Bruce Francis

Status
Not open for further replies.
Feb 9, 2012
9,142
14,920
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
The generically worded SCNs to each of the 34 players state within the "details" (as required by the NAD Scheme) that they were injected with TB4 by Dank inside Dank's office (presumably his office was somewhere within EFC?)
Ah, okay then. So you're saying ASADA is saying it has evidence that TB4 was injected into the players in Danks office. Sweet, thanks.
 
Jul 2, 2010
37,953
36,136
Adelaide
AFL Club
Carlton
We know as at August 2013 (having interviewed over 50 witnesses, and accessed thousands of documents via the AFL) that ASADA was a million miles away from establishing the supply chain all the way to EFC.

We know that when the PA saw a summary of the evidence following the issuing of SCNs they publicly stated: "it's the same old stuff".

We know that in August 2013 they issued an interim report indicating that the investigation was not completed. We know that completion was reached some months later.

We also know that the SCNs are not designed to show all the evidence, but to show cause as to why they should not be charged.

The likelihood that either of these documents contained every piece of information required for trial is not high.
 

Gavstar

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 15, 2011
5,619
9,349
AFL Club
Carlton
Other Teams
Liverpool FC, Lakers, Longhorns
Yes mind control or was it brain control was used in all interviews. Sheesh

Francis has bias he has admitted as much so all of his output must be viewed with that in mind. I am sure I could come up with an opposite conclusion.

His knowledge of the law, biochemistry and pharmacology is shall we say limited, likewise we must view it in that manner.

Banned drugs were on site there is clear evidence of that.

The Chinese company whom ASADA visited in person say only TB4 was supplied, 6 EFC players admitted to taking "Thymosin".

I concur on the evidence we have seen to date ASADA's weakest point is the linking of the banned drugs to individual players.

Why select 34 players......

Do you think Hoopers statements were the only evidence related to the "Mexican" amino acids. Any trips to El Paso by ASADA staff?
 
May 13, 2012
15,809
5,960
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
Brumbies, Socceroos
And because there is no evidence the players' lawyers have been arguing to exclude the evidence that obviously doesn't exist.

Joseph Heller would be proud.

The defence is quite right to get hearsay and other half-cocked evidence not backed by sworn statements dismissed.

They would also be keen to point out to the tribunal that all the SMSs and emails ASADA are relying on are disparate and disjointed, with ASADA attempting to meld unrelated conversations with each other, sometimes with gaps of many weeks.

At a minimum, the defence will request that this so-called "evidence" be put in their proper contexts and the Tribunal be made to listen to the lead-ups to the "evidence", and the subsequent SMSs and emails.
 
May 13, 2012
15,809
5,960
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
Brumbies, Socceroos
We know that in August 2013 they issued an interim report indicating that the investigation was not completed. We know that completion was reached some months later.

We also know that the SCNs are not designed to show all the evidence, but to show cause as to why they should not be charged.

The likelihood that either of these documents contained every piece of information required for trial is not high.

The PA saw a summary of the evidence when they made their public statement.

AS of the evidence collected as at August 2013, over 50 witnesses had been interviewed and thousands of documents collected via the AFL, whatever they did post that date, it was miniscule in comparison.

Certainly we know there were periods of many months of relative inaction.
 
May 13, 2012
15,809
5,960
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
Brumbies, Socceroos
Does Dank have a wife? Are you serious in your reply?

Focus on the main point: Dank was not asked what he used, the question was: why did you use this?

It's easy enough for people sitting here to think that you would have immediately noticed he was referring to a different substance with a similar name, but hey, if you were in the chair, maybe it would have been all Greek to you as well?
 
May 13, 2012
15,809
5,960
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
Brumbies, Socceroos
• Nima Alavi’s ASADA interview notwithstanding, newspaper reports suggest no new evidence or smoking gun has been unearthed since ASADA’s Interim Report was tabled on 3 August 2013;

I know many dispute that the above is so.

Given the reaction of the PA on seeing a summary of the evidence ("it's the same old stuff"), on what basis are people on here certain that ASADA uncovered some sort of smoking gun post August 2013?
 
Does Dank have a wife? Are you serious in your reply?

You have to stop taking the question literally. It is about the style of question, not the example used.
 
Feb 9, 2012
9,142
14,920
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
Focus on the main point: Dank was not asked what he used, the question was: why did you use this?

It's easy enough for people sitting here to think that you would have immediately noticed he was referring to a different substance with a similar name, but hey, if you were in the chair, maybe it would have been all Greek to you as well?
NM: Thymosin Beta 4 – why was that used in Essendon players given there is an opinion from a doctor or researcher and other scientists that its effects are uncertain? (note: The AFL believes it has a strong circumstantial case that TB-4 was used on players.)

SD: That's not totally true Nick because, with all due respect, right, there is good data – very good data – that supports Thymosin Beta 4 in the immune system.
...
NM: How often were Essendon players taking Thymosin Beta 4?

