Bruce Francis

[Gigantor]

Are you trying to suggest to people you know what evidence was provided to the tribunal.
If you are, I am saying you are full of crap.
You, like me have no idea what was produced in evidence.
What I do know is it took ASADA longer than the five minutes you stated it would take before the case was going to be thrown out.
In case you have been asleep it is still going.......

Are you trying to suggest to people you know what evidence was provided to the tribunal?

I am responding to theories being put forward by the majority as to the evidence they think exists which is sufficient to nail all 34 players for the use of TB4.

Let us refresh our memories of some of the theories put forward in recent days by eminent members of the majority:

Theory 1:
The MRC Web Administrator uses the word "Thymosin" to link to a product they market to the general public called "Thymosin Beta 4", therefore all 34 players must have used TB4.

Theory 2:
34 players signed so-called consent forms which happen to refer to the word "Thymosin", therefore all 34 players must have used Thymosin Beta 4.

Further to that, the majority are of the view that the signing of the consent forms is equivalent to the standard of evidence used in a recent non-presence case in which the alleged offender:
1. ordered a prohibited substance (name and address on order form)

2. used his credit card to pay for it (credit card in name of alleged offender)

3. was expecting delivery of the package addressed to him and containing the prohibited substance (apprehended as evidence; and to cap it all off

4. he admitted to all of the above.

Needless to say, I disagree.

 

[gutsroy]

Please don't presume to tell me what I think based on a very superficial presentation of a case. We know you disagree, so piss off now.

Wouldn't worry, 'The Artist Formerly Known as GG' (just jokes, no offence intended) has made a generalization as to the position of the 'majority' and reduced opposing positions to strawman arguments. At least that's how it appears to me.

 

[Gigantor]

The question I would like answered is: Why was there a need to ask "Which Thymosin am I getting"? Was "This time" implied?
It appears by that request that they (players) were aware there was more than one type of thymosin available and being injected.

Maybe because the question was not phrased in that manner?
Maybe the discussion was along the following lines: What is this? What is it used for? Is it permitted under WADA? Are you sure this is the premitted form?

 

[Gigantor]

Wouldn't worry, 'The Artist Formerly Known as GG' (just jokes, no offence intended) has made a generalization as to the position of the 'majority' and reduced opposing positions to strawman arguments. At least that's how it appears to me.

Ah but, these eminent members of the majority have come back for seconds, and have been fully supported, have received many likes, and get this: have all argued that I am the one wrong on these points being made.

Furthermore, not one other eminent member of the majority has come forward and said to their colleagues: you know what, this theory you are putting forward is completely illogical and would not hold water before the tribunal.

On the contrary, more and more members of the majority are supporting some of these crackpot theories.

So I ask, why, all of a sudden, is it not kosher to discuss these crackpot theories?

And if segments of the majority want to distance themselves from these crackpot theories, then why are they not coming forward and arguing the point?

 

[The_Wookie]

Can we not discuss some of the theories put forward in recent days by eminent members of the majority?

I dont see why anyone would want to discuss anything with you while you continue to address them in such a patronising fashion.

For the most part people arent arguing with you just because you are wrong, its because you are presenting arguments based mostly on information that you have no idea about and are almost entirely made from the Interim report - even though there was another 6 months before the investigation was completed, and then after that they were still reinterviewing people pertaining to the investigation - and almost entirely sourced from a man who frankly seems to have no idea what he is talking about.

Further I dont think anyone believes that consent forms alone are the basis of evidence sent to the tribunal - although they do demonstrate intent. No doubt ppayer testimony will either prove or disprove that part of the argument. You never know Dank might have put Thymosin on the form, and given them something else entirely. I dont think that anyone truly believes that just because the company the Thymosin may have been sourced from sells beta-4 is proof enough that the players took beta-4.

Always remember, its comfortable satisfaction - a signed consent form indicating they were to be injected with Thymosin Beta-4 will go a long way - and will go further depending on player testimony.

 

[gutsroy]

Ah but, these eminent members of the majority have come back for seconds, and have been fully supported, have received many likes, and get this: have all argued that I am the one wrong on these points being made.

Furthermore, not one other eminent member of the majority has come forward and said to their colleagues: you know what, this theory you are putting forward is completely illogical and would not hold water before the tribunal.

On the contrary, more and more members of the majority are supporting some of these crackpot theories.

So I ask, why, all of a sudden, is it not kosher to discuss these crackpot theories?

