Essendon dismiss WADA test report

The Cats have been linked to Danks. Why do these leaks keep coming out of AFL House and why hasn't anyone been sacked? No matter what you think about Essendon and the drugs saga it's clear that there is an agenda against Hird and the Bombers from some within the AFL. I'd be starting at the top and working my way down. http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/sport/afl/stephen-dank-involved-in-geelong-cats-premiership-era/story-fnjuhrxq-1227476909950

Thank you very much.

Sometimes ducks can be wooden. The quacking you hear can be simulated by a mouthpiece, from the lips of a waiting hunter. Let's evaluate what we do know before we jump in the water and try and catch the duck...may want to test the water too...wouldn't want it going over our heads. Thus we need to critically assess... What we know: 1. there was an injection regime at EFC --- Yes. And every other club (vitamins and amino acids). It's what's in the injections that counts. 2. players were asked to sign a waiver prior ro the injections -- No. the players themselves asked for this. 3. EFC cannot say what WAS injected into the players -- Not 100%. Let's be clear. This is not the same as having no idea what was in them. After all, they have a spreadsheet, invoices, emails (stating Thymomodulan were to be given), A picture of a vial marked 'Thymomodulan' on the premises, Statements from a few players who asked' and were told, Thymomodulan was what they were receiving and at least one player read Thymomodulan on the bottle...using your 'logic', if it looks and sounds like a duck.... 4. there is evidence that TB4 was purchased by/for Danks -- Yes. I'm sure your aware Dank's main business venture was clinics which administer these substances. 5. there is evidence that TB4 was at some point stored at EFC -- No 6. as per the AFL Anit-Doping Tribunal, we cannot be sure that TB4 was actually injected into players -- Correct. The AFL will not be 'forced' to apply further penalties. Essendon have been dealt with for their failings. No one thinks Essendon set out to cheat...Unfortunately our selective outrage doesn't extend to the main protagonists, Robinson and Dank. All we're left with is sitting ducks in a kangaroo court.

For the sake of the game, I hope that this is not true or we will be put through another year of hearing about it. But I love the fact how the case has done a full circle on itself and yet another claim by Essendon, as to the non existence of sufficient documents to prove any wrong doing.

Marion Jones

In response to your final question. No one has suggested that 27 players were lined up and urine tested at the same time. The amount of TB4 metabolites found in the urine would be proportionate to the time elapsed from the last dose. No one is suggesting that the players were all dosed at the same time either. There are a number of reasons why only two abnormally high results would be obtained from 27 tested players. Typically players are tested at random times so if 2 players are tested 12 hours after a dose but 25 players are tested 2 days after A dose the same result would not be detected.....Does that make sense?

I would expect WADA will put the onus on EFC to explain exactly what injection substance matches the injection regime that they agreed they had, i.e. all parties agree there was an injection regime, and I understand that the frequency and timing of the injections aligns with TB4, which is unique from many other substances in terms of its frequency and timing required to attain the desired results. So far Essendon lawyers have argued, "we don't know what was injected, we can't say for certain ... therefore either can you". The AFL tribunal of silks - quite bizarrely - allowed this defence. The ASADA prosecution - equally bizarrely - didn't appear to challenge this line of defence. I understand the contention of the onus being upon the prosecutor to prove guilt, but surely if all parties agree the injection schedule occurred and it matches TB4 and there are invoice records matching TB4, and Danks confirmed it was TB4 to an Age reporter before changing his story, then the onus should be upon Essendon to prove that it wasn't TB4, i.e. articulate an alternative substance that would align with such an injection schedule, then provide supporting evidence of having purchased that substance. I think this is the key difference between the AFL court environment and a neutral, international sport court environment, and between ASADA prosecution versus WADA prosecution (which has access to greater funding).

jax In terms of your last question - a myth has emerged that because grounds used by the AFL have been recently renovated that the AFL is getting funding from Government, when in fact the only ground which will end up being fully owned by the AFL (Etihad) was built with zero government funding. As for the rest, invariably the AFL has made contributions to stadiums which are used by other sports outside of footy season and the arrangements are as much about government going to the AFL rather than the reverse. I am reminded of the last year of the Howard government when a few Ministers paid a visit to Jolimont to heavy the AFL into dropping its 3 strikes policy. Putting aside the fact that none of the Ministers had a clue how the policy worked, they made threats of ceasing all Commonwealth govenrment funding to the AFL, and their natural response was: yeh, sure, go ahead, do your worst. It transpired that the "threat" to cease Commonwealth funding amounted to one sole indigenous youth program worth around $250,000 per annum - and that was it. Little wonder the AFL were able to show the Ministers the door and advise them to not let it hit their backside on the way out.

