Bruce Francis

[Tiger2709]

All this information came out in the Federal Court Case and is available online - I have no idea why you are complaining !

I was replying to this

"All of this came out in the Fed court case. BF has collated it and put it in a chronology."

I wanted a link to this BF created chronology?

GGigantor has a habit of either a straight copy and paste of Bruce's comments and posting them as if they are proven facts when many are just Bruces take on the information he has ayt hand, or he makes rash statements that may or may not be true in regards government interference in this case, there is nothing new there and really its just another sideshow that distracts from the real issue which is did Essendon under the leadership of James Hird take banned substances?

 

[DinoSoar]

Just for a little Sunday morning reading, section 7 of this document outlines the labelling requirements of dispensed medicines. Compare and contrast with the photograph.

http://www.pharmacyboard.gov.au/documents/default.aspx?record=WD10/2951&dbid=AP&chksum=WMyYdhKfX3+WGPiGUCLsMw==

More to the point, Section 5 on Extemporaneous Dispensing (Compounding) is of more interest and probably goes a long way towards explaining why Alavi has pulled back and gone to ground - he will be in quite a bit of professional hotwater over his role and actions in all this, once this Asada case has reached its conclusion it would be very surprising if he retains his pharmacist registration/license.

It would appear that Section 5 of the Guideline for Dispensing of Medicines was conveniently not followed, and despite what some may think, having a pharmacist compound a medication is not a free for all to get around the laws/regulations regarding the registration and dispensing of pharmaceutical products.

 

[Tiger2709]

This is the material BF collated.

So where is the link to this collation of information I'm interested to take a look at it as a whole rather than just your cut and pastes, is it publicly available?

 

[Tiger2709]

All of this came out in the FEd court case, all of it. You can probably still look up all of the doco now online.

You miss the point I'm asking that when you are copying and pasting from articles or from Bruce's writings then post a link to it.

When you don't post a link or use quotation marks it is hard to tell if your channelling Bruce or if it is your own opinion.

 

[Max Headroom]

So "Max", who is your "Edison"?

Who did you think I might be anyway? Should I be insulted or flattered?

 

[BlueWorld]

We have facts.

1. We know for a fact what the players injection regime was (from the players own mouths).
2. We know for a fact that the Bombers have no paper trail, records or invoices that disclose what substances were administered under/during this injections regime.

These two certain FACTS alone are enough for Essendon to deserve to be smashed.

We know for a fact our players ingested nothing harmful or illegal (we have no idea whether they were injected with anything WADA banned but we definitely don't want those facts to ever be known).

 

[Gigantor]

You miss the point I'm asking that when you are copying and pasting from articles or from Bruce's writings then post a link to it.

When you don't post a link or use quotation marks it is hard to tell if your channelling Bruce or if it is your own opinion.

I actually grabbed bits via a twitter feed and copied it in whole to a Word document, so I don't have a link to it as such.

BF had his own blog going for a while, but he appears to have closed off all access to it.

 

[Gigantor]

I actually grabbed bits via a twitter feed and copied it in whole to a Word document, so I don't have a link to it as such.

BF had his own blog going for a while, but he appears to have closed off all access to it.

Every now and then, a new installment appears via Twitter, but I don't religiously copy everything, so I don't have access to BF's complete works so to speak.

 

[Just interested]

A horizontal sat morning with my PDA, checking out other footy sites, found this at our comrades site, saintsational. Poster the Other Thommo has the right idea. We are not alone in having sniffed out BF.

http://www.saintsational.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=79221&start=15925

Same page, same bloke, at 9.06 this morning.

 

[FootyGeek]

BF has released a very detailed account of player evidence on BB this morning.

I'm reluctant to repeat it here for privacy reasons.

However, his point is that ASADA is fabricating evidence.

He argues that ASADA puts player A in the yes column for taking drug B if they said in their interview when asked if taking that drug that they "were not 100% sure".

BF obviously does not understand the strict liability rules that govern drugs in sport.

 

[BlueWorld]

I am unsure if Bruce will pressure the Minister - I asked Bruce on BB if there has been any Government interference ( Liberal ) - Bruce is insistent there has only been interference from the ALP which is widely acknowledged. Think Bruve has his blinkers on when it concerns the Liberal Party.

Any government interference was aimed at saving the players and making certain officials take the hit. One in particular who refused. Suggestions that they were out to get EFC for no good reason are just absurd.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

was rhetoric, just absurdist epigram signoff. but thnx either way. you raised me my first go.

i assumed it might have been ficus. but do they outgrow a potplant? or do you have to ask the experts at poyntons?