And if segments of the majority want to distance themselves from these crackpot theories, then why are they not coming forward and arguing the point?

You're shifting the goalposts again.

First it was a nebulous majority (otherwise not defined), now it's only eminent members of the majority (again, no supporting definition proffered), who are then 'fully supported' as soon as others agree with them.

The arguments - assuming they were made in a form similar to the manner in which you characterize them - are then reduced to strawmen, presented in isolation and compared to disparate cases.

The strawman arguments are then derided as 'crackpot theories'.

You're entitled to make your point, to put your views across, there are areas in which I have agreed with your views, but the continual misrepresentation of others' arguments and oft demonstrated refusal to answer questions posed is whilst expecting that others pay you the selfsame courtesy is frustrating.

 

[Gigantor]

I dont see why anyone would want to discuss anything with you while you continue to address them in such a patronising fashion.

For the most part people arent arguing with you just because you are wrong, its because you are presenting arguments based mostly on information that you have no idea about and are almost entirely made from the Interim report - even though there was another 6 months before the investigation was completed, and then after that they were still reinterviewing people pertaining to the investigation - and almost entirely sourced from a man who frankly seems to have no idea what he is talking about.

Further I dont think anyone believes that consent forms alone are the basis of evidence sent to the tribunal - although they do demonstrate intent. No doubt ppayer testimony will either prove or disprove that part of the argument. You never know Dank might have put Thymosin on the form, and given them something else entirely. I dont think that anyone truly believes that just because the company the Thymosin may have been sourced from sells beta-4 is proof enough that the players took beta-4.

Always remember, its comfortable satisfaction - a signed consent form indicating they were to be injected with Thymosin Beta-4 will go a long way - and will go further depending on player testimony.

I dont see why anyone would want to discuss anything with you while you continue to address them in such a patronising fashion.

So it is me who is guilty of being discourteous to the majority?

That sounds like quite a claim from where I am sitting.

Do you want me to review for you some of the comments directed at me in the last 48 hours by eminent members of the majority?

The fact is, eminent members of the majority have just been caught out putting forward some crackpot theories, and the majority don't like being tarred with the same brush - then those people need to speak out and distance themselves from these crackpot theories.

And Wookie, please do not fall into the same trap as ASADA, who see the word Thymosin (everywhere) and conclude that that must mean Thymosin Beta 4.

 

[LanceRomance]

I dont see why anyone would want to discuss anything with you while you continue to address them in such a patronising fashion.



And Wookie, please do not fall into the same trap as ASADA, who see the word Thymosin (everywhere) and conclude that that must mean Thymosin Beta 4.

But dank originally said they were taking tb4

 

[Gigantor]

You're shifting the goalposts again.

First it was a nebulous majority (otherwise not defined), now it's only eminent members of the majority (again, no supporting definition proffered), who are then 'fully supported' as soon as others agree with them.

The arguments - assuming they were made in a form similar to the manner in which you characterize them - are then reduced to strawmen, presented in isolation and compared to disparate cases.

The strawman arguments are then derided as 'crackpot theories'.

You're entitled to make your point, to put your views across, there are areas in which I have agreed with your views, but the continual misrepresentation of others' arguments and oft demonstrated refusal to answer questions posed is whilst expecting that others pay you the selfsame courtesy is frustrating.

You expect me to answer an idiotic question like: have I seen all the evidence?

Need I remind you that it is not I who determined guilt two years ago.

Furthermore, it is ASADA prosecuting the case, and the onus is 100% on ASADA, so each time someone puts forward an iffy theory as to what might constitute sufficient evidence, all of us should be wanting to put such theories under the spotlight.

That is not creating a strawman argument.

 

[Gigantor]

But dank originally said they were taking tb4

Actually, I suggest you re-read the transcript.

 

[LanceRomance]

Actually, I suggest you re-read the transcript.

why dont you quote the relevant part of the transcript?

 

[gutsroy]

You expect me to answer an idiotic question like: have I seen all the evidence?

Need I remind you that it is not I who determined guilt two years ago.

Furthermore, it is ASADA prosecuting the case, and the onus is 100% on ASADA, so each time someone puts forward an iffy theory as to what might constitute sufficient evidence, all of us should be wanting to put such theories under the spotlight.

That is not creating a strawman argument.

Again, where did I ever assert that it was my expectation that you answer 'an idiotic question like: have I seen all the evidence?

You need not remind me that it was not you 'that determined guilt two years ago' because I never asserted otherwise. Need I remind you of that?