In this morning's Australian: One of Australia’s leading immunologists says much more information is needed before anyone could safely conclude that elevated levels of Thymosin Beta-4 found in two Essendon footballers was evidence of doping. Monash University professor Richard Boyd, the group leader of the Stem Cells and Immune Regeneration Laboratory, said that naturally occurring levels of TB4, the peptide at the centre of the doping case against 34 current and former footballers, varied widely from morning to night, from sickness and health, from injury and fitness. “If you are trying to define whether these players have got elevated levels, my comment would be that you need to have a very good handle on what the levels are in normal people in different stages of life and different stages of physiology. Things can change from the morning to the night, with tiredness, with exercise. It is a complex system.’’ WADA does not claim the test results are proof of doping. However, it will rely on the results to bolster a circumstantial case that the banned peptide was injected into players at Windy Hill during the 2012 season. My comment: If this is the full sum of WADA's "new evidence", then it looks like an absolute waste of everyone's time and what we are looking at is nothing more than punishment by process. Only two of 27 samples are said to be "elevated" (which may or may not be significant in its own right) - meaning the other 25 are well within the normal range - how on Earth does this bolster WADA's case? Doesn't it sort of do the exact opposite? If all 34 players were administered TB4 (which is the case both ASADA and now WADA are running with), then would you not expect all 27 samples to have "elevated" readings?

Get off the grass. The Tribunal couldn't even be sure a shipment of TB-4 existed. Dreaming sonny.

Do we? Do tell.

True ? The American female sprinter returned 0 positives but confessed years later. Can't recall her name but can see her face.

Don't group people together eg the players trusted the club, leave them out of it. You don't label anyone or anything forever. That's backwards. People, values and circumstances can change on an individual and group level. We need to adapt when we see and believe that X has changed. If we don't we can never forgive and if we can't forgive we can never be happy. I'm not an Essendon fan and I don't want them dealt 'even harsher' penalties - I want the truth to come out before sentencing and then I want appropriate penalties. Stop being the witness, judge and executioner and wait for due process before sending them to the gallows. You'd be a dangerous king. How much funding does the AFL get from the Federal and State Govt's?

Nope, not looking good at all. I think the Essendon fans with blinkers on fail to see that elevated levels of TB4 in conjunction with the other evidence is a huge deal, especially where the club in question can't provide documents showing what was given.

it may depend if they detected Tb4 or the metabolites that indicate its presence in the body (before being broken down into metabolites). this will be dealt with in court. there are many precedents for adjudicating over evidence that is not a positive test result, e.g. elevated levels of a substance indicating its exogenous origin. it may not be sufficient for a conviction on its own, but it is grist for the mill.

Not a smoking gun but I think all involved know there is no smoking gun. What WADA is doing is piling on the circumstantial evidence: it looks like a duck; it quacks like a duck; it walks like a duck...we can't prove it but it is probably a duck. Even a tenuous elevated level can through further doubt on the EFC case. What we know: 1. there was an injection regime at EFC 2. players were asked to sign a waiver prior ro the injections 3. EFC cannot say what WAS injected into the players 4. there is evidence that TB4 was purchased by/for Danks 5. there is evidence that TB4 was at some point stored at EFC 6. as per the AFL Anit-Doping Tribunal, we cannot be sure that TB4 was actually injected into players Now, if even 1 player can be shown to have an elevated level that cannot be explained away (and the onus of proof is on the player) this provides the final link in the story. Hard to argue that one player was injected; but all the others were not, even though we cannot say what they were injected with... 1.5-2 years, backdated to last November (was that when they received the infraction notices??)...even 6 months from November/December this year would mean 2016 missed. And then the other penalties that the AFL might be forced to apply. As much pressure as there was on the AFL Tribunal to clear the players for the good of the AFL; there will be an equal or greater pressure on CAS to find the players guilty for the good of WADA controlled world sport Not looking pretty

Your last sentence is too funny for words. Talk about pot calling the kettle black.

The HS has a bit more on this story, but up earlier this arvo. A tweet from Richard Ings: If 2 samples have, as reported, elevated levels of TB4, this is not a positive test. Just additional circumstantial evidence of possible TB4 "Thymosin Beta 4 is found naturally in humans and lawyers for Essendon players are likely to argue the results from the two players are not significant and at the very least say nothing about other players. " Interesting comment to that story: "For someone who has followed this case very closely over the past 3 years, this adds more intrigue. Tb4 is present in all of us, and is typically elevated during times of stress or muscular injury and repair. My understanding is that any introduced Tb4 into the body (that is not produced by the body itself) would be broken down (immediately in the gut if ingested, and broken down in the liver if injected) and not be identified in a urine sample. Blood sample completely different story, the peptide bond of an introduced peptide is broken down by the time it reaches the bladder, therefore rendering it denatured and undetectable. Please someone correct if I'm wrong here, but this is hardly a smoking gun, and if anything weakens WADAs case if this is the only 'empirical evidence' they have. "

I understand from The Age that WADA did a test, found 2 samples that were abnormally high (NB this wasn't a direct quote used in the Age) so sent it to Cologne for what I assume is an advanced test. The way I see it is that probably WADA has an obligation to inform EFC in the prelim summary that the samples are going for further testing and for the results of the initial test... all-in-all just due process, maybe? I assume a summary of the results of the Cologne test would then be passed on in the same fashion? I found the part where they mention a comment from WADA about the narrow testing window interesting, and how in the samples from Dec-2011 to Aug-2012 showed this abnormally high level... so does that mean they made this window? I guess it comes into a question of the piece as you have raised. Just one last point - I think ASADA might come out of this looking pretty bad too. The thing about not following a lead to China (I assume based on cost and probability of the importance), not doing rigorous tests on samples (I assume on cost again) and not getting those key witnesses Dank Shane Charter and Nima Alavi to make sworn statements (I assume on the back of not enough evidence or bargaining power and lack of actual force?)

sheesh wada does not understand the test results they are worse than ASADA