In these circumstances, it can be expected that Mr

Xu would wish to portray his company in a favourable light.

Doubtless they applied that some consideration to evidence presented by EFC et al.

Seems like a pretty big hole for ASADA to leave, as surely it would be a simple matter to determine whether or not that Chinese company actually supplies TB4 or not without basing their entire case on Mr Xu's statement that it does.

Hate to sound like an Essendon supporter here, but it does give a little basis for doubt doesn't it?

Still astounded they didn't get done on intent though. I mean really, they said they wanted TB4, the injection regime matched TB4, and the results (and injuries) were consistent with what they thought would happen when TB4 is administered.

Doubtless they applied that some consideration to evidence presented by EFC et al.

Of course they would have. But Essedon being a fair, reasonable and completely transparent entity had nothing to fear.

Unlike those dodgy foreign types who manufacture the drugs. Disgraceful lot. Must not assume that their factory makes the stuff they actually say they make and sell. That bow is clearly too long to draw.

Which Journo? Wouldn't it also be just as plausible that the Journo his the certificate, or ignored it, or didn't realise what it was? After all the evidence was thrown out because the Journo didn't write about it in their story, not because it didn't exist.

Chip was your man . . Oct 2014

Looking like the Tribunal trust the Australian more than The Age!!

So. The owner of the company didnt produce a certificate that what he supplied was TB4.

Even though he said and thought it was TB4

Everyone else thought they were getting TB4

But because there wasnt a certificate to go with it it might not have been TB4.

Spare me

So. The owner of the company didnt produce a certificate that what he supplied was TB4.

Even though he said and thought it was TB4

Everyone else thought they were getting TB4

But because there wasnt a certificate to go with it it might not have been TB4.

Spare me

essendon are saying they are not sure what he really supplied but are confident it couldn't have been real tb4

perfectly logical.....just like the injections

But because there wasnt a certificate to go with it it might not have been TB4.

Spare me

So right there they stop looking. The rest of the evidence effectively doesn't even exist.

This "chain of custody" nonsense is just that. If you're dealing with eg DNA found on a gun at a murder site, then yes, you have to show chain of custody to prove that the DNA wasn't contaminated somewhere along the way. Or the knife used to stab someone, to show that it wasn't swapped for a different knife at some point. Even then, it usually comes down to someone's word.

But if this "chain of custody" from China to Charter to Alavi etc ... breaks down, then that somehow proves that TB4 wasn't at Essendon?

Chain of custody my behind. If you can show TB4 was at Essendon, then it doesn't matter how it got there, who brought it, or when. If it's there, it's there.

Another (probably foreseen) consequence of treating this in an overly legalistic fashion. Mr Jones, it's not a criminal case in a court of law, it's a sporting tribunal.

I reckon the players' lawyers might have stitched ASADA up on that one, getting them to agree to this chain of custody business.

However, the statement about the company is self-serving. Mr Xu is

responding to an investigator about the supply of substances by his company, which

are the subject of an investigation. In these circumstances, it can be expected that Mr

Xu would wish to portray his company in a favourable light.

Favourable light? "Yes, I provide this substance not approved for therapeutic use which everyone knows is mostly used by body builders and sportsmen seeking to gain an unfair advantage."

That's a favourable light???

How about, "No, of course not! I only provide the legal and harmless thymomodulin, not this ... other ... bad.... whatever. I've never even heard of TV6! Sorry, TB4." Now that's portraying yourself in a favourable light.

So. The owner of the company didnt produce a certificate that what he supplied was TB4.

Even though he said and thought it was TB4

Everyone else thought they were getting TB4

But because there wasnt a certificate to go with it it might not have been TB4.

Spare me

Excerpt from the email ordering the Stuff :

(..... send us the stuff but no certificate .)

The 8 pages in the Hun read like a brief for the defence. Distort, query, undermine, confuse, introduce uncertainty and doubt.

Those innocent lambs didn't even know what it was they were getting!

essendon are saying they are not sure what he really supplied but are confident it couldn't have been real tb4

The tribunal should have required them to demonstrate that it was something else, eg. thymomodulin. And balanced the alternate explanations.

(Remember, it's not a court of law. It's a sporting tribunal.)

But Mr Jones soon put a stop to that dangerous nonsense.

So right there they stop looking. The rest of the evidence effectively doesn't even exist.

This "chain of custody" nonsense is just that. If you're dealing with eg DNA found on a gun at a murder site, then yes, you have to show chain of custody to prove that the DNA wasn't contaminated somewhere along the way. Or the knife used to stab someone, to show that it wasn't swapped for a different knife at some point. Even then, it usually comes down to someone's word.

