial readers who have an interest in this topic to read Mr Christie’s paper. A link has been provided.
Stanton was later interviewed by Herald Sun journalist Gilbert Gardiner on 19 May 2016. from Herald Sun. He said:
“There’s always a little bit of anger because I’m not out there playing every week so that’s the toughest part,”
“I know I’ve done nothing wrong along with them (Essendon teammates) and the supporters, how good have the supporters been this year.”
“It’s a tough situation to be involved, I’ve spoken to John (Worsfold) and there seems to be a spot there for me,” he said.
“I bleed red and black, that’s what I know and where I know to go.”
WADA and the Court of Arbitration for Sport has come to a conclusion bizarrely unsupported by evidence and outside of any oversight of Australian law. A Senate Inquiry is needed.
Kindly read, consider, and sign this petition. If you have already signed, please share this petition using any of the links below.
Thank you for your support.
I’ll begrudgingly say it’s most likely players were given TB4 in 2012, but in line with that article is how I think it was administered; to players who had soft tissue injuries, not to the whole squad. We built muscle and fitness under Robinson, which in turn brought about a string of injuries as the season drew on, in a bid to stem the flow, Dank administers TB4 which is used for muscle reparation.
The more I think about it, the more it seems like this is the conclusion reached by governing bodies… Which is nothing but an absolute hunch at best.
I haven’t followed updates on this for a long while, so please feel free to give insight into any significant details that say otherwise.
I'll begrudgingly say it's most likely players were given TB4 in 2012, but in line with that article is how I think it was administered; to players who had soft tissue injuries, not to the whole squad. We built muscle and fitness under Robinson, which in turn brought about a string of injuries as the season drew on, in a bid to stem the flow, Dank administers TB4 which is used for muscle reparation.The more I think about it, the more it seems like this is the conclusion reached by governing bodies… Which is nothing but an absolute hunch at best.
I haven’t followed updates on this for a long while, so please feel free to give insight into any significant details that say otherwise.
No evidence whatsoever to say any EFC player was anywhere near TB4.
No evidence to say it was at the club.
No evidence that Dank had any of it.
No evidence he ordered any TB4.
No evidence any was imported for him.
I'll begrudgingly say it's most likely players were given TB4 in 2012, but in line with that article is how I think it was administered; to players who had soft tissue injuries, not to the whole squad. We built muscle and fitness under Robinson, which in turn brought about a string of injuries as the season drew on, in a bid to stem the flow, Dank administers TB4 which is used for muscle reparation.The more I think about it, the more it seems like this is the conclusion reached by governing bodies… Which is nothing but an absolute hunch at best.
I haven’t followed updates on this for a long while, so please feel free to give insight into any significant details that say otherwise.
No evidence whatsoever to say any EFC player was anywhere near TB4.
No evidence to say it was at the club.
No evidence that Dank had any of it.
No evidence he ordered any TB4.
No evidence any was imported for him.
There is more evidence of thymomodulin (legal form of thymosin) at the club than many people realise. It was mentioned in spreadsheets, training plans, three vials were found, sworn testimony of two players and Robinson, Dank raved about finding a use for thymomodulin to friends, doctors and colleagues, and now we find out it was mentioned in a text message from Robinson to Reid. i.e. lots of direct evidence.
ASADA/WADA refuse to believe it was thymomodulin and have ignored all this evidence, they claim it was TB4 and try to bring in spectrometers and stuff to make it so. None of this evidence is compelling. Further, in order to make their case, ASADA/WADA and now CAS have to promote a series of half truths, mis-statements from third parties with criminal records, and in many instances, basic untruths.
There was deceit, no doubt.
But who is deceiving who?
I'll begrudgingly say it's most likely players were given TB4 in 2012, but in line with that article is how I think it was administered; to players who had soft tissue injuries, not to the whole squad. We built muscle and fitness under Robinson, which in turn brought about a string of injuries as the season drew on, in a bid to stem the flow, Dank administers TB4 which is used for muscle reparation.The more I think about it, the more it seems like this is the conclusion reached by governing bodies… Which is nothing but an absolute hunch at best.
