Bruce Francis

[DonsRule]

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.

I think Francis is reporting accurately, what I do questions a little is,how bias is he with his information?

The AFL used the satement f grounds to suit their purpose through some bias.

Without seeing the report non of us know is Francis doing the exact same thing.

 

[Albert Ross]

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.

Regardless of the loophole, we know that the stuff was entering the country as a powder (that is what China sells) and arriving at Dank as a liquid in vials. Speculating that it does or does not need to be compounded is nonsense on stilts. We KNOW it was being transformed.

The whole "needs to be compounded" line is a crock and shows no awareness of what a compounding chemist does. As I have said a few times, a compounding chemist can add raspberry flavouring to medicine if you want so your kids will take it; such medicine does not NEED to be compounded but CAN be compounded.

I don't NEED to pay my power bill at the post office. Arguing that I could not have possibly gone into the counter and paid my bill there because I don't NEED to is balderdash of the highest order.

WE KNOW Dank gets the stuff compounded because he get if from Alavi in vials to sell on his website and Alavi gets it in powder from wherever. Debating whether or not it needs to be compounded when we KNOW IT ACTUALLY IS compounded is just daft.

 

[Tiger2709]

That sounds right - there is no documentary evidence that TB4 was used at Essendon.

It is also correct to point out that even from ASADA's own evidence, "Thymosin" does not equal "Thymosin Beta 4".

ASADA holds at least two emails in which the Chinese supplier differentiates between "Thymosin" and "Thymosin Beta 4".

In fact, in one of those emails (around the time Charter was meant to have imported TB4), the supplier says unambiguously that he is incapable of supplying Thymosin Beta 4 but he is able to supply Thymosin.

So tell us is the thymosin mentioned the banned tb4 or the not approved for use alpha1 as we know the Chinese supplier doesn't sell thymomodulin and the cost in no way matches the cost of thymomodulin?

 

[Laphroaig]

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.

Take comfort in some "minor" details.

The covering letter of the interim report stated clearly that at the time of writing there was insufficient evidence to proceed against individual players for TB4 or any other substance.

Bruce has gone to a lot of effort and wasted a massive amount of his own and other people's time to produce a truly poor analysis. Based on a staggering structure of what ifs, unsupported assumptions and blithe dismissal of anything inconvenient he has ................

drum roll.....

........... demonstrated to his own satisfaction that the interim report contained insufficient evidence to proceed against individual players on TB4.

WHY DIDN'T HE JUST READ THE * ING COVERING LETTER!!!!!!

 

[Better Loosen Up]

I think Francis is reporting accurately, what I do questions a little is,how bias is he with his information?

The AFL used the satement f grounds to suit their purpose through some bias.

Without seeing the report non of us know is Francis doing the exact same thing.

Question his bias "a little"?

 

[Gigantor]

I note that for many on this board, Dank's interview with McKenzie represents critical evidence (perhaps the only evidence) of TB4 having been used at EFC.

Given that Alavi refused to sign an affidavit, does not his interview with Le Grand become every bit as important as the above interview?

• He received a delivery from China on 28 December 2011;
• Inter alia, the delivery contained a parcel labelled Thymosin;
• He did not have the substance (raw material) tested; • He did not know whether the substance was Thymomodulin, Thymosin Beta-4 or an unknown substance;
• He did not trust anything sent from China. David Kenley made a similar comment.

Of course David Kenley is the Calzada CEO.

He once stated:

"It was strange because while we knew that AOD helped with weight loss, there was no evidence at all that it stimulated muscle growth," he says.

Kenley was also contacted by the government Australian Sports Drug Testing Laboratory, which was running its own inquiries into AOD. "Bodybuilders had made it clear to us that they were using it to remove stubborn fat pockets from around their six packs. The drug lab agreed with me that AOD wasn't performance enhancing."

In 2011, Kenley got a tip-off. "I was told the Manly Sea Eagles were using AOD. And I was told that the man I needed to speak to was a sports scientist called Stephen Dank." Kenley contacted Dank and arranged a meeting. "I wanted to know more about his thoughts on the potential for the drug's use in sportsmen."

Dank, who was then working with NRL clubs to improve player health and performance, never confirmed the drug was being used at Manly, but he told Kenley of his belief that AOD could help injured players heal faster. ​

That last quote from Kenley is interesting. Some have put a lot of weight on an SMS or email where Dank is asking Alavi to mix thymosin and AOD, and they think Dank must be talking about TB4 because of the healing properties he references, but in fact, he credited AOD with those properties, so that SMS/email is evidence of nothing on its own.

 

[DonsRule]

Question his bias "a little"?

Yes a little

 

[Albert Ross]

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.

• 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?

No we don't. This is one the big lies that some hope that they can repeat often enough to make it true.

We know that when ASADA got its new powers to compel witnesses it interviewed at least 10 more people including Alavi.

We know that ASADA were still discussing Charter's and Alavi's evidence right up to the week before the Tribunal.

We know that ASADA went back to get sworn affadavits of the players they had already interviewed.

