Bruce Francis has replied.

Remove this Banner Ad

StabbytheRabbit said:
Summarised, CAS stated players blood tests was an exercise recommended for peptides like TB-4, and for which no purpose other than a ‘sinister’

In fact they were quoting De Morton who used the word sinister in relation to testing for IGF-1. At no point did De Morton say, or even imply, that the blood tests were associated with commencing a program that included Thymosin Beta-4.

So, the CAS panel included and implied it was for TB-4 (instead of IGF-1), when quoting Dr De Morton’s use of the word ‘sinister’.

This is not a mistake.
Click to expand...
This post just shows you (and Bruce) have no understanding of the IGF-1 test. To summarise. I am a doctor and know many doctors. I have NEVER EVER asked for an IGF-1 level in a patient or have ever heard of my colleagues ordering one. IGF-1 is known to rise as a response to the administration of many banned substances (including IGF-1 itself). So WADA uses the test to see if there is evidence of sinister type drugs in the athletes system since many of these sinister drugs cannot yet be reliably detected. So if you were planning to use these sinister banned drugs (like our mate Dank), you would first want to know the baseline levels of the athletes you will be treating so that you don't elevate them above the threshold that ASADA would be able to say is abnormal.

Do you understand?
 
Ancient Tiger said:
This post just shows you (and Bruce) have no understanding of the IGF-1 test. To summarise. I am a doctor and know many doctors. I have NEVER EVER asked for an IGF-1 level in a patient or have ever heard of my colleagues ordering one. IGF-1 is known to rise as a response to the administration of many banned substances (including IGF-1 itself). So WADA uses the test to see if there is evidence of sinister type drugs in the athletes system since many of these sinister drugs cannot yet be reliably detected. So if you were planning to use these sinister banned drugs (like our mate Dank), you would first want to know the baseline levels of the athletes you will be treating so that you don't elevate them above the threshold that ASADA would be able to say is abnormal.

Do you understand?
Click to expand...

hence a club doctor describing the tests as having sinister purposes.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Garlic muncher said:
Actually it was ASADA who initially used the word sinister.
Click to expand...
Does it really matter?
The fact that Dank was checking these levels (via a doctor other than the club doctor as well) must be thought of as extremely suspicious and ultimately sinister.

Please give me an alternate plausible explanation for the ordering of such a test. Even as an experienced medical person with a deep background in physiology and pharmacology I cannot think of one.
 
Lavender Bushranger said:
Baffling response.

In a court of law in a criminal case, it would be outrageous to be found guilty. But in an anti-doping case, where the burden of proof is vastly different - it's outrageous to not be found guilty based on the evidence we've all seen.

It would be equally outrageous for an anti-doping tribunal to not be comfortably satisfied that Earl was injected with TB4. I mean **** me - even he was comfortably satisfied that he took TB4!
Click to expand...
Baffling retort and I think you lack expertise in this area. In an anti doping case such as this one, the standard of proof, and I repeat the standard of proof is at a level below just below reasonable doubt. The panel of CAS cowboys presiding over the Essendon 34 have shot from the hip with a magazine full of blanks.
 
WADA is scared - Bruces latest missive

I told you WADA was scared from Bruce Francis

The moment the compliant media folk started interviewing the former head, John Fahey, I knew WADA was worried about an appeal from the 34 Essendon players.

WADA knows the evidence which it presented to the CAS hearing is all holes and no Swiss cheese.

I have eviscerated the 16 strands relied on by the so-called gun American lawyer Richard Young.

Slowly, the penny has dropped elsewhere.

The players have been stitched up; sacrificed to a much larger game that WADA is playing – trying to get even more money out of the pockets of taxpayers not just here but everywhere in the world.

WADA wants the world’s tax payers to chip in another $270 million into its incredibly unsuccessful anti-doping program.

WADA estimates 10 per cent of athletes are drug cheats, yet test after test after test finds about half of one per cent of people returning positive results.

So WADA is reliant upon investigations using non-tested evidence.

Oh and by the way, since your sport signed up to our cosy little world under threat of loss of government funding, you have no right of appeal against any of this.

That the Essendon players have to appeal to a Swiss court is yet another abject failure of the WADA system and thankfully, around the world, more and more people have been waking up to it, as we in Australia are now.