I haven’t followed updates on this for a long while, so please feel free to give insight into any significant details that say otherwise.
No evidence whatsoever to say any EFC player was anywhere near TB4.
No evidence to say it was at the club.
No evidence that Dank had any of it.
No evidence he ordered any TB4.
No evidence any was imported for him.
I’ve looked at the benefits of both and it seemed pointless for us to be using thymomodulin and very beneficial for us to use TB4 for soft tissue problems.
im in the same situation as the people who adjudicated the case; one of which is pretty much a complete lack of all necessary information, as I said before, pretty farcical that people could make a decision on careers with information provided to them by an incompetent body
There you go with the facts again! You can prove anything with facts.I'll begrudgingly say it's most likely players were given TB4 in 2012, but in line with that article is how I think it was administered; to players who had soft tissue injuries, not to the whole squad. We built muscle and fitness under Robinson, which in turn brought about a string of injuries as the season drew on, in a bid to stem the flow, Dank administers TB4 which is used for muscle reparation.The more I think about it, the more it seems like this is the conclusion reached by governing bodies… Which is nothing but an absolute hunch at best.
I haven’t followed updates on this for a long while, so please feel free to give insight into any significant details that say otherwise.
No evidence whatsoever to say any EFC player was anywhere near TB4.
No evidence to say it was at the club.
No evidence that Dank had any of it.
No evidence he ordered any TB4.
No evidence any was imported for him.
I'll begrudgingly say it's most likely players were given TB4 in 2012, but in line with that article is how I think it was administered; to players who had soft tissue injuries, not to the whole squad. We built muscle and fitness under Robinson, which in turn brought about a string of injuries as the season drew on, in a bid to stem the flow, Dank administers TB4 which is used for muscle reparation.The more I think about it, the more it seems like this is the conclusion reached by governing bodies… Which is nothing but an absolute hunch at best.
I haven’t followed updates on this for a long while, so please feel free to give insight into any significant details that say otherwise.
No evidence whatsoever to say any EFC player was anywhere near TB4.
No evidence to say it was at the club.
No evidence that Dank had any of it.
No evidence he ordered any TB4.
No evidence any was imported for him.I’ve looked at the benefits of both and it seemed pointless for us to be using thymomodulin and very beneficial for us to use TB4 for soft tissue problems.
im in the same situation as the people who adjudicated the case; one of which is pretty much a complete lack of all necessary information, as I said before, pretty farcical that people could make a decision on careers with information provided to them by an incompetent body
Wasn’t Thymomodulin to be used for the health aspect as an immunity enhancer…you know to stop things like flus and colds impacting on the players training etc. much like taking vitamins. I thought the AOD9604 was the one that Dank was using for keeping muscles OK…and tell me if I am wrong, AOD9604 has now been shown to have absolutely no benefits for performance and probably nothing else for anything else.
So the premise that we were “probably taking TB-4” is rubbish…it just fitted the narrative to justify the outing of the EFC for cheating, when in fact there was never a justification to start the witch hunt in the 1st place. WADA just took that scenario and twisted it for their own agenda with the help of well everyone that is non EFC.
TB-4 saved the AFL, the Govt., ASADA and many twits disguised as Journalists red faces and having to backup their vile…and that is why to this very day the EFC are seen as cheats by the public at large and always will be…end of story.
And the lubrication that made it all happen is Mike Fitzpatrick, John Fahey and Susan Ley…all running their own little agendas…seriously farked up.
No different from the CAS assertion of Dank’s history of TB-4 at other clubs. Why then didn’t ASADA pursue Sandor Earl and Cronulla players - as well as Manly, other AFL clubs where Dank worked - for TB-4 use?
No different from the CAS assertion of Dank's history of TB-4 at other clubs. Why then didn't ASADA pursue Sandor Earl and Cronulla players - as well as Manly, other AFL clubs where Dank worked - for TB-4 use?
because there is no proof it was there either …
Francis.
