Stupid analogy #451: I want to drive through a school zone at 70km/h to show that its safe to do so and that the 40km/h school zone speed limits are a stupid idea. But the flashing 40km/h lights weren't on, as school had a curriculum day. Do I get booked for intending to speed even though I'm doing the speed limit?
OR
Stupid analogy #452: I am underage and wanting to get drunk, but the only thing I can find in my parents bar is de-alcoholised wine. I drink it wanting to get drunk, but I donât get drunk and there is no alcohol in the bottle - do the cops charge me for intent for underage drinking?
This is how I read it. Dank thought he could get TB4, MGF etc. into the players covertly using a humanofort containing orally consumed powdered supplement (taken typically post-training/match), but independent laboratory analysis shows the supplement actually doesnât contain detectable levels of those various growth factors in the first place.
Still baffles me why ASADA are using TB4, and nothing else. Is it because the SMSs etc make reference to âthymosinâ and nothing else?
This is getting more confusing by the day.
BRV - Humanofort has nothing to do with the playersâ SCNs.
As someone else I think pointed out, the SCNs were specifically around the 34 players being injected with TB-4 itself (not as an alleged ingredient of Humanofort) sometime between Feb & Sep 2012 by Dank in Dankâs office.
ASADAâs eternal problem is that after not having positive test samples (despite target testing), having player(s) specifically recall Thymomodulin, a bottle with said name on it , etc ASADA didnât even say how much TB-4 and on what day. The SCNs are built on the flimsiest of premises.
ASADAâs case is highly circumstantial at best. Thatâs why their case failed so emphatically at the AFL Tribunal. The tribunal wasnât comfortably satisfied that the substances brought into the country by Charter included TB-4 for Essendon - end of story there. However, they still then worked on the assumption it had to test the Alavi-EFC TB-4 link. They couldnât be comfortably satisfied on that eitherâŚespecially as it was revealed forged documents were involved to support ASADAâs caseâŚASADAâs legal counsel did not deny they were relying on forged document(s) only saying they had some difficulties with them. The tribunal said such document(s) were of dubious/doubtful authenticity and that the ASADA CEO had relied on them (it) significantly in issuing the SCNs. Personally, Iâd call that a conspiracy to pervert the course of justice by ASADAâŚbut thatâs just me.
The tribunal stopped at that point and didnât even bother trying to consider whether the players had been injected with TB-4.
I suspect the extra, redundant step of testing the Alavi-EFC TB-4 delivery link was for complete thoroughness and coming up with an iron clad verdict that ASADA would be disinclined to appeal. ASADA were. So ASADA handballed everything to WADA and said you try with CAS with a different panel in a different country with a (much) lower burden of proof. That extra step the tribunal took, I think, is also why the case went longer than expected.
My personal view is that unless WADA can convince CAS to accept a forged document or WADA finds some incredible new evidence, its appeal to CAS will fail like ASADAâs case before the AFL Tribunal. The fact that WADA requested a 45 day extension tells me they have nothing to substantiate an appeal with and are trying to manufacture something to present to CAS that looks different.