What’s wrong with our courts here in Australia?

We have one of the best legal systems in the world.

Ah but yes, those judges might require something a bit more than fantasy masquerading as hearsay, like the two retired judges who sat on the AFL Anti-Doping tribunal.

WADA is now struggling to survive in its current form.

That was the reason that John Fahey was sent out to get the retaliation in first with a few soft interviews, many with the very same people who accused Tracey Holmes of going soft on James Hird.

Where was their hard questioning? They just rolled over and had their tummies tickled and made little gurgling sounds … oooh look at me, I am talking to John Fahey

But it didn’t work. Why? Because the Essendon players have a profound belief in their innocence.

So too now, as the 16 strands have been shredded day after day, have people within the Essendon club.

They now realise the evidence, if you can call it that, was tainted beyond belief.

Their anger is tangible, so too the anger of the supporters as they too have realised just how flawed was the case against their players.

SMS messages were changed, evidence of a doctor manipulated, evidence that didn’t help the case left out.

Recently a former DPP in NSW said it was paramount to the fundamentals of Australian law that a prosecution must present all the evidence, not just the bits that help its case.

Of course, that’s Australian law. WADA doesn’t want to go anywhere near Australian law.
The time has come now for Australian sports, for the Australian government which has been footing the bill for this nonsense to say to WADA enough is enough: Rip up the CAS finding, give the players back their lives and go find some other country to fund your inept testing programs and your tainted court cases.

Bruce Francis
Click to expand...
ref: http://www.twitlonger.com/show/n_1so9bba
 
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.
 
B Tron said:
Do not go gentle into that good night,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Click to expand...
Didn't realise you were a Dylan Thomas fan B Tron!;)
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Bombfire said:
Baffling retort and I think you lack expertise in this area. In an anti doping case such as this one, the standard of proof, and I repeat the standard of proof is at a level below just below reasonable doubt. The panel of CAS cowboys presiding over the Essendon 34 have shot from the hip with a magazine full of blanks.
Click to expand...
The Cowboys certainly kicked some arse.
 
Ancient Tiger said:
This post just shows you (and Bruce) have no understanding of the IGF-1 test. To summarise. I am a doctor and know many doctors. I have NEVER EVER asked for an IGF-1 level in a patient or have ever heard of my colleagues ordering one. IGF-1 is known to rise as a response to the administration of many banned substances (including IGF-1 itself). So WADA uses the test to see if there is evidence of sinister type drugs in the athletes system since many of these sinister drugs cannot yet be reliably detected. So if you were planning to use these sinister banned drugs (like our mate Dank), you would first want to know the baseline levels of the athletes you will be treating so that you don't elevate them above the threshold that ASADA would be able to say is abnormal.

Do you understand?
Click to expand...


At Dank’s direction, blood samples were taken from each player, prior to the commencement of the supplement program and analysed for the following: Testosterone Mean Corpuscular Haemoglobin Liver Function Tissue Damage Sex Hormone-Binding Globulin Platelet Count Iron Testosterone Free Neutrophils Lactate Dehydrogenase Luteinizing Hormone Lymphocytes Vitamin B12 Serum Cortisol Erythrocyte Sedimentation Rate Serum Folate Haemoglobin Urea C-reactive Protein Total White Cell Count Creatinine Thyroid-Stimulating Hormone Red Cell Count Cholesterol Free Thyroxine Haematocrit Liver Function Cell Damage Free Triodothyronine Mean Corpuscular Volume Creatine Kinase Growth Hormone IGF-1 40

None of this is illegal or against the WADA code, is it? No.

So how did CAS include this as strand about the players being guilty of TB4?

Well, the ASADA investigator framing his question to include not just the word sinister, but the inference that sinister was the ASADA investigator’s own view, and he was merely asking for agreement with that view.

Any court concerned with natural justice and procedural fairness would consider this a leading question that by its very nature contaminates the answer.
 
Garlic muncher said:
Actually it was ASADA who initially used the word sinister.
Click to expand...

Well, the ASADA investigator framing his question to include not just the word sinister, but the inference that sinister was the ASADA investigator’s own view, and he was merely asking for agreement with that view.

Any court concerned with natural justice and procedural fairness would consider this a leading question that by its very nature contaminates the answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top