The latest petition update includes these comments.
Amanda Crameri · University of New England, Armidae
Wow, this petition is going so well, getting very close to 5000. Thanks to every one who has shared, contributed or written to help this keep going. There are so many good people behind the scenes fighting for justice. I dont want my son to be called a drug cheat for the rest of his life- it is just wrong. There has been no way to counter what ASADA and WADA have done. The appeal in Switzerland is out of our control, as the Swiss seem to be in no hurry to look at it- the suspension will already have been served, before they make a determination. ASADA will think they have won- but the fight will never be over to clear the names of 34 players.
No different from the CAS assertion of Dank's history of TB-4 at other clubs. Why then didn't ASADA pursue Sandor Earl and Cronulla players - as well as Manly, other AFL clubs where Dank worked - for TB-4 use?because there is no proof it was there either …
Not sure what your point is? Why do they need evidence?
Is there a new petition?
If so, please send us a link?
5,364 supporters
Another CAS ‘strand’ collapses as suspicious changes are discovered in The Age interview
2 AUG 2016 — In a guilty finding against 34 Essendon players, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) referred to an interview by Mr Nick McKenzie of The Age newspaper wherein Mr Stephen Dank (Dank) admitted the use of Thymosin on the players. Dank sought to retract his comments sometime thereafter once it had been pointed out to him that Thymosin Beta-4 was a prohibited substance.
Let’s have a closer look at this interview.
Bruce Francis, a political science graduate, former OH&S lecturer and batsman with the Australian cricket team, has compiled a comprehensive response to the CAS ‘Strands in the Cable’ decision. Below is an extract from his document where he outlines some key facts surrounding this interview:
“…133. McKenzie interviewed Dank in early April 2013, and his article co-written with Richard Barker appeared in the Age on 11 April. The word ‘Thymosin’ was used twice, but there was no mention of ‘Thymosin Beta-4’. …”
For information, ‘Thymosin’ is also known as Thymomodulin. Thymomodulin is an immunity booster that can be safely given to babies and is legal for athletes to use. ASADA/WADA claimed ‘Thymosin’ was Thymosin Beta-4, a prohibited substance. Thymosin Beta-4 is not an immunity booster.
“…134. McKenzie and Baker wrote:
"Records of Hird and Dank’s dealing reveal the coach knew specific details about the supplementation regime, including the intravenous administration of vitamins and injections into the stomach or oral administration of other supplements, including an immune-booster known as Thymosin”.
When asked why Thymosin peptides were given to players as an immune system booster when there is debate about their effectiveness, Dank said:
‘Well, apart from the fact that we won 11 out of our first 14 games … at the end of the day, I was very happy with the science’.
-
On 24 August 2013, The Age published excerpts from Nick McKenzie’s April interview with Dank.
-
Inexplicably, this article mentions Thymosin Beta-4, and quotes Dank saying he used it to boost the immune system of the players. As Thymomodulin boosts the immune system and as Thymosin Beta-4 does not, whatever Thymosin Dank said, he was clearly referring to Thymomodulin.
-
Furthermore, it is incomprehensible, and in fact beyond the realm of possibility, that if Dank admitted to administering Thymosin Beta-4, and McKenzie pointed out to him that Thymosin Beta-4 was a banned substance, that McKenzie and Baker would not have included the admission and McKenzie’s comment in the original article on 11 April. There is no plausible explanation for such an omission.
-
It is preposterous that any credibility has been given to the sudden inclusion of ‘Thymosin Beta-4’ in a follow-up article four and a half months later. It is impossible to understand why ASADA, WADA, and the CAS panel didn’t simply dismiss this reference as totally unreliable.
-
If McKenzie had any credibility after the 24 August article, it should have been in tatters over what many saw as a deliberate omission from a column written by him and Baker on 16 December 2013. Inter alia, they wrote:
"On June 15, 2012, Essendon’s then high-performance boss Dean Robinson emailed Hird, senior assistant coach Mark Thompson, football chief Danny Corcoran, doctor Bruce Reid and other senior officials a document titled Supplements till GF 2012”.
