Bruce Francis

[yaco55]

And, that's the key. Despite the triumphalism from the ignorant, at the news Charter and Alavi won't be available to the tribunal, the EFC need someone to provide a plausible alternative to ASADA's assertions, a helluva lot more than ASADA need Charter and Alavi to back up their ADMISSIBLE statements by being available in the box. It's the EFC who need coots like Charter and Alavi, way more than ASADA need them (they've already got what they need from them)

Some people are bogged down in the misbelief the tribunal acts as per a court and, ergo, ASADA are bound to a higher standard of proof that thye actuality. To beat "comfortable satisfaction" you have to provide an alternative that can drag the satisfaction back below "comfortable". And, how in the fork do you do that if no-one steps up to provide a plausible alternative?

Worse, so many people seem to keep ignoring what is required of athletes under the WADA Code (to which all AFL players voluntarily signed up to abide by).

What did the players do to prevent being doped? Did they call ASADA? Did they approach the AFL CMO, and ask him? Did they heed the calls from the annual ASADA presentation to AFL players, delivered club by club, to understand personal responsibility?

Comfortable satisfaction is not as high a bar as many would like to believe, in the absence of a) a plausible alternative and b) demonstrated behaviours that comply with the responsibilities agreed to when the players signed up.

Pity that the Essendon Club Doctor reported concerns to the AFL CMO on 19/10/2011 - It's like you are totally unaware of this fact.

 

[yaco55]

Whether ASADA took a statement from players, that they weren't injected with Thymosin, as an admission is irrelevant in the extreme. That won't form any substantial basis for their case.

Put yourself in the Magoos of those sitting on the tribunal. Player X asserts he wasn't injected with Thymosin and ASADA, if they're silly enough to be bothered, decides to assert he was, based on what they decide to interpret as an admission. If you're sitting on the tribunal, with even a modicum of inter-synaptic electrical activity goin' on, you're pretty much assured to ask questions that start with "Huh? For example,

1. Excuse me player X, aren't you saying you have no idea what injections you were given? So, how can you assert you weren't injected with TB4?

2. Can you provide the tribunal with evidence of what you did to prevent being injected with TB4? Do you have a transaction record number of discussions with ASADA, notes of any conversations with the CMO at your club or the AFL? Any enquiries you launched with WADA, notes from your personal physician, applications for TUE's, records of discussions with your legal representatives, your accredited player association?

People keep forgetting the WADA Code is premised on displayed behaviours, and that's what the players signed up for - as part of their contracts.

Problem with your post is that ASADA has to prove that each of the 34 players were injected with TB4. The players don't have to prove that TB4 wasn't in the needle.

 

[yaco55]

True, Jedi, but to be able to knock the ASADA case over they need to provide evidence of an alternative chain of events. They can't lead no evidence of a plausible alternative, and think staying schtum can undo comfortable satisfaction. They tribunal may find they aren't comfortably satisfied, but it's an awfully big risk to assume they will so find without an presenting an alternative.

And, never, ever, forget who holds the final card.

Some folks are hanging their Great Escape rigs on WADA accepting the Cronulla plea deal. When you read WADA's statement on that deal they were obviously far from happy campers. They questioned the necessity of appointing Downes and attributed 2 of the delays to McDevitt's actions. And, why do you reckon the acquiesced? "Bigger fish to fry" seems a reasonable interpretation, given the scale and scope of the 2 programs, and not insignificant points, such as Dank being employed by the EFC, the duration of the program and the number of jabs.

People seem to keep forgetting the big dog sent Richard Young out to look at the case, and he gave it the all clear to proceed. His nod is way more significant than Downes, given he basically framed the Code at the start, and still oversees its maintenance.

The question is did Richard Young give ASADA the nod to proceed ? Does Richard Young have this authority ? Why did allegedly ASADA's in-house team want to drop the case ?

 

[yaco55]

Yes, the players seem convinced that they could rely solely on the club's advice and did not need to take any personal responsibility to obtain their own advice. Similarly Francis and other EFC supporters who are outraged that players were ticked yes for giving vague answers don't realize either.

You are assuming that the players didn't seek independent advice - This has not been proven one way or another !

 

[yaco55]

Some misrepresentation of Bruce's arguments - Bruce doesn't definitively say 'Essendon players didn't dope' - Bruce argues that ASADA doesn't have enough proof to show that Essendon players doped.

Bruce's arguments about the $2m dollar fine are wishful in the extreme. Bruce's arguments about Matrix Models are perfect in a purely theoretical sense, but ignore practical applications.

Bruce's value is having access to the Interim Report and having knowledge of some of the behind the scenes wheeling and dealing.

 

[D-N-R]

Pity that the Essendon Club Doctor reported concerns to the AFL CMO on 19/10/2011 - It's like you are totally unaware of this fact.

He's asking what the players did. They can't just offload all their responsibilities onto other people and say that everyone else told them it was all ok.