At no stage was your right to place 'such (iffy) theories' under the spotlight questioned; your right to mischaracterize them was and continues to be.

With regard to creating strawman arguments, you seem to be continuing to supply proof to support my assertion, the way I see it.

 

[Gigantor]

Again, where did I ever assert that it was my expectation that you answer 'an idiotic question like: have I seen all the evidence?

You need not remind me that it was not you 'that determined guilt two years ago' because I never asserted otherwise. Need I remind you of that?

At no stage was your right to place 'such (iffy) theories' under the spotlight questioned; your right to mischaracterize them was and continues to be.

With regard to creating strawman arguments, you seem to be continuing to supply proof to support my assertion, the way I see it.

Again, where did I ever assert that it was my expectation that you answer 'an idiotic question like: have I seen all the evidence?

Every second response to me over the past 48 hours has been that idiotic question (suggesting to me that I must be on the right track).

 

[Tazmania]

I dont see why anyone would want to discuss anything with you while you continue to address them in such a patronising fashion.

So it is me who is guilty of being discourteous to the majority?

That sounds like quite a claim from where I am sitting.

Do you want me to review for you some of the comments directed at me in the last 48 hours by eminent members of the majority?

The fact is, eminent members of the majority have just been caught out putting forward some crackpot theories, and the majority don't like being tarred with the same brush - then those people need to speak out and distance themselves from these crackpot theories.

And Wookie, please do not fall into the same trap as ASADA, who see the word Thymosin (everywhere) and conclude that that must mean Thymosin Beta 4.

If you consider discourteous to include ignoring posts that point out the logic flaws in your arguments, not answering direct questions and disappearing when you straw man arguments are pulled apart whilst spamming the board with your own flawed arguments based on a partial knowledge (like the rest of us) whilst claiming that is all there is.... then yes you are being discourteous.

 

[PetterdHoisted]

Are you trying to suggest to people you know what evidence was provided to the tribunal?

I am responding to theories being put forward by the majority as to the evidence they think exists which is sufficient to nail all 34 players for the use of TB4.

The ground certainly has shifted! No longer are we arguing whether or not TB4 was administered, but rather how many of the 34 received it.

 

[Rambis]

The ground certainly has shifted! No longer are we arguing whether or not TB4 was administered, but rather how many of the 34 received it.

We have to wonder if Gigantor believes that if TB4 isn't proven to be injected into all 34 players then they all get off whether they were a recipient or not.

Either that or it is a way out for Gigantor if for example only 32 get done.

It would be great if he could state his reasoning behind constantly bringing up "all 34 players" in his arguments.

 

[Demon in Hell]

What's happened to BomberTalk today.

I'm having withdrawal systems, can't get my daily dose of Bruce bullshit.

 

[neutralguy]

What's happened to BomberTalk today.

I'm having withdrawal systems, can't get my daily dose of Bruce bullshit.

Bruce may have a finger cramp?

 

[jj1978]

Thinking out loud...

perhaps Hird should spend 100K not on another appeal but perhaps to take Dank to court to obtain this magic "spreadsheet".... after all you'd think it would be Essendon's IP anyway... but if this magic spreadsheet can prove the players didn't take TB4....

 

[Gigantor]

If you consider discourteous to include ignoring posts that point out the logic flaws in your arguments, not answering direct questions and disappearing when you straw man arguments are pulled apart whilst spamming the board with your own flawed arguments based on a partial knowledge (like the rest of us) whilst claiming that is all there is.... then yes you are being discourteous.

Allow me to remind you that the present discussion relates to two crackpot theories being espoused by eminent members of the majority (with a good deal of support I might add):

Theory 1:
The MRC Web Administrator uses the word "Thymosin" to link to a product they market to the general public called "Thymosin Beta 4", therefore all 34 players must have used TB4.

Theory 2:
34 players signed so-called consent forms which happen to refer to the word "Thymosin", therefore all 34 players must have used Thymosin Beta 4.

Further to that, the majority are of the view that the signing of the consent forms is equivalent to the standard of evidence used in a recent non-presence case in which the alleged offender:
1. ordered a prohibited substance (name and address on order form)

2. used his credit card to pay for it (credit card in name of alleged offender)

3. was expecting delivery of the package addressed to him and containing the prohibited substance (apprehended as evidence; and to cap it all off

4. he admitted to all of the above.

Needless to say, I disagree.