"One of the drugs to be injected fortnightly two days before a game was the anti-dementia drug Cerebrolysin”.
- ASADA’s Interim Report stated:
“On 15 June 2012, Robinson emailed Dr Reid a list of supplements to be administered between the mid-year bye and the 2012 Grand Final which included Thymomodulin and Cerebrolysin.”
-
Some would believe that the omission of Thymomodulin from McKenzie’s article was an attempt to suppress facts that would have helped Essendon’s case. In my view, this omission and the fiasco of 24 August 2013 article, is at least sufficient evidence that McKenzie’s writings cannot be relied upon.
-
Some of the issues that arise from this:
a) Was WADA inappropriately selective in the writings of McKenzie it chose to submit to the panel? Did WADA only submit the 24 August 2013 article; or did it also submit the 11 April 2013 article, pointing out the discrepancy between the two; and the 16 December 2013 article, pointing out the omission.
b) If WADA only tabled the 24 August 2013 article, how can it justify withholding information that supports the players’ case that they were administered Thymomodulin, not Thymosin Beta-4?
c) If in fact, both, or all three articles were submitted as evidence, the panel was clearly incompetent in not realising that the 11 April 2013 and 24 August 2013 articles, though reporting on the same interview, were factually and crucially substantially different.
d) Did WADA request McKenzie appear as a witness? If it didn’t, how did the panel allow some of McKenzie’s writings to be admitted as evidence? The words that Dank supposedly said to McKenzie during the interview are the only (purported) evidence that Thymosin Beta-4 was used at Essendon, and the panel seems to have given McKenzie’s accusation an inordinate amount of credibility and relevance. If the players’ lawyers couldn’t cross examine McKenzie, the panel should have rejected it……”
Below is a link to Bruce Francis full ‘Strands in the Cable’ document.
http://twitdoc.com/upload/thegovernorsm/cas-strands-response-bfrancis-2feb2016.pdf
Recently, we received the following comments on one of our petition updates:
Amanda Crameri · University of New England, Armidale
Wow, this petition is going so well, getting very close to 5000. Thanks to every one who has shared, contributed or written to help this keep going. There are so many good people behind the scenes fighting for justice. I don’t want my son to be called a drug cheat for the rest of his life- it is just wrong. There has been no way to counter what ASADA and WADA have done. The appeal in Switzerland is out of our control, as the Swiss seem to be in no hurry to look at it- the suspension will already have been served, before they make a determination. ASADA will think they have won- but the fight will never be over to clear the names of 34 players.
Please support this petition which requests a Senate Inquiry to sort this mess out.
Kindly read, consider, and sign this petition. If you have already signed, please share this petition using any of the links below.
Thank you for your support.
5,364 supportersAnother CAS ‘strand’ collapses as suspicious changes are discovered in The Age interview
2 AUG 2016 — In a guilty finding against 34 Essendon players, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) referred to an interview by Mr Nick McKenzie of The Age newspaper wherein Mr Stephen Dank (Dank) admitted the use of Thymosin on the players. Dank sought to retract his comments sometime thereafter once it had been pointed out to him that Thymosin Beta-4 was a prohibited substance.
Let’s have a closer look at this interview.
Bruce Francis, a political science graduate, former OH&S lecturer and batsman with the Australian cricket team, has compiled a comprehensive response to the CAS ‘Strands in the Cable’ decision. Below is an extract from his document where he outlines some key facts surrounding this interview:
“…133. McKenzie interviewed Dank in early April 2013, and his article co-written with Richard Barker appeared in the Age on 11 April. The word ‘Thymosin’ was used twice, but there was no mention of ‘Thymosin Beta-4’. …”
For information, ‘Thymosin’ is also known as Thymomodulin. Thymomodulin is an immunity booster that can be safely given to babies and is legal for athletes to use. ASADA/WADA claimed ‘Thymosin’ was Thymosin Beta-4, a prohibited substance. Thymosin Beta-4 is not an immunity booster.