SD: [Explains the dosage level but asks that this be not published].

NM: ASADA has just released on its website that Thymosin Beta 4 is prohibited in all routes and out of competition.

SD: Well, that must have just only come in this year and I will get someone to speak to ASADA about that. That's just mind-blowing.

NM: Thymosin Beta 4, they must have just banned that.

SD: I think they've only just put that in to back up their case.
He clearly knew they were talking about TB4.
 
It is his area of expertise. If he hadn't used it, he would have corrected him immediately.
IMO, Dank knew he was referring to Tb4, I'm just not convinced by the whole story particularly the caught out that it was banned. Not after the so called big effort to in the cover up when he discovered it was banned a year before.
 

hfchfc

All Australian
Sep 6, 2010
885
851
AFL Club
Collingwood
You have to stop taking the question literally. It is about the style of question, not the example used.
I don't have to do anything! It is just the most ridiculous comparison I have ever heard, and not the comparison that someone worth listening to would use. And the country wonders why there is a problem with domestic violence! Full stop.
 
Feb 9, 2012
9,142
14,920
Melbourne
AFL Club
Hawthorn
I think this exchange sums up Dank's mindset and explains why EFC is in such deep s**t...

NM: Why don't you think some of the drugs you used breached section S2 of the WADA code [which bans certain drugs that stimulate the body's production of human growth hormones].

SD: Because there is no biological relationship either in terms of mode or structure [between the drugs used and the banned drugs] . . . The only similarity is the end point. And if you are going to question the end point, then you need to ban the squat [a gym exercise] and any other modality that stimulates growth hormone.
He genuinely doesn't think there is any difference between muscle gained by exercise and muscle gained by drugs - they're both the "same end point". He also seems to think drugs are banned on the basis of structure rather than outcome - something diametrically opposite to what the code says.

A very strange man and someone very dangerous to have lurking around the head coach.
 
Oct 7, 2007
11,151
14,183
Perth
AFL Club
Fremantle
Other Teams
East Freo, Liverpool, Cardinals
You're making a bit of an assumption here. They have engaged some very capable lawyers, and it strikes me that the legal strategy appears not to have changed since at least the completion of ASADA's investigation.

Francis is clearly a bit unhinged and obsessive, but if (and it's a huge "if", I realise) he's quoting directly and accurately from the real interim report in that latest diatribe (which I read most of - I'm becoming obsessed) then I have some very serious concerns about ASADA's whole case against the bombers. Reading it reminded me that Julian Burnside hinted at a lot of the same things in a radio interview he did late last year - long after he'd stopped acting for Hird.

I have always assumed that ASADA's case was at least strong enough to sustain the 'comfortable satisfaction' requirement, particularly as Essendon's defence is to argue they took something legitimate (rather than just say "you can't prove what we took"), but a lot of this stuff is pretty concerning.

For one thing, ASADA have made much of the player testimonies, but christ if Francis is telling the truth, those testimonies may not add anything probative at all, and actually make it look like ASADA fitted a lot of this up. The omission of Watson's testimony, assuming he said what he did, is a very bad look.

It won't be a popular opinion on here, but I'm starting to get very nervous about the whole case against the bombers, which might be why their legal strategy has been so consistent.

What you say is possibly true but I would remember a couple of points.

1. Even if BF had a real copy of the interim report, it was not the complete body of assembled data gathered by ASADA at the time and they have continued to investigate for at another year, including investigations in China and following the supply trail.

2. BF is casting things in a very one sided manner. He admit that he's edited things to 'leave out the bits that don't belong', so you cannot have too much faith in what he has written without external verification. He would not be regarded as a reliable witness given his obvious and often stated bias.

3. The tribunal will have access to unedited copies of the player's statements including all the bits left out because they don't fit as well as copies of Charter's, Alavi's interviews including the bits that BF didn't include.

4. ASADA's case has been reviewed by experts in the field who gave the nod to proceed and I would have greater trust in their judgement than BF's diatribe.

While none of that is evidence in any form that any of the player's actually took TB4, neither is BF's summary anything like evidence. He takes things that he cannot know, passes them off as truth and then uses them as the basis for further extrapolation all cast in a jaundiced view. He reminds me of another bloke who did that, Von Daniken of Chariots of the Gods fame. He also built a towering edifice out of assumptions, called them facts and took a lot of people along for the ride but when scrutinised was found to be a peddler of fantasy.

I'm pretty sure the player's lawyers are putting up a much better defense case than BF....and I'm equally sure ASADA are presenting far more than BF would like to ever admit.
 
Aug 27, 2009
33,705
32,350
Perth
AFL Club
Richmond
Other Teams
Liverpool
Well that was a boring read, Bruce conveniently neglects to mention that the Chinese supplier doesn't sell thymomodulin and it is not refered to as thymosin at most sites that sell it even though he repeatedly tells us that the names are interchangeable, he seems to be confusing alpha1which does get called thymosin.
All just reads like an over extended post by GG to me.
 