 

[Gigantor]

Time to put Gigginator on "Ignore". Enough is enough. The fool spent days using Bruce Francis' dribble as supporting "evidence"for his arguments. ZERO credibility and now nothing more than annoying noise - and irrelevant in terms of what the outcome will be in a few weeks time. His efforts are becoming more and more Bruce Francis like. And just like Daniel Harford, I aint listening any more.

No, not Mr Francis' dribble, rather, extensive quotes directly from the interim report and associated evidence, which, to date, have been fully corroborated via other sources.

This is what the majority have refused to face: these are extensive quotes straight out of the interim report and associated evidence.

The majority are certain that ASADA must have something further. Maybe, maybe not, but note the enthusiasm with which they arrive at a conclusion when the quoted text does not actually say what they think it says.

This happens time and time again.

Furthermore, what about some of these crackpot theories espoused by eminent members of the majority, fully supported by many on this very board:

Theory 1:
The MRC Web Administrator uses the word "Thymosin" to link to a product they market to the general public called "Thymosin Beta 4", therefore all 34 players must have used TB4.

Theory 2:
34 players signed so-called consent forms which happen to refer to the word "Thymosin", therefore all 34 players must have used Thymosin Beta 4.

Further to that, the majority are of the view that the signing of the consent forms is equivalent to the standard of evidence used in a recent non-presence case in which the alleged offender:
1. ordered a prohibited substance (name and address on order form)

2. used his credit card to pay for it (credit card in name of alleged offender)

3. was expecting delivery of the package addressed to him and containing the prohibited substance (apprehended as evidence; and to cap it all off

4. he admitted to all of the above.

Needless to say, I disagree.

 

[Gigantor]

The ground certainly has shifted! No longer are we arguing whether or not TB4 was administered, but rather how many of the 34 received it.

I'll repeat the words I have used repeatedly for over 12 months now: ASADA does not have direct evidence of any player having used TB4 (let alone all 34).

And no, the oft quoted text does not suggest that ASADA has direct evidence of any player having used TB4 (let alone all 34).

Nor do the following crackpot theories amount to much:

Theory 1:
The MRC Web Administrator uses the word "Thymosin" to link to a product they market to the general public called "Thymosin Beta 4", therefore all 34 players must have used TB4.

Theory 2:
34 players signed so-called consent forms which happen to refer to the word "Thymosin", therefore all 34 players must have used Thymosin Beta 4.

Further to that, the majority are of the view that the signing of the consent forms is equivalent to the standard of evidence used in a recent non-presence case in which the alleged offender:
1. ordered a prohibited substance (name and address on order form)

2. used his credit card to pay for it (credit card in name of alleged offender)

3. was expecting delivery of the package addressed to him and containing the prohibited substance (apprehended as evidence; and to cap it all off

4. he admitted to all of the above.

Needless to say, I disagree.

 

[Gigantor]

We have to wonder if Gigantor believes that if TB4 isn't proven to be injected into all 34 players then they all get off whether they were a recipient or not.

Either that or it is a way out for Gigantor if for example only 32 get done.

It would be great if he could state his reasoning behind constantly bringing up "all 34 players" in his arguments.

I'll repeat the words I have used for over 12 months now: ASADA does not have direct evidence of any player having used TB4 (let alone all 34).

I have to keep reminding people: there are 34 players in the dock.

ASADA must provide evidence to the tribunal that each and everyonee of the 34 players used TB4.

I am quite confident that they will fail to prove that all 34 players used TB4.

 

[Oscarman]

Apparently someone paid for something with their credit card.

 

[Gigantor]

Apparently someone paid for something with their credit card.

In case you haven't been following the discussion, allow me to do you the courteousy of recapitulating.

An eminent member of the majority referenced the case in which a semi-professional footballer was caught red handed ordering and receiving a prohibited substance, and tried to draw a parallel between that case and the evidence used, and the fact that 34 players signed so-called consent forms.

I merely pointed out that there is an absolute abyss between the standard of evidence used in that case vis-à-vis the so-called consent forms.

In the case referenced above, the alleged offender:

1. ordered a prohibited substance (name and address on order form)

2. used his credit card to pay for it (credit card in name of alleged offender)

3. was expecting delivery of the package addressed to him and containing the prohibited substance (apprehended as evidence); and to cap it all off

4. he admitted to all of the above.

I am humbly stating the opinion that the so-called consent forms, in terms of standard of evidence, are a zillion miles away from the standard of evidence collected in the above case.