“…134. McKenzie and Baker wrote:
"Records of Hird and Dank’s dealing reveal the coach knew specific details about the supplementation regime, including the intravenous administration of vitamins and injections into the stomach or oral administration of other supplements, including an immune-booster known as Thymosin”.
When asked why Thymosin peptides were given to players as an immune system booster when there is debate about their effectiveness, Dank said:
‘Well, apart from the fact that we won 11 out of our first 14 games … at the end of the day, I was very happy with the science’.
On 24 August 2013, The Age published excerpts from Nick McKenzie’s April interview with Dank.
Inexplicably, this article mentions Thymosin Beta-4, and quotes Dank saying he used it to boost the immune system of the players. As Thymomodulin boosts the immune system and as Thymosin Beta-4 does not, whatever Thymosin Dank said, he was clearly referring to Thymomodulin.
Furthermore, it is incomprehensible, and in fact beyond the realm of possibility, that if Dank admitted to administering Thymosin Beta-4, and McKenzie pointed out to him that Thymosin Beta-4 was a banned substance, that McKenzie and Baker would not have included the admission and McKenzie’s comment in the original article on 11 April. There is no plausible explanation for such an omission.
It is preposterous that any credibility has been given to the sudden inclusion of ‘Thymosin Beta-4’ in a follow-up article four and a half months later. It is impossible to understand why ASADA, WADA, and the CAS panel didn’t simply dismiss this reference as totally unreliable.
If McKenzie had any credibility after the 24 August article, it should have been in tatters over what many saw as a deliberate omission from a column written by him and Baker on 16 December 2013. Inter alia, they wrote:
"On June 15, 2012, Essendon’s then high-performance boss Dean Robinson emailed Hird, senior assistant coach Mark Thompson, football chief Danny Corcoran, doctor Bruce Reid and other senior officials a document titled Supplements till GF 2012”.
"One of the drugs to be injected fortnightly two days before a game was the anti-dementia drug Cerebrolysin”.
- ASADA’s Interim Report stated:
“On 15 June 2012, Robinson emailed Dr Reid a list of supplements to be administered between the mid-year bye and the 2012 Grand Final which included Thymomodulin and Cerebrolysin.”
Some would believe that the omission of Thymomodulin from McKenzie’s article was an attempt to suppress facts that would have helped Essendon’s case. In my view, this omission and the fiasco of 24 August 2013 article, is at least sufficient evidence that McKenzie’s writings cannot be relied upon.
Some of the issues that arise from this:
a) Was WADA inappropriately selective in the writings of McKenzie it chose to submit to the panel? Did WADA only submit the 24 August 2013 article; or did it also submit the 11 April 2013 article, pointing out the discrepancy between the two; and the 16 December 2013 article, pointing out the omission.
b) If WADA only tabled the 24 August 2013 article, how can it justify withholding information that supports the players’ case that they were administered Thymomodulin, not Thymosin Beta-4?
c) If in fact, both, or all three articles were submitted as evidence, the panel was clearly incompetent in not realising that the 11 April 2013 and 24 August 2013 articles, though reporting on the same interview, were factually and crucially substantially different.
d) Did WADA request McKenzie appear as a witness? If it didn’t, how did the panel allow some of McKenzie’s writings to be admitted as evidence? The words that Dank supposedly said to McKenzie during the interview are the only (purported) evidence that Thymosin Beta-4 was used at Essendon, and the panel seems to have given McKenzie’s accusation an inordinate amount of credibility and relevance. If the players’ lawyers couldn’t cross examine McKenzie, the panel should have rejected it……”
Below is a link to Bruce Francis full ‘Strands in the Cable’ document.
http://twitdoc.com/upload/thegovernorsm/cas-strands-response-bfrancis-2feb2016.pdfRecently, we received the following comments on one of our petition updates:
Amanda Crameri · University of New England, Armidale
Wow, this petition is going so well, getting very close to 5000. Thanks to every one who has shared, contributed or written to help this keep going. There are so many good people behind the scenes fighting for justice. I don’t want my son to be called a drug cheat for the rest of his life- it is just wrong. There has been no way to counter what ASADA and WADA have done. The appeal in Switzerland is out of our control, as the Swiss seem to be in no hurry to look at it- the suspension will already have been served, before they make a determination. ASADA will think they have won- but the fight will never be over to clear the names of 34 players.Please support this petition which requests a Senate Inquiry to sort this mess out.