 

[Art Corvelay]

Pity that the Essendon Club Doctor reported concerns to the AFL CMO on 19/10/2011 - It's like you are totally unaware of this fact.

Surely it's 100x more damning the club doctor reported concerns and the program still went ahead at Essendon? End of the day, on a scale of responsibility:

1. Essendon
2. Daylight
3. AFL

I've seen this "AFL is to blame" argument pushed for months and logically I can't wrap my head around how it can be argued. Are the police to blame for allowing me to speed or run a red light?

 

[Messenger]

Pity that the Essendon Club Doctor reported concerns to the AFL CMO on 19/10/2011 - It's like you are totally unaware of this fact.

He "reported concerns". I'm told that the Bruce Francis patented corporate structure means he couldn't be overruled on medical decisions. So why didn't he stop it and check out what was going on?

Perhaps he represents the club better than his players.

 

[hfchfc]

I have seen quotes from it. I am comfortably satisfied that generally these quotes are actual quotes.

Wowweeee, you keep stating look at the interim report, look at the interim report. Then when pressed on it, surprise surprise you haven't seen it!! Yet, you know the context of everything that is being quoted from it by Brucey boy!! I suggest you start your Xmas holidays now and maybe come back at the end of Jan.

 

[threesixpio]

Yes, people are expressing that opinion, and I am not sure it follows as definitively as you are stating.

A range of substances were injected. Most were not prohibited. AOD turns out to be a non-issue.

So for players to say they received an injection of something, is not definitive evidence that they received an injection of a form of thymosin.

No - but like I said it could still be an admission that is admissible. "I was at the party" (where the murder happened). Not a confession, clearly, but it is certainly an admission.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Why did allegedly ASADA's in-house team want to drop the case ?

?

Where did you read that?

 

[Max Headroom]

Reading that it is abundantly clear Bruce has no idea how the OH&S act should be applied to this case. He is pinning all the responsibility on the AFL and none on EFC.
Hot tip Bruce if you're still checking this, for OH&S purposes EFC are the players employers and are the ones you should be ralling against. The aFL are covered from the OH&S side of things by stating that all persons participating in its comp must abide by the ASADA/WADA code, that is where the responsibility ends. It is then incumbent upon the individual clubs and players to ensure they abide by that code

But he does rail against the EFC board, he thinks they should be sued. There is fair bit of verbiage first, and you have to scroll to the heading under Essendon Board failures. You are right in that he blames the AFL more for not acting when warned. For those who don't want to read the whole tract, I have put the most succinct extract I can find:

"Sadly, the Essendon board failed miserably to fulfil its obligations, and all nine members should have had the guts to face the music and begged for forgiveness for their failures.

Irrespective of what the media, the AFL or public thought, or wished, the law said the Essendon board was required to understand the OH&S laws and their obligations under it, and it was responsible for providing a safe workplace for its employees.

That should have been the beginning and end of the search to blame someone.

The fact that the board members were not involved in the day-to-day running of the organisation was irrelevant and was not a defence."

He reserves particular blame for some, but those that are interested can look themselves as it is a lengthy read. Even from this short extract you can see it is coloured with his obsession with Hird's defence. Unlike Bruce I am not an OH&S expert and and don't know if the AFL legally are on the hook too or not, I'm inclined to think they are but am not really interested in levels of blame until I know the full story (if that's possible).

 

[jerry springer]

It's all everyone else's fault bar James Hird. That's all you need to know about Bruce Francis and his "theories" .

 

[Just interested]

Pity that the Essendon Club Doctor reported concerns to the AFL CMO on 19/10/2011 - It's like you are totally unaware of this fact.

Nup, not at all. I'm very aware of that fact. What you seem to be missing is each player is personally responsible for what enters their system. They cannot claim someone else has assumed that responsibility and has satisfied their requirement to prevent being doped by raising the matter about unspecified players receiving jabs of stuff from someone else. The personal responsibility is just not so easily transferred.

Maybe, if Reid had had the program stopped as, you know, the EFC's CMO, and they had asked, say, ASADA to give it the once over, before it proceeded any further, the players would be better placed to assert their responsibilities had been met by the actions of their employer.

To suggest an individual is absolved of personal responsibility because his/her employer raises concerns about an issue with a 3rd party, but then goes on to have the individuals sign deliberately vague consent forms, and continue the very same program for nigh on a year, is well shy of reflecting just how the rest of the society works.

How many of Paul Little's Toll truck drivers escaped sanction after being caught driving drunk or doped up, by suggesting someone from Toll had assumed their personal responsibility by raising the issue (of drivers possibly driving under the influence) with a body such as the one who licences those drivers, and then transferred that responsibility to that body, just by having raised the matter?

 

[tigerdan]

This Bruce Francis guy sounds a lot like that Michael Pahoff guy who tried to run for the board of Richmond because he thought he knew more about recruiting than Greg Miller.

I don't buy the AFL are to blame argument.

