A little ‘pick up’ from Bruce’s dissection:
There is no such substance as “Thymosin”. Therefore it is illogical that there would be a vial with that name on it in the fridge or anywhere else.
This may be an error.
‘Thymosin’ is what was listed in the Player Consent Forms.
Francis has smashed it again.Where
I can email it to you.
Any plans to send it to the Senators who did the questioning of McDidiot in Senate Estimates?
Yes we will.
A little 'pick up' from Bruce's dissection:There is no such substance as “Thymosin”. Therefore it is illogical that there would be a vial with that name on it in the fridge or anywhere else.
This may be an error.
‘Thymosin’ is what was listed in the Player Consent Forms.
I think he is implying that there wouldn’t be a product dispensed as Thymosin.
A little 'pick up' from Bruce's dissection:There is no such substance as “Thymosin”. Therefore it is illogical that there would be a vial with that name on it in the fridge or anywhere else.
This may be an error.
‘Thymosin’ is what was listed in the Player Consent Forms.
https://nlm.nih.gov/cgi/mesh/2011/MB_cgi?mode=&term=thymosin
Thymosin. A family of heat-stable, polypeptide hormones secreted by the thymus gland. Their biological activities include lymphocytopoiesis, restoration of immunological competence and enhancement of expression of T-cell characteristics and function. They have therapeutic potential in patients having primary or secondary immunodeficiency diseases, cancer or diseases related to aging.
TB4 is a member of the family. ASADA/WADA/CAS says Thymosin ‘is’ TB4 and no possibility of other forms because they say all the other ‘strands’ of evidence points to TB4 in the EFC34 case…and we all know how strong those ‘strands’ are, don’t we?
He’s definitely gotten far more effective. Less time wasted on the insults, more time with the scalpel.
A little 'pick up' from Bruce's dissection:There is no such substance as “Thymosin”. Therefore it is illogical that there would be a vial with that name on it in the fridge or anywhere else.
This may be an error.
‘Thymosin’ is what was listed in the Player Consent Forms.https://nlm.nih.gov/cgi/mesh/2011/MB_cgi?mode=&term=thymosin
Thymosin. A family of heat-stable, polypeptide hormones secreted by the thymus gland. Their biological activities include lymphocytopoiesis, restoration of immunological competence and enhancement of expression of T-cell characteristics and function. They have therapeutic potential in patients having primary or secondary immunodeficiency diseases, cancer or diseases related to aging.
TB4 is a member of the family. ASADA/WADA/CAS says Thymosin ‘is’ TB4 and no possibility of other forms because they say all the other ‘strands’ of evidence points to TB4 in the EFC34 case…and we all know how strong those ‘strands’ are, don’t we?
The italics above is a quote from Bruce.
Since it seems that it is required to prove your innocence, perhaps we should consider preparing a strands in the cable argument that it was thymomodulin that was used. I wonder if we can beat 16 without tinkering with evidence and testimony.
That’s why we can only be accused of being sloppy and not doping without doubt. Dank should have told the players and used the actual name of the substance in any forms, be it consent forms or testing declaration, documentation etc. etc. and not the name of a family which includes allowed as well as prohibited substances.
Has there been much talk in the press on the idea that the Anti-Doping rules are simply broken?
To me, leaving aside any issue of guilt, the idea of Strict Liability being applied outside of the intended situations involving an adverse analytical finding is insane. If the AD body does not have a Strict Liability to prove beyond doubt that the substance was taken or administered how can the athlete have a Strict Liability to meet a very high bar for an acceptable (to the AD body) excuse or pay the price?
Am I wrong in thinking that?
Additionally if I were to write to my local member what are the key points that should be raised in a short and concise letter?
Thread 1.
ASADA have presented falsified evidence. Their testimony is suspect at best.
Thread 2.
The WADA retrial (let’s stop the lie of it being an appeal) was never about the players, but setting precedent, lowering the bar required for conviction, and saving face. In fact this last should probably be a thread all on its own.