Kindly read, consider, and sign this petition. If you have already signed, please share this petition using any of the links below.
Thank you for your support.
This to me has always been the kicker. McKenzie has never released the transcript of this interview, which undoubtedly would have been in recorded form so that he could replay it later to go with any notes he took. While much has been made of his supposed comments by both ASADA, WADA and the media, the media have never sought confirmation as to the veracity of McKenzie’s piece, although of course not that we should be surprised given that they work for the same mob as SWMNBN. Throughout this entire saga, and given the millions of bit of evidence collected, as far as I can recall this is the only piece where the term TB-4 or Thymosin Beta 4 is used. How has this piece escaped questioning, especially from rival organisations such as News Corp?
I'll begrudgingly say it's most likely players were given TB4 in 2012, but in line with that article is how I think it was administered; to players who had soft tissue injuries, not to the whole squad. We built muscle and fitness under Robinson, which in turn brought about a string of injuries as the season drew on, in a bid to stem the flow, Dank administers TB4 which is used for muscle reparation.The more I think about it, the more it seems like this is the conclusion reached by governing bodies… Which is nothing but an absolute hunch at best.
I haven’t followed updates on this for a long while, so please feel free to give insight into any significant details that say otherwise.
No evidence whatsoever to say any EFC player was anywhere near TB4.
No evidence to say it was at the club.
No evidence that Dank had any of it.
No evidence he ordered any TB4.
No evidence any was imported for him.I’ve looked at the benefits of both and it seemed pointless for us to be using thymomodulin and very beneficial for us to use TB4 for soft tissue problems.
im in the same situation as the people who adjudicated the case; one of which is pretty much a complete lack of all necessary information, as I said before, pretty farcical that people could make a decision on careers with information provided to them by an incompetent body
Wasn’t Thymomodulin to be used for the health aspect as an immunity enhancer…you know to stop things like flus and colds impacting on the players training etc. much like taking vitamins. I thought the AOD9604 was the one that Dank was using for keeping muscles OK…and tell me if I am wrong, AOD9604 has now been shown to have absolutely no benefits for performance and probably nothing else for anything else.
So the premise that we were “probably taking TB-4” is rubbish…it just fitted the narrative to justify the outing of the EFC for cheating, when in fact there was never a justification to start the witch hunt in the 1st place. WADA just took that scenario and twisted it for their own agenda with the help of well everyone that is non EFC.
TB-4 saved the AFL, the Govt., ASADA and many twits disguised as Journalists red faces and having to backup their vile…and that is why to this very day the EFC are seen as cheats by the public at large and always will be…end of story.
And the lubrication that made it all happen is Mike Fitzpatrick, John Fahey and Susan Ley…all running their own little agendas…seriously farked up.
Re AOD 9604: Dr Ben Koh, 1st May 2013, in an article co-authored with Professor Daryl Adair and Tracey Holmes, wrote "During the process of discussion on the categorising of the drug under the prohibited list, the authors for this paper were made aware by the global licence holder for AOD9604, Metabolic Pharmaceuticals Pty Ltd (“Metabolic”), that the company has recently achieved a self-affirmed GRAS (Generally Recognised As Safe) status for OTC, which allows the marketing of AOD9604 into the US market.
"This means that AOD9604 can be legally added to foods, drinks, nutraceuticals and dietary supplements. "The company is also in the process of expansion into European OTC markets via a novel food application, and possibly into Australia and key Asian markets.
