M_9

Gee. I was just gobsmacked. It was on page 117 of the Bruce Francis thread (now back to p116) with numerous posts deleted. The original poster had deleted their post but needed the mod to delete posts that had quoted him. From memory it was 4 or 5 paragraphs, each numbered (4 digits) that I guess was an 'evidence sheet' for want of the correct term. It detailed where the TB4 was sourced, who sourced it, who injected it and into which players it was injected. I think all names were redacted (xxxxxx sort of thing). Like all other posters I couldn't believe what I was reading. I could not have posted it here anyway.

Re my post above: From the Bf mod:Cleaned up a little chaps. Carry on, nothing to see here From another poster: You couldn't have just waited till the GG got a little glimpse (GG is Bruce Francis who is a certifiable looney) And from another poster: Well, I saw it. If that was genuine, then let's just say that ASADA's case isn't as weak as some would suggest. That was pretty rock solid.

Just read a damning (for players) post on Bigfooty that detailed the injection program (TB4). The poster, when questioned, said it was part of ASADA's evidence to the tribunal that he had obtained from a player (present at the hearing I assume). The poster realised what he had published and requested the mods remove it, which they promptly did, (before I could copy). It may go viral (as predicted on Bf), but no forum could risk publishing it (contempt of court?)

I'm pretty sure I posted some time ago that I heard from a senior AFL employee last December that the payout figure Hird negotiated when he signed on was $6 mil.

My understanding is that they have sought and been granted permission to train, but it's only matches that 'count' in regard to sanctions. There was some debate as to whether or not the IR game was in effect an AFL game.

Players issued with infraction notices will generally step away from competition as part of provisional suspensions, however the sporting bodies involved have discretion which allows them to play. Essentially it is the player's choice, although I understand they need the AFL's permission. Hence EFC small forward Cory Dell'Olio, and former Bomber Nathan Lovett-Murray were cleared to play in the NTFL. However this could be an issue if a ban is imposed as the player gets credit for time served under provisional suspension. Watson and Fletcher played in the International Rules gave, and if they cop a ban they could be out a month or so longer than others.

Hunt. You heard it from me (after Ralph narrowed it down to two). I think I mentioned previously that Jayden is the nephew of former Dee Andy Moir.

On the Notice of Charge filed by the AFL against the EFC the AFL allege that 16 substances, including Thymosin, were administered to the players. I'd be interested to know if ASADA found any of the substances on the premises (you'd expect so), if Thymosin was one of them, and if so was it tested (HPLC or chromatograpphy test).

From page 30 of the AFl Anti-doping Code: 'If a Player voluntarily accepts a Provisional Suspension in writing from the AFL and thereafter refrains from competing, the Player shall receive a credit for such period of voluntary Provisional Suspension against any period of Ineligibility which may ultimately be imposed.' So I'd take that to mean that if a player chose to compete in the pre-season comp and were subsequently found guilty they could not backdate their period of suspension as a 'non competitor' might.

Met an AFL Regional Manager two weeks ago. Said the payout figure for Hird (to sack him) was $6 mil.

On the AFL Notice of Charge it is alleged that the EFC caused 16 substances to be administered to the players. The substances are listed and include TB4. You would assume the AFL made this allegation on the basis of finding these substances on the premises. Unless Dank used every mL of Thymosin (I doubt it) it would just be a matter of running the Thymosin through a mass spectrometer to see what variant it was. Furthermore, why was 'Thymosin' listed on the consent forms that 38 players signed? Why wasn't it listed as Thymomodulin to avoid any ambiguity? I don't think Dank knew there was variants of Thymosin until the Nick MacKenzie interview. According to Chip Le Grand in his interview with Alavi, Alavi said he told Dank to have the Thymosin tested as he (Alavi) did not know whether he had compounded Thymosin alpha 1, Thymomodulin or TB4. Apologies for duplicating material that has been previously posted.

I think Doc Reid has a hell of a lot to answer for. A simple phone call or two to ASADA and they would have told him that AOD9604 and Thymosin beta 4 were both banned. He knew that the former was being administered to the players, expressed his doubt about it in his letters to Hird (lost in the mail?) and Hamilton, but failed to follow it up. He was at the meeting where the protocol and consent forms were discussed, and the consent forms, as we know, listed Thymosin. I do understand that the Mad Scientist was running amok, but Reid was too much in awe of The Golden Child to act on his doubts.

For goodness sake do not quote the OP when posting!

I posted just one load of tripe posted by one 'diane' here purely for the amusement of DL'ers. This diane really has a vivid imagination.

From the posts made after one of the HUN's items on ASADAgate (by Diane): Hamilton was in charge of Robinson, Dr Reid, Dr De Morton and Dank. These 4 people had to report to Hamilton and not Hird. Hird was told Dank had a vial of Hexarelin in his fridge and ordered him to get rid of it. Hird reported the matter to Hamilton. Thompson ripped into Dank 30 minutes after Hird had admonished him.Robinson sent Dank an SMS reminding him that he could not administer injections. In reply Dank stated, ‘I can use vitamin injections. The doc is happy with that. I need to fight for Cerebrolysin. 4 September 2012 – Dank left Essendon 11 December 2012 – Dank, who had joined Melbourne, organised a meeting with two senior Melbourne people and Alavi to discuss the possibility of Alavi supplying supplements as part of a sponsorship. There is so much more that the media dont want you to know, but as a detective. I would have thought you would do your due diligence and investigate everything. Not just what the media feeds you.