You could get far more than 16.
Reckon you could double it.
Has there been much talk in the press on the idea that the Anti-Doping rules are simply broken?To me, leaving aside any issue of guilt, the idea of Strict Liability being applied outside of the intended situations involving an adverse analytical finding is insane. If the AD body does not have a Strict Liability to prove beyond doubt that the substance was taken or administered how can the athlete have a Strict Liability to meet a very high bar for an acceptable (to the AD body) excuse or pay the price?
Am I wrong in thinking that?
Additionally if I were to write to my local member what are the key points that should be raised in short and concise letter?
I will PM something to you to send. The senate inquiry would have addressed it.
Has there been much talk in the press on the idea that the Anti-Doping rules are simply broken?To me, leaving aside any issue of guilt, the idea of Strict Liability being applied outside of the intended situations involving an adverse analytical finding is insane. If the AD body does not have a Strict Liability to prove beyond doubt that the substance was taken or administered how can the athlete have a Strict Liability to meet a very high bar for an acceptable (to the AD body) excuse or pay the price?
Am I wrong in thinking that?
Additionally if I were to write to my local member what are the key points that should be raised in short and concise letter?
I will PM something to you to send. The senate inquiry would have addressed it.
Thank you. To be clear, I assume you to mean the senate inquiry proposed by Madigan and the cross-bench that got voted down?
Bruce has said if corruption is ignored, you are no better than the corrupter. This is the very suggestion we need to hammer home in anything we send to parliamentarians, especially those in precarious positions at the next election. My letters always include questions of where the member or senator and his/her party stands on such things as corruption, natural justice, Australian law for Australian citizens on internal issues, proportionality of punishment, interest in truth. The only way parliamentary avoiders of action against the likes of McDevitt can respond, is that they’ll look into it. If they don’t answer at all, you have another go and question their motives, their integrity. These people are there to represent everyone in Australia, not to ignore a growing number who smell something fishy.
Thread 1. ASADA have presented falsified evidence. Their testimony is suspect at best. Thread 2. The WADA retrial (let's stop the lie of it being an appeal) was never about the players, but setting precedent, lowering the bar required for conviction, and saving face. In fact this last should probably be a thread all on its own.You could get far more than 16.
Reckon you could double it.
100% correct. ASADA / WADA sacrificed integrity and justice so they did not look like the vindictive incompetents that they clearly are.
And as a side note, IMO interference by John Fahey is the reason ASADA went the EFC players and Cronulla players were basically let off, despite Cronulla players actually testing positive for PID.
IMO he then encouraged McFarkhead to go to CAS and probably even arranged the $$$ from Ley…IMO he has used his influence to be the linch pin of just about everything negative to do with ASADA / WASA / CAS and the political machine.
Bruce needs to correct point 4. As Kesslin has pointed out it was a transcription error. Let’s not hang ourselves.
Can’t we just take out the bits we don’t need
Twitter fight for the high ground
Richard Ings @ringsau Mar 4
The revelation here by James Hird that some of his players lied to a statutory government agency is quite troubling.
Diane trask @mcva @ringsau Mar 4
could also say very troubling ASADA has lied in so many areas. But this you don’t have concern about?
Richard Ings @ringsau Mar 5@mcva10
The only lie we have confirmed is that several players, according to Hird, lied to ASADA.
#EFC34 @jeppepi 19h19 hours ago@ringsau @mcva10
incorrect Richard. Several pieces of evidence submitted were found to be edited or fabricated. This is essentially a lie.
Richard Ings @ringsau 19h19 hours ago @jeppepi @mcva10
What was submitted by WADA that was a lie? What did the defence counsel do in attacking the credibility of such evidence?
#EFC34 @jeppepi 19h19 hours ago@ringsau @mcva10
The texts about Earls shoulder. They weren’t about Earl. The analysis certificate - deemed a forgery by ASADA witness.