"In addition, Metabolic has also indicated that AOD9604 is already available in cosmetics, with Phosphagenics being the first company licenced to include AOD9604 in its products. AOD9604 has been licensed to Phosphagenics for use in its topical cosmetic cellulite cream (‘BodyShaperTM’) launched in May 2011.
“BodyShaperTM is now being sold throughout Australia in Myer stores, David Jones, Pulse Pharmacies, Priceline, Terry White Chemists and on the TVSN shopping network. It has also been launched in Asia through the A.S. Watson Group and distribution networks in South Korea and northern Asia.”
5,364 supportersAnother CAS ‘strand’ collapses as suspicious changes are discovered in The Age interview
2 AUG 2016 — In a guilty finding against 34 Essendon players, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) referred to an interview by Mr Nick McKenzie of The Age newspaper wherein Mr Stephen Dank (Dank) admitted the use of Thymosin on the players. Dank sought to retract his comments sometime thereafter once it had been pointed out to him that Thymosin Beta-4 was a prohibited substance.
Let’s have a closer look at this interview.
Bruce Francis, a political science graduate, former OH&S lecturer and batsman with the Australian cricket team, has compiled a comprehensive response to the CAS ‘Strands in the Cable’ decision. Below is an extract from his document where he outlines some key facts surrounding this interview:
“…133. McKenzie interviewed Dank in early April 2013, and his article co-written with Richard Barker appeared in the Age on 11 April. The word ‘Thymosin’ was used twice, but there was no mention of ‘Thymosin Beta-4’. …”
For information, ‘Thymosin’ is also known as Thymomodulin. Thymomodulin is an immunity booster that can be safely given to babies and is legal for athletes to use. ASADA/WADA claimed ‘Thymosin’ was Thymosin Beta-4, a prohibited substance. Thymosin Beta-4 is not an immunity booster.
“…134. McKenzie and Baker wrote:
"Records of Hird and Dank’s dealing reveal the coach knew specific details about the supplementation regime, including the intravenous administration of vitamins and injections into the stomach or oral administration of other supplements, including an immune-booster known as Thymosin”.
When asked why Thymosin peptides were given to players as an immune system booster when there is debate about their effectiveness, Dank said:
‘Well, apart from the fact that we won 11 out of our first 14 games … at the end of the day, I was very happy with the science’.
On 24 August 2013, The Age published excerpts from Nick McKenzie’s April interview with Dank.
Inexplicably, this article mentions Thymosin Beta-4, and quotes Dank saying he used it to boost the immune system of the players. As Thymomodulin boosts the immune system and as Thymosin Beta-4 does not, whatever Thymosin Dank said, he was clearly referring to Thymomodulin.
Furthermore, it is incomprehensible, and in fact beyond the realm of possibility, that if Dank admitted to administering Thymosin Beta-4, and McKenzie pointed out to him that Thymosin Beta-4 was a banned substance, that McKenzie and Baker would not have included the admission and McKenzie’s comment in the original article on 11 April. There is no plausible explanation for such an omission.
It is preposterous that any credibility has been given to the sudden inclusion of ‘Thymosin Beta-4’ in a follow-up article four and a half months later. It is impossible to understand why ASADA, WADA, and the CAS panel didn’t simply dismiss this reference as totally unreliable.
If McKenzie had any credibility after the 24 August article, it should have been in tatters over what many saw as a deliberate omission from a column written by him and Baker on 16 December 2013. Inter alia, they wrote:
"On June 15, 2012, Essendon’s then high-performance boss Dean Robinson emailed Hird, senior assistant coach Mark Thompson, football chief Danny Corcoran, doctor Bruce Reid and other senior officials a document titled Supplements till GF 2012”.
"One of the drugs to be injected fortnightly two days before a game was the anti-dementia drug Cerebrolysin”.
- ASADA’s Interim Report stated:
“On 15 June 2012, Robinson emailed Dr Reid a list of supplements to be administered between the mid-year bye and the 2012 Grand Final which included Thymomodulin and Cerebrolysin.”