But if this "chain of custody" from China to Charter to Alavi etc ... breaks down, then that somehow proves that TB4 wasn't at Essendon?

Chain of custody my behind. If you can show TB4 was at Essendon, then it doesn't matter how it got there, who brought it, or when. If it's there, it's there.

Another (probably foreseen) consequence of treating this in an overly legalistic fashion. Mr Jones, it's not a criminal case in a court of law, it's a sporting tribunal.

I reckon the players' lawyers might have stitched ASADA up on that one, getting them to agree to this chain of custody business.

Chain of custody procedures are used throughout ASADA's work. Every test that is taken is done so with strict chain of custody procedures followed. If they aren't then the sample is unusable.

You also seem to have it around the wrong way, if the chain of custody broke down then the tribunal can not find that it wasn't TB4 (which they didn't), they also can not find that it was (which they also didn't). The only finding they can make is that they don't know what it is. Where this logic falls over in this case for mine is that it has been reported that the substnces was tested and it was either TB4 or TB500, TB4's synthetic and equally banned cousin. It was reported today that both sides accepted that it could be either and that they wouldn't let the technicality get in the way, the tribunal saw things differently for some reason, I wonder why that could be?

They also could never show TB4 at Essendon (according to the tribunal).

Chain of custody procedures are used throughout ASADA's work. Every test that is taken is done so with strict chain of custody procedures followed. If they aren't then the sample is unusable.

That, I get. I would expect rigourous handling of eg urine samples from players.

Where this logic falls over in this case for mine is that it has been reported that the substnces was tested and it was either TB4 or TB500, TB4's synthetic and equally banned cousin.

That's what I'm trying to say. If they can show that a substance is TB4, then how it got there doesn't matter. The chain from China to Alavi, etc, doesn't really matter. If it's there, it's there.

That, I get. I would expect rigourous handling of eg urine samples from players.

That's what I'm trying to say. If they can show that a substance is TB4, then how it got there doesn't matter. The chain from China to Alavi, etc, doesn't really matter. If it's there, it's there.

Problem is it is not there, the substance was either TB4 or TB500, both of which are banned, and they didn't show it getting to the club, only to Charters and maybe Dank, but not to the club.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-shuffle-deckchairs-as-damage-from-drug-scandal-continues-20150810-givmd2.htmlis about the forthcoming Essendon review written by Carro.

Some extracts:

- Essendon chief executive, Xavier Campbell, only guaranteed one position in the review and that was Hird's.

- ...the review...had little to no input from football department bosses Neil Craig and Rob Kerr.

- The strong impression is that another legend Tim Watson, is losing faith in Hird.

- Thompson nominated...those three men (Dank, Robinson, Hird) as the key architects and instigators of the program which was heavily punctuated with injections. He said that some board members knew what was happening also.

- the move to install Craig and Kerr at the head of the football department has not sat well with Hird

- appoint (Campbell) such a relatively young and inexperienced chief executive into a crisis management situation - particularly one so linked to the then suspended coach - was another misstep by Little.

So Hird and his CEO mate, Campbell are having the review to get rid of the people Hird doesn't like! To entrench their own positions? It beggars belief but it seems, Hird is firmly in control!

Where is the Board! They have abdicated their governance responsibility, again!

Where is Little! Looks like he has put his head in the sand.

What does Hird have on these guys!

Edited August 10, 201510 yr by Lucifer's Hero

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/essendon-shuffle-deckchairs-as-damage-from-drug-scandal-continues-20150810-givmd2.htmlis about the forthcoming Essendon review written by Carro.

Some extracts:

- Essendon chief executive, Xavier Campbell, only guaranteed one position in the review and that was Hird's.

- ...the review...had little to no input from football department bosses Neil Craig and Rob Kerr.

- The strong impression is that another legend Tim Watson, is losing faith in Hird.

- Thompson nominated...those three men (Dank, Robinson, Hird) as the key architects and instigators of the program which was heavily punctuated with injections. He said that some board members knew what was happening also.

- the move to install Craig and Kerr at the head of the football department has not sat well with Hird

- appoint (Campbell) such a relatively young and inexperienced chief executive into a crisis management situation - particularly one so linked to the then suspended coach - was another misstep by Little.

So Hird and his CEO mate, Campbell are having the review to get rid of the people Hird doesn't like! To entrench their own positions? It beggars belief but it seems, Hird is firmly in control!

Where is the Board! They have abdicated their governance responsibility, again!

Where is Little! Looks like he has put his head in the sand.

What does Hird have on these guys!