#EFC34 @jeppepi @ringsau @mcva10
Other lies that came out in McDevitt’s responses:
CAS is independant
Not one player went to the web page (Crameri)
#EFC34 @jeppepi 19h19 hours ago @ringsau @mcva10 cont:
Not one player asked (McVeighs famous “what the hell is this shit” that prompted the info sessions and consent forms)
#EFC34 @jeppepi 19h19 hours ago @ringsau @mcva10 cont
McDevitt claiming he is unaware club gave written assurance (despite prosecuting using consent forms that stated it)
#EFC34 @jeppepi 19h19 hours ago @ringsau @mcva10 cont:
Dank shown to have used TB4 on other athletes (Earl never found for TB4)
#EFC34 @jeppepi 19h19 hours ago@ringsau @mcva10 cont:
Claiming sports take on WADC to stay clean when they actually do it for funding…
#EFC34 @jeppepi 19h19 hours ago @ringsau @mcva10 cont:
Hird exercised multiple appeal rights when he only exercised one, not multiple.
#EFC34 @jeppepi 19h19 hours ago
@ringsau @mcva10 Do you want me to continue Rich? Or am I wasting my time with a Richard Young fanboy?
Richard Ings @ringsau 18h18 hours ago @jeppepi @mcva10
Were the matters you raise submitted as evidence by WADA?
What rebuttal did defender counsel have?
#EFC34 @jeppepi 18h18 hours ago @ringsau @mcva10
Richard, that isn’t the point. The point is WADA LIED. You claim the only lie was the 4 players, and it wasn’t.
#EFC34 @jeppepi 18h18 hours ago@ringsau @mcva10
Further, looking at the way it panned out, WADA and the players could have swapped legal teams and players still lost.
#EFC34 @jeppepi 18h18 hours ago @ringsau @mcva10
This wasn’t an exercise in truth or justice, this was an exercise in meeting an agenda.
#EFC34 @jeppepi 18h18 hours ago @ringsau @mcva10
but to answer your question, yes - several were. The Earl references, forged test certificate for example.
Richard Ings @ringsau 18h18 hours ago @jeppepi @mcva10
What did the highly paid EFC34 defence QC’s have to say about all this at the CAS hearing? It’s their job not ours.
#EFC34 @jeppepi 18h18 hours ago @ringsau @mcva10
Players defence at AFL Tribunal showed document forgery, having ASADA own witness confirm this.
#EFC34 @jeppepi 18h18 hours ago @ringsau @mcva10
If players council at CAS did or did not attempt the same is irrelevant. Fact established document was forged.
#EFC34 @jeppepi 18h18 hours ago @ringsau @mcva10
And given CAS structure, it is evident that arguing any point was futile.
#EFC34 @jeppepi 18h18 hours ago @ringsau @mcva10
CAS willingness to accept that McVeigh took TB4 more likely than he confused Melanotan and Melatonin sets theme hearing
and we WIN.
Just to bang on a bit more about McD’s percentages on standard of proof etc. I’d like to ask him what he thought the percentages were in the AFL Tribunal and CAS…
2. Standard rules (CAS, AFL other bodies such as UCI, most legal systems ) work on the basis that where the complainant is able to raise a presumption that meets the standard of proof, the burden of proof shifts to the respondents, but the standard of proof in that instance is generally lower - balance of probability (AFL AD RULES, 15.1). In the CAS Contador case, CAS put the balance of probabililty at 51%. Nothing in the CAS E 34 case about percentages.
3. UCI uses similar. In the Michael Rogers case, the UCI found that there was a significant probability that his presence doping arose from ingesting contaminated meat in China. WADA did not appeal.
One thing I’d like answered is McDouchebag’s statement during an interview/press conference that “We may never truly know what the Essendon players were given”; which then eventuated in them being found guilty of TB4 use…
Does McMegalomaniac actually hear the ■■■■ that he espouses, or is he on some verbal diarrhea autopilot??
