I gave Bock banned peptide, claims Dank

So you have a couple of parables and a sort of a vibe, well done.

I reckon that you would have trouble accepting that the Essendon players were injected with TB 4 even if you were standing there whilst Dank drew the injection from a vial labeled TB4 and injected it into their arse. You would say "maybe the label was wrong"........... Or something else ridiculous. For the record I think Bock is probably guilty too and would be happy for that to be proved..........But for God sakes the whole thing at EFC was dodgy and Hird should have heeded advice from A F L to stay away from peptides. Instead he employs the devil himself to run a supplements program. For crying out loud, accept that it was a problem.

I guess I have to accept that there are none so blind as those that cannot see. The evidence is there but there is something in some of you that refuse to see it. Sick of wasting my breath, delude yourselves if you must.

Stephen I've read it a few times: choc block full of incorrect statements, speculation and wild leaps in logic. It would never have got past first base if it went anywhere near an Australian court/tribunal. I'm still waiting for the evidence which indicates that even one Essendon footballer took TB4 (let alone all 34). Just one footballer - that's all I ask. Alas, it has never been forthcoming. Compare that to what we know about Bock: - Robertson admits to giving Bock CJC - the compounding chemist provides clear evidence that it was CJC - Bock admits to using what Robertson gave him, and even gave evidence that it was labelled with CJC but ASADA reckons it is not sure if it was CJC that Bock used. On what basis was is assured that all 34 players used TB4?l (when no evidence has ever emerged of even one player using TB4). Notice the clear link in the Bock case? A very clear link between Bock, specifically Bock, and a specific prohibited substance. Now do you know why WADA and their willing participants, the CAS, had to come up with the strands in the cable tale? It's because no clear link has ever been established between TB4 and even one of the EFC players. It is precisely why the AFL Tribunal appropriately dismissed the first case - the clear link was never established - not even to one single footballer. In fact, it's even worse than that, the one document ASADA gave the most weight to was deemed to be a forgery. Did the CAS care? No, it didn't. In fact, and this is one of the best bits of their "judgement", the CAS said it doesn't care how Dank got the TB4, it doesn't care that it can't be proven that Dank ever got his hands on TB4, because, and get this: he could have got it from anywhere. Seriously.

You still haven't said what your legal background is.

You fail to understand but that is OK, I understand that you can't or more likely refuse to understand, o also understand your need to have the last post - please be my guest !.

Exactly HH, the players were duplicitous. A common sign of guilt.

Pathetic joke by a tin man court

They have been read and have more holes in them than a piece of Swiss cheese. The players were convicted by signing off for using thymodin AT ESSENDON yet the CAS SUGGESTED THEY WERE DISHONEST BY NOT WRITING THYMOSIN ON SOME OTHER FORM. Pathetic and ridiculous

BTW Harry, congratulations on proving that you have been able to glance at the reading material that I put forward. Now try proving that you have the attention span to READ them. The illusion that you know what you are talking about, Houdini is not one of your better illusions. Instead of relying on smoke and mirrors, try reading some facts.

I disagree Harry. Even Houdini could not escape the fact that the social litigator articles I am referring to explain that strands of cable is a commonly used and accepted evidence in Australian Courts. So know this is an accepted and precedented part of AUSTRALIAN LAW.

What legal background do you have HH?

Comfortable satisfaction is another name for " I have a vibe they are guilty " All your strands, cables etc would be thrown out on in a real court of law, a court that treats people's lives and there employment seriously, it saddens me as well.

Come on Stephen, this is a rant fest. How dare you introduce facts and reason.. ?

Perry, long winded and wrong. Chip LG makes Donald Trump look factual and accurate. You should read asada's response to his article before admitting to your inherent state of bafflement.

You should read ASADAs response to Chip's article before shooting yourself in the foot old mate.

Hmm, 1 vs 34... Which case is the more likely to turn up enough evidence to obtain a conviction. I'd be pursuing the 34 myself.

Had ASADA found Bock guilty, the harry houdini wouldn't have congratulated them for consistency, they would've just said it's proof that ASADA can't stop picking on people. ASADA were in a no-win situation with the Hird disciples, and always will be.

Sounds like the boys club to me. Imagine all the farcical hearings we'd get if the AFL withdrew from WADA.

So on one hand you have Dank actively involved in appeal of the cjc1295 trafficking ban ... On the other hand you have Dank telling reporters that he supplied Bock with cjc1295 ... Next up is Dank retracting his story of supplying cjc1295 to Bock and instead claiming he supplied something with a similar name but totally different benefits because it was legal? Oh wait, we did that story with the TB4 becomes thymosin load of bollocks.