We know that the uncovered Fricker in the UAE.

There were 2 ex-business partners of Dank linked to the Tribunal, neither of whom is in the interim report.

We know both Alavi and Willcourt have alleged to the Purana anti-gang taskforce that their signatures were forged by Dank.

We know that the retired judge did a full review of their evidence.

We don't know what ASADA did or didn't get post the Interim Report. We don't know who they did or didn't speak to. The assumption that they did nothing is not born out by the snippets in the media. And as for 'smoking gun', well that is your presumption that they need one.

 

[Gigantor]

In addition to Alavi’s comments, on 1 December 2011 (page 179), Mr Vince Xu, Global Sales Manager for GL Biochem Ltd, the Chinese supplier of the raw material to Alavi, quoted Charter on the cost of both Thymosin and Thymosin Beta-4. Xu clearly saw Thymosin and Thymosin Beta-4 as separate products. As Xu labelled the raw material he sent Alavi “Thymosin” it is extremely improbable he made a mistake and meant to label it Thymosin Beta-4.​

I have made this same point over and over.

ASADA has evidence of the supplier distinguishing between "Thymosin" and Thymosin Beta 4".

In fact, at the time Charter was meant to have imported TB4, ASADA actually has an email from the supplier stating unambiguously that he can't supply Thymosin Beta 4 currently, but he can supply "Thymosin".

Lo and behold, the material sent to Alavi was labelled "Thymosin".

This is the very same supplier who distinguished between "Thymosin Beta 4" and "Thymosin".

 

[Boston tiger]

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).

Maybe they had a chat before the interview about what substances he used then the interviewer brought up one of the substances in the interview.

 

[Albert Ross]

I note that for many on this board, Dank's interview with McKenzie represents critical evidence (perhaps the only evidence) of TB4 having been used at EFC.

Dank's statement to McKenzie is not evidence of TB4 being at Essendon, if it is taken at face value is a straight out confession that Dank injected players with a banned drug. If that statement stands, nothing else is relevant. Dank has confessed to breaking the WADA codes and the only debate is what level of culpability the players have.

In addition to that there is the chain of custody stuff with Charter>Alavi>Dank,

In addition to that there is stuff about the reported properties of the various drugs.

In addition to that there are the injection frequencies

In addition to that there are Dank's conversation with Fricker.

 

[Gigantor]

No we don't. This is one the big lies that some hope that they can repeat often enough to make it true.

We know that when ASADA got its new powers to compel witnesses it interviewed at least 10 more people including Alavi.

We know that ASADA were still discussing Charter's and Alavi's evidence right up to the week before the Tribunal.

We know that ASADA went back to get sworn affadavits of the players they had already interviewed.

We know that the uncovered Fricker in the UAE.

There were 2 ex-business partners of Dank linked to the Tribunal, neither of whom is in the interim report.

We know both Alavi and Willcourt have alleged to the Purana anti-gang taskforce that their signatures were forged by Dank.

We know that the retired judge did a full review of their evidence.

We don't know what ASADA did or didn't get post the Interim Report. We don't know who they did or didn't speak to. The assumption that they did nothing is not born out by the snippets in the media. And as for 'smoking gun', well that is your presumption that they need one.

We know ASADA's witness list don't we?

We know that three of the five pulled out.

Of the other two, at least one of them is only there to provide evidence that TB4 is prohibited under the S2 catch-all clause.

It's unclear what the one remaining witness is there for, but we know none of the five witnesses had direct knowledge of Essendon's supplements program.

 

[Gigantor]

Maybe they had a chat before the interview about what substances he used then the interviewer brought up one of the substances in the interview.

Yes, maybe, but it would still have been best to ask the question first.

From where we sit, all we know is that McKenzie opened with a statement (which Dank did not correct), but he never actually asked the question as such.

 

[Gigantor]

Dank's statement to McKenzie is not evidence of TB4 being at Essendon, if it is taken at face value is a straight out confession that Dank injected players with a banned drug. If that statement stands, nothing else is relevant. Dank has confessed to breaking the WADA codes and the only debate is what level of culpability the players have.

In addition to that there is the chain of custody stuff with Charter>Alavi>Dank,

In addition to that there is stuff about the reported properties of the various drugs.

In addition to that there are the injection frequencies

In addition to that there are Dank's conversation with Fricker.

AS I show in another post above, the properties SMS/email that people have hung a lot on adds up to nothing. Dank was strongly of the view that it was AOD which had these magical properties.

Re the culpability of the players, 34 players received SCNs, and I don't see anything you have said above which mentions a single player's name.

 

[Gigantor]

Six players admitted to being administered Thymosin. One, Jobe Watson, said he was administered Thymomodulin, but ASADA deliberately omitted his evidence from the Interim Report. Six players said that they may have been administered Thymosin. As 34 players have been charged, responses to the Thymosin question during the investigation are obviously irrelevant. Inexplicably, ASADA is relying on something else to prove 34 players were administered Thymosin Beta-4.

 

[Albert Ross]

We know ASADA's witness list don't we?