Max Headroom

Club Legend
Dec 19, 2014
1,215
2,012
Off with the fairies
AFL Club
Essendon
I like this one...

2 December 2011: Charter returned to Melbourne with the raw material for the peptides GHRP-6, CJC-1295, Thymosin Beta-4 and IGF1-LR3 – all of which were declared by him at Customs. Charter states that he provided the substances to Alavi who subsequently compounded them for supply to Dank.

My Comment:

• There is no evidence Charter returned to Melbourne with the raw materials for the four substances;
:drunk:

No evidence? Can't the man read? Charter declared them to customs!!!
I think his point here was that no customs declarations have come to light, maybe ASADA couldn't get them at the time.
 
May 13, 2012
15,809
5,960
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
Brumbies, Socceroos
Ah, okay then. So you're saying ASADA is saying it has evidence that TB4 was injected into the players in Danks office. Sweet, thanks.

I'd say they have evidence from the players and support staff that they received a ranged of injections.

It's unlikely in the extreme that any of that evidence refers explicitly to TB4.
 
May 13, 2012
15,809
5,960
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
Brumbies, Socceroos
NM: Thymosin Beta 4 – why was that used in Essendon players given there is an opinion from a doctor or researcher and other scientists that its effects are uncertain? (note: The AFL believes it has a strong circumstantial case that TB-4 was used on players.)

SD: That's not totally true Nick because, with all due respect, right, there is good data – very good data – that supports Thymosin Beta 4 in the immune system.
...
NM: How often were Essendon players taking Thymosin Beta 4?

SD: [Explains the dosage level but asks that this be not published].

NM: ASADA has just released on its website that Thymosin Beta 4 is prohibited in all routes and out of competition.

SD: Well, that must have just only come in this year and I will get someone to speak to ASADA about that. That's just mind-blowing.

NM: Thymosin Beta 4, they must have just banned that.

SD: I think they've only just put that in to back up their case.
He clearly knew they were talking about TB4.

But by providing the very quote, are you not backing up precisely what Mr Francis has said?
 

Max Headroom

Club Legend
Dec 19, 2014
1,215
2,012
Off with the fairies
AFL Club
Essendon
My main issue is that this treatise has been written as an opening salvo and as such does not address any of the alternative and less innocent explanations for the evidence the fertile environment of the HTB board have come up with, eg Alavi compounding TB4 when it doesn't require it as a potential legal loophole Dank was trying to exploit rather than evidence that it wasn't TB4. There are many other examples that I am sure you guys will come up with.

I am glad to see the majority of the original evidence provided but I have moved on since to wanting to see what they are offering in court as I assume they have refined their approach and added new evidence. I wish he had left in some things though (eg other substances) as it provided a more comprehensive picture but I can see why he did, it is a long document and he considered it irrelevant to the direct issue of TB4.

As an Essendon supporter when first reading some of Bruce's work (mainly through BF links / Gigantor posts) I found plenty of areas of concern here, for example charging of all 34 players for TB4, the exclusion of contrary evidence such as Jobe Watson's precise recall of the Thymomodulin bottle etc. (although not Wallis's crappy photo, 1 bottle doesn't prove anything). But it is too late to debate now, we need to deal with whatever has come to light and hope the panel weights the evidence fairly and in context.

I've said it already, Bruce does himself no favours with his asides and comments, I distrust his ability to assess with any degree of impartiality. I don't think he deliberately leaves out anything relevant, but his assessment of this is probably suspect. But this is an enormous work and clearly the product of countless hours of analysis, for which I say "respect", especially if it was unpaid!

P.S. If anyone can enlighten me as to the whole Mexico / El Paso drug sourcing issue I would like to know. Apparently the Essendon lawyers withdrew their original rebuttal of the reported Mexican sourcing, but as far as I know there is only one El Paso and it is in Texas. Apologies if this is old ground for many of you.
 
Jun 1, 2003
3,156
5,095
Adelaide
AFL Club
Port Adelaide
Other Teams
Chargers, Red Wings
But by providing the very quote, are you not backing up precisely what Mr Francis has said?
I see the first thing that S Dank said included him clearly naming the substance "thymosin beta 4".

He didn't just mishear, he then used it in his own sentence.

It's the equivalent of:
Q: Did x happen before you stopped beating your wife?
A: x happened in March and I stopped beating my wife in February, so no.
 
May 13, 2012
15,809
5,960
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
Brumbies, Socceroos
He didn't know the difference between TA-1, TB4 and thymomodulin???

Once again, he was not asked what he provided the players.

Maybe that would have been a better place to start.

It's the interviewer which has stated what was provided.

It is reasonable for people to conclude that Dank continued in that vein because that is precisely what he provided the players.

But given he was not asked precisely what he gave the players, it is equally plausible that he simply followed the lead of the interviewer and got his substances mixed up (noting that he is also familiar with TB4 because it is marketed by his anti-aging clinic to the general public).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back