Bruce Francis

[yaco55]

Followed the link provided by Ing's twitter account and found myself at BomberTalk. Didn't know this site existed - Noticed Bruce has travelled around the Bomber online sites - Reckon I will find another new one next month.

 

[yaco55]

I always learn a bit more when Bruce releases extra parts of the interim post - he probably needs to use less commentary.

 

[yaco55]

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?

Tactical - ASADA assumed that players would roll over and accept deals - ASADA would have been better to focus on the 12 to 14 players who sort of admitted to taking thymosin.

 

[yaco55]

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.

Have to correct you - 2 players/ex refused to attend interviews and were let off scott free - My guess is that their legal advice advised them that because they were no longer AFL employees they weren't compelled to attend interviews.

 

[yaco55]

What does it matter when Dank was formally employeed by Essendon? After all Dank was never employeed by a NRL club... Don't need to be an employee to consult, particularly when you have a business that sells PED.

Dank was employed by Manly. The inference is clear in the August 2011 text refers to another sporting club.

 

[Armchair Critic]

Tactical - ASADA assumed that players would roll over and accept deals - ASADA would have been better to focus on the 12 to 14 players who sort of admitted to taking thymosin.

ASADA would never have expected all 34 players to accept a deal,not a chance in hell

 

[yaco55]

ASADA would never have expected all 34 players to accept a deal,not a chance in hell

So that's why it would have more prudent to charge 12 or 14 players - More likely to get all over the line.

ASADA nearly achieved this with the Cronulla Players - Though Cronulla players were compromised as the NRL were in ASADA's corner.

 

[Muggs]

Dank was employed by Manly. The inference is clear in the August 2011 text refers to another sporting club.

Never employed by Cronulla where the NRL players, apart from Earl Sander, where the players who took the plea deal played.. Since he was not employed by Cronulla at the time NRL could not prosecute him.

By itself that text may be able to be refuted, but you also need to build the story across all the evidence.

What BF is doing is akin to critically analyzing a detective novel one page at a time, and starting anew each page never stepping back and seeing how all the pages and clues on each page link together. To make it worse he's only doing it to 50-60% of the book and assuming the rest contains nothing new.

Yes each single bit of evidence can be refuted, but with circumstantial evidence you need to see what the "story" is as a whole, and see what as a whole it infers when it links together.

 

[Laphroaig]

Have you never seen the various ads at the back of comic books claiming all sorts of miracle powers?

These meat heads take all sorts of stuff, cocktails of anything and everything, so yeh, let's put faith in their anecdotal evidence over and above strict trials. Sure, no probs mate.

You mean phase one clinical trials? You're an amusing fellow.

And yeah. I would take the word of a group of blokes who live and breath abnormal muscle growth and the juice that gets that done.

I'd certainly take their word over some low budget internet based personality who thinks clever lines which aren't actually very clever can win the hearts and minds of the great unwashed if only repeated often enough.

 

[neutralguy]

ASADA Comment (page 304): Investigators have come into possession of a letter from Jack Bock Lawyers who purports to be representing Alavi. The letter, dated 13 February 2013, was sent to a number of journalists warning that if they were to persist with the existing context in discussing Alavi’s business, Alavi would be faced with the unhappy task of having to exercise whatever remedies are available for him to preserve and/or restore his reputation. In the letter, Alavi’s lawyers makes the following points: My client wishes to stress that he supplies peptides to patients and, although under no legal obligation to require the same, only on prescription by a medical practitioner. My client will not supply peptides to a patient without an official prescription. The peptides which have been supplied by my client have been supplied only to patients.
• My client does not dispense any medications (including peptides) without a prescription from a medical practitioner;
• My client only dispenses medication to individual patients and does not supply any clinics or sporting bodies with medication;
• My client has no arrangement to supply medication to any sporting body;
• My client does not supply any performance-enhancing drugs (including peptides) to any AFL player or other professional sportsman;
• My client has no association with Steve Danks (sic).[/QUOTE]


But giggity and mexxy would have us believe Alavi sent the TB4 to MRC

 

[Higgins2Waite]

Never employed by Cronulla where the NRL players, apart from Earl Sander, where the players who took the plea deal played.. Since he was not employed by Cronulla at the time NRL could not prosecute him.

By itself that text may be able to be refuted, but you also need to build the story across all the evidence.

What BF is doing is akin to critically analyzing a detective novel one page at a time, and starting anew each page never stepping back and seeing how all the pages and clues on each page link together. To make it worse he's only doing it to 50-60% of the book and assuming the rest contains nothing new.