I don't really think allegedly reading the interim report puts this guy up to speed with any information that was gathered afterwards.

I certainly find his 'blame matrix' to be redundant to the argument. I also find it to be really juvenile.

I have some close family members who hang on this guy's every word. I don't think he provides much solace to be honest.

 

[Just interested]

Problem with your post is that ASADA has to prove that each of the 34 players were injected with TB4. The players don't have to prove that TB4 wasn't in the needle.

Actually they don't. If they can prove 2 players received a banned substance, administered by someone associated with the team (and Dank being employed satisfies that requirement, unlike Cronulla), WADA can demand a team infraction is issued and seek a ban on the club.

And then the AFL would be under great pressure to take away the EFC's licence to participate in the AFL.

There are so many potential knock on effects many are not considering, like other regulatory agencies putting their oars in the water. Another is sponsorship - WADA are particularly influential when it comes to global companies wanting to sponsor global sports, if they wish to continue sponsoring an entity found to have breached the global code. That also has potential ramifications for the AFL and, maybe, beyond, should the AFL and those with local compliance responsibilities try to get too cute.

 

[BlueWorld]

Problem with your post is that ASADA has to prove that each of the 34 players were injected with TB4. The players don't have to prove that TB4 wasn't in the needle.

No one has to prove anything. Comfortable satisfaction for use of TB4 is all that is required.

 

[BlueWorld]

The question is did Richard Young give ASADA the nod to proceed ? Does Richard Young have this authority ? Why did allegedly ASADA's in-house team want to drop the case ?

Richard Young is the architect of the WADA code. He was asked his opinion. There would be no one better qualified.

 

[BlueWorld]

You are assuming that the players didn't seek independent advice - This has not been proven one way or another !

If they had asked ASADA's advice this mater would have been over long ago.

 

[Satan]

Richard Young is the architect of the WADA code. He was asked his opinion. There would be no one better qualified.

james hird?

 

[threesixpio]

I don't buy ASADA are distorting evidence. That does not make sense.

Consider, they are a government funded body and are subject to external scrutiny by several agencies including the Auditor General. AG will actually look at their conduct, not just at the books. If they were stupid enough to misbehave like that they run the risk of being found out and having that announced to all and sundry. Apart from being vulnerable to being sued by half the AFL world, facing potential criminal charges and undermining ASADA's credibility for all time, it would automatically be career ending for anybody touched by that.

Way too much risk for very little gain.

Consider also that the investigation has been reviewed by external reviewers including a retired judge. If ASADA was doing anything like has been suggested by BF and a few other nut jobs, how would they get it past these external reviews? Take more than a little sleight of hand to to do that.

I don't think that allegations stands up well to scrutiny.

Unfortunately there are plenty of cases of government departments doing this. I just don't see why this would be a case where they would. If anyone is going to put up a fight it would be/is the Essendon FC. Add to that Judge Downes overseeing things at the end. Still, weirder things have happened.

 

[Spongebob]

Richard Young is the architect of the WADA code. He was asked his opinion. There would be no one better qualified.

Richard Young was also the person who was responsible for building the non-analytic case against Armstrong, seen as the pre-eminent authority in this area.

 

[Mr Mojo Risin]

What could possibly motivate ASADA to do that? ASADA have no interest in finding innocent people guilty.....They are just trying to test the evidence, they would not make it up. In any case, the interviews were recorded and if they have done as claimed and deliberately falsify evidence they will get changed and jailed.

You would think that ASADA shouldn't have interest in finding innocent people guilty.

Interesting however from Andruska's own notes:

http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/__data/a...ul-2014-CDOC-Affidavit-of-Aurora-Andruska.pdf

9 February 2013
"Playing groups - everyone guilty until proven guilty"

How people don't find this extremely concerning from the head of our anti doping body right at the very start of an investigation is beyond me.

 

[hfchfc]

You would think that ASADA shouldn't have interest in finding innocent people guilty.

Interesting however from Andruska's own notes:

http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/__data/a...ul-2014-CDOC-Affidavit-of-Aurora-Andruska.pdf

9 February 2013
"Playing groups - everyone guilty until proven guilty"

How people don't find this extremely concerning from the head of our anti doping body right at the very start of an investigation is beyond me.

Why is it concerning? She wasn't the judge and jury, she didn't hand down a penalty, she didn't even issue show cause notices. Why people want to just pick and choose little snippets of info to suit their agenda I'll never understand. Everything needs to be taken in context.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

You would think that ASADA shouldn't have interest in finding innocent people guilty.

Interesting however from Andruska's own notes:

http://www.fedcourt.gov.au/__data/a...ul-2014-CDOC-Affidavit-of-Aurora-Andruska.pdf

9 February 2013
"Playing groups - everyone guilty until proven guilty"

How people don't find this extremely concerning from the head of our anti doping body right at the very start of an investigation is beyond me.

As a sports fan, I think it's absolutely imperative that that attitude prevails.