I may be wrong, but essentially ASADA deals with athletes, not a club, so I don't know that they would sanction 'Cronulla' per se, unless the 'team suspension rule' was invoked. Richard Ings tweeted 8 days ago "why haven't the NRL issued SD with an infraction notice?" It appears he wasn't actually paid by Cronulla and that may be a factor? Cronulla officials may have received infraction notices, but you'd only hear about it if those officials made it known. As far as I'm aware, there were 12 players in total who were offered, and took, a deal. A number were playing with other clubs. Those players were named by at least one paper. I'm sure I read that 5 players were not offered a deal, and were issued with infraction notices. As I said elsewhere, they may have retired, so a deal makes little sense. Then again, they may have been offered a deal and refused it. I don't think those players have been named. The latter has ramifications as far as Essendon goes. It's believed that about 21 are still playing AFL. What happens with the other 13 if 'the 21' are offered a deal?

I've looked into it pretty extensively, but the details are scarce due to ASADA's privacy rules. Even the exact number of players issued with SCNs was not specified. It appears to have been 17, but the names were not published. It seems that only 12 of the 17 were offered deals and all accepted them, so avoiding a tribunal hearing. Their names were published. No reason has been given why the other 5 players weren't offered deals, but it was probably because they had retired or are/were playing OS. I read one report that those 5 were issued with infraction notices recently. The names of these 5 players have not been made public. Roy Masters also reported that Dank was employed by Cronulla for 11 weeks, but there's no record of him being paid. Similarly there was no invoice or receipt for the purchase of the supplements - CJC-1295 and GHRP-6. At least 3 players are suing Cronulla, Dank, Shane Flanagan, and the Head Trainer. Another two are suing Cronulla. More lawsuits are expected. Obviously the players are risking $millions in legal fees should they lose. All of the above was gleaned from the 'net, mainly Roy Masters in the SMH. I'm happy to be corrected.

The sanction given to the NRL players was 3 2014 matches plus part of the 2015 preseason. The sanction has just been completed.

Of the 6 or so Bombers' supporters I know all are dead certain that it's a beat up. Without fail, they worship Hird in the same way Kim Jong-un is idolised.

Could WJ or someone else with legal knowledge tell me the 'order' of avenues for appeal as regards ASADA v Players? My understanding is that the first recourse is to appeal to the AFL Anti-doping Appeals Board. What happens after that? Federal Court and then CAS? I know Mark French was acquitted after appealing to the CAS. Did he pass through other avenues?

I'm surprised this story hasn't got a mention in either of the daylies: http://www.afl.com.au/news/2014-11-17/i-can-clear-players-dank I'm wondering if it's because 'Honest Steve' filed defamation suits against 8 media outlets ($10 mil.) including Fairfax in Feb last year. He also said he'd sue Demetriou (withdrawn), Dave Smith (NRL CEO), the NRL, and Cronulla.

From my research: It's actually Thymomodulin and belongs to the Thymosin alpha 'family'. Thymosin alpha regulates the immune system. Thymosin alpha is not banned. Thymomodulin is prescribed for infants to increase their immune system but only if it is deficient. Thymosin beta 4 (TB4) is banned under the S2 category Growth Factors and Related Substances. Like Thymomodulin, TB4 regulates the immune system. but it also appears to aid in tissue regeneration, hance it is a PED. Thymosin (alpha and beta) occurs naturally and there is no test that can detect elevated levels. Richard Ings reported that no athlete worldwide was banned in 2012-13 for the use of TB4. Why I reckon Dank injected TB4 and not Thymomodulin as he reportedly told the ACC: Dank sourced his PEDs through Charter and the Chinese supplier Vincent Xu said he only ever supplied Charter with TB4 Charter forwarded a text message to Dank stating "Which peptides do you need (compounded) next?" In his reply Dank requested Thymosin Beta 4. Dank told Nick McKenzie that he injected the players with TB4 When McKenzie told Dank that TB4 was banned Dank said "that's mindblowing" IMO ASADA would have a watertight case against Dank (and the players).

If the 34 players are found to have been administered a banned drug (TB4) then I can't see how they can get less than 12 months. Even then, they would have to plead 'no significant fault or negligence". The players were negligent in signing a waiver that listed Thymosin on it. A Google search would have told them that there was "good" and "bad" Thymosin. Hird and Dank didn't help the situation by sidelining Reid who would have been the one to check with ASADA. Having said that, Reid had reservations about Dank's use of AOD9604, and was not forceful enough in his objection to the use of that. During the player interviews, it was apparent that some players were told more by Dank re Thymosin than others. It didn't help the 34 players that something like 12 did not have the injections. BTW the story about Zaharkas having an aversion to needles was rubbish. Looking at the NRL penalties, I think the players will get 12 months backdated to the issuance of the initial SCNs (mid-June). They would then miss half the 2015 season. If the players are found guilty the AFL tribunal may try to get away with the minimum. I reckon ASADA will appeal if the bans are less than 2 years. They'll go in hard as they did in both Matt Clark's and Saad's case.

I think you'll find the persons sitting on the AFL Tribunal, chaired by former County Court judge David Jones, will be completely impartial.

Can someone tell me if the NRL Tribunal that judged the Cronulla affair was held in camera? I assume from the paucity of information we received about that judgement, that it was.