Depends on which species you are talking about. A standard ficus is an excellent pot plant for topiary so can be potted. A sycamore tree is huge and is a ficus. You would not pot that!

 

[BlueWorld]

Can you provide justification for the Federal Government appointing Justice Downes to review ASADA's brief of evidence? Has this ever happened to ASADA in the past ?

I have found no evidence of this particular type of intervention by a Goevernment in the history of ASADA. And this is taking into account the meddling of the ALP Government.

But that was the Liberals. You previously said only the ALP interfered. Has ASADA ever had a case of this magnitude?

 

[Just interested]

1. AFL attempting to place pressure on someone is not new, and not evidence that that person responded to that pressure.

2. Government ministers applying close supervision to the the point of interference on their staff is not new, it is also not evidence that those staff responded to that pressure

Remember when James Hird was called into a meeting by the AFL to warn him not to use peptides and to report any knowledge I had of them, he showed the strength to resist that pressure and decide his own path. Surely Andruska is similarly able to ignore AFL pressure?

3. All the allegations were tested in the Middleton case and found to be baseless, unsupported or irrelevant

4. None of the allegations have any baring on whether EFC players did or did not take drugs.

5. The suggestion that the AFL were protecting their finals series is obvious and well known. When this scandal broke EFC were a premiership contender. The AFL could not allow a club with so much circumstantial evidence of mismanagement of their medical programs contend for a premiership only to have that premiership tarnished.

The 2nd half of your point 1, AR (which I bolded), is most salient. As much as Hird's lawyers tried, in front of Middleton, they could not produce any evidence AA had succumbed to pressure from the AFL, or the gubmint.

Quoting her notes of what other people said, suggested or demanded in meetings, from her Fed Crt affidavit, does not constitute evidence of her having agreed to do what they asked, suggested or demanded. The fact ASADA provided the AFL with evidence they had gathered, using, in part, the AFL's powers, so the AFL could exercise their power to act against a licence holder, on a matter of governance and compliance with the licence requirements, is not an indication of ASADA having acted improperly, and under outside influence. And, so ruled Middleton.

As for the regurgitating of the cross examination of AA by Hird's lawyers, including their running commentary that she was an unreliable witness, is not proof of her being an unreliable or untruthful witness. It is just cross examination. Anyone who has sat in a court room, while employing a modicum of intelligence and knowledge, and actually listens to a judge's instructions, rulings and summations, knows how this stuff works. In fact, any such person knows someone in the box, under cross, is more likely to be a truthful and reliable witness if they cannot recall every last bit of minutiae thrown at them by the person cross examining them. It's perfectly natural for a truthful person to need some time to recall miniscule or long gone detail, refer to notes taken at the time and, even, not recall everything.

We have an adversarial system, and that's how it works - memory is imperfect, and that's what is attacked. If we had an inquisitorial system (e.g. France) it would play out very differently, and a lot quicker.

 

[Rambis]

Every now and then, a new installment appears via Twitter, but I don't religiously copy everything, so I don't have access to BF's complete works so to speak.

Every now and then, a new installment appears via Twitter, but I don't religiously copy everything, so I don't have access to BF's complete works so to speak.

I know what you mean. I was just reading something on twitter where Francis argued that the players can't remember what they were given.
As someone who paid to watch the bombers during the suspect weeks that argument left me furious.
An athlete knows better than that. An AFL athlete has it drummed into them to not let that happen. It makes EFC players look so guilty and just using excuses straight out of the "How to deal with a doping charge" manual.

This whole thing is sickening. It is the sports loving public that are left paying for a bunch of gits looking for shortcuts to fame and fortune.

Does Francis really expect us to cop it? I am happy for Baum and Panahi to ignore his work if this is what he is about.

 

[Just interested]

It's all about AOD.

It's the big fish. And we haven't heard the last of it...

Same bloke again 'ranger, on this page, at 4.38 P.M. last Mondee.

http://www.saintsational.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=79221&start=15850

You've got to wonder if McDivot's last gig, and the one before that, might be having some influence on him deciding not to pursue the AOD matter. Some think that sentence should be concluded with "for now" and/or a reference to leaving it for 'others'.

 

[peppy la pew]

BF has released a very detailed account of player evidence on BB this morning.

I'm reluctant to repeat it here for privacy reasons.

However, his point is that ASADA is fabricating evidence.