The new board members voted in by the delusional members were voted in to protect Hird. The folly they have made may be clear to us but there are still many of them expecting the second coming, they do after all think Hird is god.

Edited August 10, 201510 yr by Chris

Problem is it is not there, the substance was either TB4 or TB500, both of which are banned, and they didn't show it getting to the club, only to Charters and maybe Dank, but not to the club.

My mistake. I thought the stuff they sent to Melbourne Uni for testing was acquired at the club.

Whilst not condoning the behaviour of the EFC and its coach, we should not be to smug about the whole sorry saga. Dank seems to have been involved at GFC and presumably went to the EFC on the recommendation of Bomber and the Weapon. Dank got very close to the MFC presumably on the back of his fine work at the EFC. Our then Doctor at the time obviously thought well of him and his supplements program. If the EFC drug bust did not come when it did, the MFC may well have had its own program. Thankfully it did not, but I suspect this was due to timing and the club had time to act when the EFC bombshell landed. The Dank episode show how people can be easily influenced by snake oil salesmen pedaling a message that the buyer wants to hear, in this case, improved on-field performance. For years and years there have been doubts about other clubs and on an individual player level the use of perfomance enhancing substances has been rife. It will remain an on-going problem in all professional sport as sportsmen and sportswomen and clubs seek to get an advantage. There is no moral high ground in professional sport.

So Hird and his CEO mate, Campbell are having the review to get rid of the people Hird doesn't like!

God I hope they give him another contract extension.

Whilst not condoning the behaviour of the EFC and its coach, we should not be to smug about the whole sorry saga. Dank seems to have been involved at GFC and presumably went to the EFC on the recommendation of Bomber and the Weapon. Dank got very close to the MFC presumably on the back of his fine work at the EFC. Our then Doctor at the time obviously thought well of him and his supplements program. If the EFC drug bust did not come when it did, the MFC may well have had its own program. Thankfully it did not, but I suspect this was due to timing and the club had time to act when the EFC bombshell landed. The Dank episode show how people can be easily influenced by snake oil salesmen pedaling a message that the buyer wants to hear, in this case, improved on-field performance. For years and years there have been doubts about other clubs and on an individual player level the use of perfomance enhancing substances has been rife. It will remain an on-going problem in all professional sport as sportsmen and sportswomen and clubs seek to get an advantage. There is no moral high ground in professional sport.

There is the standard that is set by the supporters, by that I mean the standard we demand from the club we support. My stance on the EFC issue wouldn't change if it was the EFC, CFC, Eagles, or the Mighty Dees. That is where I set the bar as a member and I think it where we all should.

I do agree that we are very very lucky to have dodged this bullet, and I am glad those involved in getting so close to the bullet are now gone.

I would like to think that the Doctorbator had himself gone rogue and that any suggestion of a job to Dank would have been knocked on the head by our club officials about 2 seconds after it was suggested.

The tribunal should have required them to demonstrate that it was something else, eg. thymomodulin. And balanced the alternate explanations.

(Remember, it's not a court of law. It's a sporting tribunal.)

But Mr Jones soon put a stop to that dangerous nonsense.

And WADA have their own rules of evidence, I understand.

I doubt if they will put up with this [censored] regarding chain of evidence.

"Did you order the drug"

"Well, yes"

"Did you get it"

"Not so sure, but we did inject something that we thought may have been it"

"GUILTY" !!!

The new board members voted in by the delusional members were voted in to protect Hird. The folly they have made may be clear to us but there are still many of them expecting the second coming, they do after all think Hird is god.

This may be true but the Board have a Corporate Governance role which they have failed in before and seem to be doing again.

Part of that role is to ensure checks and balances are in place, not only for processes but also accountability of staff.

If they are all Hird's buddies there cannot be such accountability...it just repeats the controlling environment Hird had before.

This should be ringing alarm bells at the AFL!

This may be true but the Board have a Corporate Governance role which they have failed in before and seem to be doing again.

Part of that role is to ensure checks and balances are in place, not only for processes but also accountability of staff.

If they are all Hird's buddies there cannot be such accountability...it just repeats the controlling environment Hird had before.

This should be ringing alarm bells at the AFL!

The only thing that rings alarm bells with Essendon at AFL is if they should fail to field a reasonable team.

The AFL do not care about justice in the Sports world.

They care about maintaining the flow of Money all else runs a bad second.

How pathetic then are the rest of the clubs. The AFL is protecting Essendon.

The obfuscation that is going on here has close parallels to a certain Royal commission in that the participants are

stuck between truth and its consequences on all levels and both sides.