We know that three of the five pulled out.

Of the other two, at least one of them is only there to provide evidence that TB4 is prohibited under the S2 catch-all clause.

It's unclear what the one remaining witness is there for, but we know none of the five witnesses had direct knowledge of Essendon's supplements program.

So? Your contention is that there was no meaningful further investigation or evidence. You can't know that. You are guessing (or hoping) and just repeating it over and over again in the face of evidence to the contrary hoping that simple repetition will make it fact.

Unless you are claiming inside knowledge or to have seen the evidence, you are in the same boat as the rest of us. Going on media statements. And your MO is to be selective about what you remember on the public record.

None of us know what is or isn't in evidence in front of the tribunal.

 

[Argy]

I think his point here was that no customs declarations have come to light, maybe ASADA couldn't get them at the time.

Kidding, no? Do you think customs lost the declarations? You do realise, I hope that the Act allows customs to share data with ASADA.

 

[Albert Ross]

Six players admitted to being administered Thymosin. One, Jobe Watson, said he was administered Thymomodulin, but ASADA deliberately omitted his evidence from the Interim Report. Six players said that they may have been administered Thymosin. As 34 players have been charged, responses to the Thymosin question during the investigation are obviously irrelevant. Inexplicably, ASADA is relying on something else to prove 34 players were administered Thymosin Beta-4.

But the response to this question has proven to be irrelevant.

There is no evidence that the interim report was the basis of Infraction Notices.

There is however evidence that the number of people charged is NOT based on their response to this question, but is very closely related to the number who signed consent forms. The number charged exactly matches the number who signed consent forms, but bears no relation to the number who 'confessed'.

For all we know the answer to the question "where you given TB4?" forms no basis at all in the ASADA case.

 

[Gigantor]

As 34 players admitted to taking amino acids [plural], it appears ASADA is claiming the amino acids included Thymosin Beta-4. ASADA’s claim: “During the course of the 2012 season, players were liberally administered ‘amino acids’ [plural], and ‘amino acid blend’ and other unspecified substances” negates any chance of proving individual players were administered Thymosin Beta-4. It’s impossible to determine whether a player was given amino acid ‘A’ or ‘B’ or ‘C’ or ‘X’ or ‘Y’ or Thymosin Beta-4 or any combination of the foregoing. The administering of substances was not universal. Some players could have been administered amino acid ‘A’ and some amino acid ‘B’ and some ‘A’ and ‘X’. Hypothetically, if one of the substances was Thymosin Beta-4, it would be impossible to ascertain who received it and who didn’t.​

This is an interesting bit.

People appear to want to put a lot of weight on the so-called "injection schedule", but the players were receiving a range of injections of benign substances. The possibility of matching this to some imagined TB4 injection schedule is unlikely in the extreme. What is more, we already have evidence of the injection varying form the so-called "consent form" which is meant to be a major plank of ASADA's evidence.

 

[Argy]

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

 

[Gigantor]

But the response to this question has proven to be irrelevant.

There is no evidence that the interim report was the basis of Infraction Notices.

There is however evidence that the number of people charged is NOT based on their response to this question, but is very closely related to the number who signed consent forms. The number charged exactly matches the number who signed consent forms, but bears no relation to the number who 'confessed'.

For all we know the answer to the question "where you given TB4?" forms no basis at all in the ASADA case.

Yes, the number of SCNs issued matches the number of players signing consent forms, which is a strong indicator that the SCNs are not based on any hard evidence that any player took TB4 (let aone all 34).

The players received a range of injections of benign substances. The possibility of matching this to some imagined TB4 injection schedule is unlikely in the extreme. What is more, we already have evidence of the injections varying form the so-called "consent form" which is meant to be a major plank of ASADA's evidence.

 

[Argy]

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).

NM: Thymosin Beta 4 – why was that used in Essendon players...

 

[Gigantor]

In 2004, the Court of Arbitration for Sport, Arbitrator, Mr Malcolm Holmes QC, ruled that cyclist Mark French had committed a total of eight breaches of the Australian Sports Commission and Cycling Australia’s anti-doping policies, and as a result was banned for a period of two years and fined $1,000. French appealed against the CAS ruling. Although French admitted to taking a product that contained a banned substance the Appeal Panel threw out all of Holmes’s findings. The ban was lifted and the $1000 fine was rescinded. Surprisingly, Holmes is prosecuting the case for ASADA despite the belief that the Essendon case is substantially weaker, if not non-existent contrasted to the case against French.​

This bit is a bit unclear. I was under the impression that the French appeal was to the CAS (the opening sentence makes it appear as if the original case was heard in the CAS).

Anyway, it's a timely reminder that the CAS takes a hard line on evidence, and from the successful appeals I have seen going before the CAS, it's hard to imagine ASADA's weak circumstantial case standing up to scrutiny.

 

[Gigantor]

NM: Thymosin Beta 4 – why was that used in Essendon players...

Yes, he should have began by asking Dank what he used at EFC, rather than starting from the presumption that something specific was used.

 

[Messenger]

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.

Sigh.