He argues that ASADA puts player A in the yes column for taking drug B if they said in their interview when asked if taking that drug that they "were not 100% sure".

BF obviously does not understand the strict liability rules that govern drugs in sport.

Back to where no-one will question his views, instead they will lap it up as gospel.

BB will have a good vibe today

 

[JD-Roo]

I am unsure if Bruce will pressure the Minister - I asked Bruce on BB if there has been any Government interference ( Liberal ) - Bruce is insistent there has only been interference from the ALP which is widely acknowledged. Think Bruve has his blinkers on when it concerns the Liberal Party.

Is Bruce Francis actually CozzaD..... ??!!??

 

[Chameleon75]

Can you provide justification for the Federal Government appointing Justice Downes to review ASADA's brief of evidence? Has this ever happened to ASADA in the past ?

I have found no evidence of this particular type of intervention by a Goevernment in the history of ASADA. And this is taking into account the meddling of the ALP Government.

haven't looked but I suspect I wouldn't find.

There hasn't been a case this broad before either, whilst it focused on essendon and cronulla but started broader. Investigated to varying degrees were cronulla, manly, essendon, gold coast, Melbourne and now we learn carlton.

lot's of $$$ and influence there, in that politically charged environment it doesn't surprise me that a review was sort.

 

[imperial_oz]

Strange that at least two people have refused affidavits ( Alavi, Charter ) and at least one person refused to sign ASADA's statement of intervies ( Suki Hobson ) I believe there may be two other EFC employees in a similar situation - Surely thisis telling us something ?

Yes, I agree. It is telling us that none of those people want to commit themselves on paper where their words can be subject to external scrutiny.

Alavi, for example, has claimed in a Chip Legrand article that ASADA wanted him to sign a statement with errors in it but he refuses to attend the tribunal to give the real story. The tribunal where the defence at least will give him the opportunity to present the 'real' facts. He also won't go on record with his allegations against ASADA. ie no signed statement. no stat dec nothing. All of ASADA's evidence presented at the tribunal is subject to scrutiny. None of Alavi's or Charter's allegations can be subject to scrutiny because they refuse to commit themselves. That tells me they are afraid of their version of the truth.

I have had to give evidence is the past and the prosecutors wanted changes to my statements. Where it was just to clarify a point I agreed to those changes. Sometimes they wanted to make changes that were incorrect and I refused. The changes were not being asked for any improper purpose but because it was a technical issue that they did not understand well enough but I signed the statements that I was prepared to sign. Charter and Alavi all have the same opportunity. They can sign their own statements with what they are happy to submit but then they will be accountable for what they have said......and it appears they are doing all they can to avoid that. (I have no idea about Hobson)

 

[Tiger2709]

I actually grabbed bits via a twitter feed and copied it in whole to a Word document, so I don't have a link to it as such.

BF had his own blog going for a while, but he appears to have closed off all access to it.

Fair enough, only been able to find bits and pieces I was interested so wanted to read it for myself.

 

[Tiger2709]

Strange that at least two people have refused affidavits ( Alavi, Charter ) and at least one person refused to sign ASADA's statement of intervies ( Suki Hobson ) I believe there may be two other EFC employees in a similar situation - Surely thisis telling us something ?

They are involved though so most lawyers would advise against them testifying, nothing to be gained by it but possibly something to lose depending on their level of involvement, I would have thought.

 

[BlueWorld]

Just for a little Sunday morning reading, section 7 of this document outlines the labelling requirements of dispensed medicines. Compare and contrast with the photograph.

http://www.pharmacyboard.gov.au/documents/default.aspx?record=WD10/2951&dbid=AP&chksum=WMyYdhKfX3+WGPiGUCLsMw==

And people wonder why he won't testify at the tribunal.

 

[Ancient Tiger]

They are involved though so most lawyers would advise against them testifying, nothing to be gained by it but possibly something to lose depending on their level of involvement, I would have thought.

This is the problem with the whole set up.

As a private tribunal, there is no protection to witnesses testifying. They do not have to turn up (Supreme Court judgement) and actually have NOTHING to gain. In fact they may have a lot to lose. They are named in the media and there are a lot of crazies out there that may threaten them via anonymous emails etc. Why would a witness come forth at all?

The whole set up is a disgrace.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Is this Bruce Francis the guy that played 3 Tests for Oz and helped Kerry Packer sign up players and other stuff for World Series Cricket??

What makes his opinion any more relevant than anyone else's?