Yes each single bit of evidence can be refuted, but with circumstantial evidence you need to see what the "story" is as a whole, and see what as a whole it infers when it links together.

s**t don't say that. You'll have GG in here saying that 99% of evidence was collected as of August 2013 so nothing has changed

 

[Argy]

He's not actually refuting anything. He's using primary school tactics and just trying to cloud the waters, saying that there are possible alternative explanations. He does not understand that when, viewed as a whole, many of these potential alternatives become logically inconsistent. This is why the "intertwined cable" of circumstantial evidence becomes important.

 

[blackshadow]

ASADA Comment (page 304): Investigators have come into possession of a letter from Jack Bock Lawyers who purports to be representing Alavi. The letter, dated 13 February 2013, was sent to a number of journalists warning that if they were to persist with the existing context in discussing Alavi’s business, Alavi would be faced with the unhappy task of having to exercise whatever remedies are available for him to preserve and/or restore his reputation. In the letter, Alavi’s lawyers makes the following points: My client wishes to stress that he supplies peptides to patients and, although under no legal obligation to require the same, only on prescription by a medical practitioner. My client will not supply peptides to a patient without an official prescription. The peptides which have been supplied by my client have been supplied only to patients.
• My client does not dispense any medications (including peptides) without a prescription from a medical practitioner;
• My client only dispenses medication to individual patients and does not supply any clinics or sporting bodies with medication;
• My client has no arrangement to supply medication to any sporting body;
• My client does not supply any performance-enhancing drugs (including peptides) to any AFL player or other professional sportsman;
• My client has no association with Steve Danks (sic).

Thanks for this - it just highlights how out of date the interim report is and just how out of touch Bruce is (and by extension you as you saw fit to repost it).

The lawyer's letter is full of holes you can drive a truck through.

Since the interim report Alavi has spoken about supplying what he thought was TB4 to Dank and concocted some weird arse story about the vials going off in the sun.

Alavi has shown himself to be rather shady in that he isn't sure what the hell he concocted for Dank...

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...161186397?nk=14f821c03c10c4a33c14ecd578b5f1ae

Mr Alavi yesterday told The Australian this was not true. “I felt as though they were trying to trap me into saying that it was Thymosin Beta-4, even though I made it very clear, repeatedly, that I didn’t know what it was,’’ he said.

The Australian has previously revealed Mr Alavi told ASADA he compounded a Thymosin peptide from materials procured by drug importer Shane Charter and supplied them in clear, unmarked vials to Mr Dank to have them tested at a Melbourne lab.​

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...gnature-on-peptide-letter-20140626-zsm7y.html
Contains direct quotes from Alavi confirming that in 2012 he compounded thymosin for Dank (but that he doesn't know what he actually compounded).

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-25/stephen-dank-suspected-of-forgery-by-doctor-pharmicist/5550446
More evidence that Alavi was dealing with Dank in 2012.

 

[blackshadow]

That the majority keep referring to this hitherto unknown additional evidence, tells me that they are in agreement that the evidence, as we currently know it, is insufficient to demonstrate to the comfortable satisfaction of the tribunal that all 34 players used TB4 at some point during 2012.

I've just shot massive holes in one of your quotes from the Francis manifesto and demonstrated that things have certainly progressed since the interim report was released.

Do you or Brucie actually know what interim means?

 

[Albert Ross]

ASADA Comment (page 304): Investigators have come into possession of a letter from Jack Bock Lawyers who purports to be representing Alavi. The letter, dated 13 February 2013, was sent to a number of journalists warning that if they were to persist with the existing context in discussing Alavi’s business, Alavi would be faced with the unhappy task of having to exercise whatever remedies are available for him to preserve and/or restore his reputation. In the letter, Alavi’s lawyers makes the following points: My client wishes to stress that he supplies peptides to patients and, although under no legal obligation to require the same, only on prescription by a medical practitioner. My client will not supply peptides to a patient without an official prescription. The peptides which have been supplied by my client have been supplied only to patients.
• My client does not dispense any medications (including peptides) without a prescription from a medical practitioner;
• My client only dispenses medication to individual patients and does not supply any clinics or sporting bodies with medication;
• My client has no arrangement to supply medication to any sporting body;
• My client does not supply any performance-enhancing drugs (including peptides) to any AFL player or other professional sportsman;
• My client has no association with Steve Danks (sic).

(Page 184): Although Alavi was engaged to supply peptides for the Medical Rejuvenation Clinic and Best Buy Supplements (Sydney based companies in which Dank had a business interest), from Charter’s perspective, the raw materials he obtained from China were at the behest of Dank and were intended to fulfil Dank’s order.

Please make this game harder.

 

[markm106]

I've just shot massive holes in one of your quotes from the Francis manifesto and demonstrated that things have certainly progressed since the interim report was released.