Some would believe that the omission of Thymomodulin from McKenzie’s article was an attempt to suppress facts that would have helped Essendon’s case. In my view, this omission and the fiasco of 24 August 2013 article, is at least sufficient evidence that McKenzie’s writings cannot be relied upon.
Some of the issues that arise from this:
a) Was WADA inappropriately selective in the writings of McKenzie it chose to submit to the panel? Did WADA only submit the 24 August 2013 article; or did it also submit the 11 April 2013 article, pointing out the discrepancy between the two; and the 16 December 2013 article, pointing out the omission.
b) If WADA only tabled the 24 August 2013 article, how can it justify withholding information that supports the players’ case that they were administered Thymomodulin, not Thymosin Beta-4?
c) If in fact, both, or all three articles were submitted as evidence, the panel was clearly incompetent in not realising that the 11 April 2013 and 24 August 2013 articles, though reporting on the same interview, were factually and crucially substantially different.
d) Did WADA request McKenzie appear as a witness? If it didn’t, how did the panel allow some of McKenzie’s writings to be admitted as evidence? The words that Dank supposedly said to McKenzie during the interview are the only (purported) evidence that Thymosin Beta-4 was used at Essendon, and the panel seems to have given McKenzie’s accusation an inordinate amount of credibility and relevance. If the players’ lawyers couldn’t cross examine McKenzie, the panel should have rejected it……”
Below is a link to Bruce Francis full ‘Strands in the Cable’ document.
http://twitdoc.com/upload/thegovernorsm/cas-strands-response-bfrancis-2feb2016.pdfRecently, we received the following comments on one of our petition updates:
Amanda Crameri · University of New England, Armidale
Wow, this petition is going so well, getting very close to 5000. Thanks to every one who has shared, contributed or written to help this keep going. There are so many good people behind the scenes fighting for justice. I don’t want my son to be called a drug cheat for the rest of his life- it is just wrong. There has been no way to counter what ASADA and WADA have done. The appeal in Switzerland is out of our control, as the Swiss seem to be in no hurry to look at it- the suspension will already have been served, before they make a determination. ASADA will think they have won- but the fight will never be over to clear the names of 34 players.Please support this petition which requests a Senate Inquiry to sort this mess out.
Kindly read, consider, and sign this petition. If you have already signed, please share this petition using any of the links below.
Thank you for your support.
This to me has always been the kicker. McKenzie has never released the transcript of this interview, which undoubtedly would have been in recorded form so that he could replay it later to go with any notes he took. While much has been made of his supposed comments by both ASADA, WADA and the media, the media have never sought confirmation as to the veracity of McKenzie’s piece, although of course not that we should be surprised given that they work for the same mob as SWMNBN. Throughout this entire saga, and given the millions of bit of evidence collected, as far as I can recall this is the only piece where the term TB-4 or Thymosin Beta 4 is used. How has this piece escaped questioning, especially from rival organisations such as News Corp?
FOI: ASADA reveals 7 emails to and from Fairfax, but refuses to release contents of those emails.
13 March 2013 - email from Nick McKenzie to John Nolan (ASADA)
25 April 2013 - email from NM to JN
29 April 2013 - email from JN to NM
9 July 2013 - 3 emails from Richard Baker to JN
10 July 2013 - email from RB to JN
From paras 209 and 210 of the AFL Tibunal report:
.
“… Mr McKenzie noted that his interview with Mr Dank was preceded by a large off the record of conversation which Mr McKenzie stated may include material that conflicted with or supported the on the record interview. That earlier interview remains off the record .”
“. The statements made by Mr Dank to Mr McKenzie were not contemporaneous but were made some months after he had left Essendon and after Mr McKenzie raised the topic of TB4. The explanation provided by Mr Dank after Mr McKenzie referred to TB4 was that the injections were to aid immunised-compromised players to back up next week. That was not the expressed purpose of injections of TB4.”