Do you or Brucie actually know what interim means?

Have to agree. Evidence would likely have been gathered post interim report being completed.

 

[Albert Ross]

Robinson was employed on 25 August 2011.

Robinson BEGAN on 25 August 2011.

Unless your contention is that at sometime between his text on Tuesday 23rd August and 8am Thursday 25th August he received a call "you start tomorrow"?

His comments about what he was planning for the next year suddenly changed when on Wednesday 24th August he first met with Essendon, was interviewed by them, and told to start the next day?

If so this becomes a bit awkward; "On 22 August 2011 Robinson sent to Hird the results of a clinical trial from University of New South Wales on the pathway of the effectiveness of a supplement known as Lactaway. The paper was co-authored by Dank."

Wouldn't it be more plausible that Robinson has been told he has the job in early August and is staring in late August? That he is busy putting his plans in place to hit the ground running? That he is already communicating with Hird prior to officially starting to detail his plans?


Mr Robinson had been employed as the club’s high-performance coach from August 25, 2011, to July 16, 2013, earning $290,000 a year plus possibly an extra $30,000 from the club’s sponsors. His contract was due to expire on October 31, 2014.
http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...-dean-robinson-court-told-20140617-zsafg.html

 

[Strapping Young Lad]

I think Bruce has made about 30 odd posts in the last few pages

I have a couple of posters on ignore, so I'm assuming you think he's one of the 2.

It's got me stuffed why so many people keep responding to them when they have been exposed so many times.

 

[Albert Ross]

I am the one who is laughing - Posted for a year about issues with the SO code, particularly the compounding pharmacy loophole - Last two paragraphs support my assertion.

1. You've repeatedly demonstrated that you don't understand S0
2. The compounding pharmacy loophole is theoretical. The TGA don't believe it exists, Martin Hardie and Steve Dank think it does. It has never been tested.

 

[BlueWorld]

Tactical - ASADA assumed that players would roll over and accept deals - ASADA would have been better to focus on the 12 to 14 players who sort of admitted to taking thymosin.

Stop making stuff up.

 

[Albert Ross]

So that's why it would have more prudent to charge 12 or 14 players - More likely to get all over the line.

ASADA nearly achieved this with the Cronulla Players - Though Cronulla players were compromised as the NRL were in ASADA's corner.

Option 1: Follow yaco's advice
Option 2: Follow the advice of the author of the code Richard Young, Malcolm Holmes QC and retired Federal Court Judge, the Hon Gary Downes AM QC FCIArb

Give me a minute, I'll be able to figure this conundrum out.

 

[Albert Ross]

Once again, the most common response is to refer to the hitherto unknown additional evidence, rather than arguing the merits of what is currently known in the public domain.

No. The most common response is that we do not know what ASADA's case is. Maybe they have additional stuff, maybe they don't. But concluding that they found nothing post the Interim Report is unsupportable wishful thinking.

 

[Albert Ross]

At least there is now a general acceptance that in terms of what ASADA had as at August 2013 (having interviewed over 50 witnesses and collected thousands of documents from the AFL) that that was sufficient to demonstrate to the comfortable satisfaction of the tribunal that TB4 had been used by 34 EFC footballers.

By October 2014, according to the ASADA annual report, Operation Cobia had conducted "more than 300 formal interviews and analysis of over 160,000
documents"

 

[Albert Ross]

Re the French case, the CAS Appeal Panel found:

1. In relation to the standard of proof required for a finding of guilt. That pursuant to the Australian authority of Briginshaw v. Briginshaw and CAS jurisprudence, the standard of proof required to be met by the Respondents is somewhere between the balance of probabilities and beyond a reasonable doubt...

Which I posted previously. But people read too much into the French precedent. It was the one that said Balance of Probabilities was too low, that has never been in question in our discussions.

When Belinda van Tienan has her case before CAS all it means is this note ...

45 .BURDEN OF PROOF

The court accepts that the allegation of an anti-doping rule violation is a serious allegation and that the violation must be proven to a higher level of satisfaction than balance of probabilities. The is consistant with article 6.1 of the ADP and the decision of CAS in French v ASC/CA.

French is the case that establishes Comfortable Satisfaction, and that that satisfaction must be higher than BOP. That is all.

 

[Albert Ross]

1. Countless suppliers, including the one Charter allegedly used, differentiate between Thymosin Beta 4 and Thymosin.

Perhaps, but Hypermed, the clinic the Essendon players were sent to, thinks Thymosin is TB4

And we have already seen that Alavi thinks Thymison is TB4.

http://www.hypermed.com.au/Conditions/HyperMED Supplement Support - Hyperbaric Oxygenation.htm