Bruce Francis
- Thread starter fishardansin
- Start date
- Tagged users None
- Status
I like this one...
No evidence? Can't the man read? Charter declared them to customs!!!
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;
My Comment:
• There is no evidence Charter returned to Melbourne with the raw materials for the four substances;
No evidence? Can't the man read? Charter declared them to customs!!!
- Sep 18, 2007
- 4,854
- 8,763
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Other Teams
- West Perth, Fighting Illini
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;
No evidence? Can't the man read? Charter declared them to customs!!!
Add Customs to the conspiracy....
I love how most of his arguments come back to ASADA must have had pre-conceived notions on what happened, and let their investigation be tainted by those notions, whereas all of his assumptions, comments and arguments are based on nothing pre-conceived at all...
Most of the sections say things along the line of
ASADA comment: list of observed events based on interviews, documentary evidence, comments etc.
BF comment: there is no evidence
Most of the sections say things along the line of
ASADA comment: list of observed events based on interviews, documentary evidence, comments etc.
BF comment: there is no evidence
The 'interim report' was used as a way for the AFL to get Essendon out of their finals series.
In order to justify it, they 'tweaked' it to stitch Essendon up.
The 'they' I refer to is the AFL.
We know this. Old news.
Brucey Boy is utterly confused as to who he's fighting here, and why he's fighting them.
I'd agree with that.
I think that Hird's court case against ASADA is similar - he should have taken that action against the AFL.
EFC and Hird have had terrible legal advice through this whole thing.
I'm not sure it could have been handled any worse. Regardless of the outcome of the tribunal, the players, club, coach and board will be seen for a very long time to be weasels who have spent the last two years flinging mud in every direction, desperately hoping some will stick, all while loudly claiming the moral high ground while doing everything in their power to be devious and underhanded.
Muggs
Premiership Player
Yup most of the bits he said not relevant and proves nothing, which actually helps builds ASADA supply chain argument..
Or this!?
Strapping Young Lad
Moderator
- Apr 19, 2006
- 97,454
- 236,060
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Storm, Spurs, Socceroos
- Moderator
- #2,562
Those damn customs people, they just want to see the world burn.
Better Loosen Up
Brownlow Medallist
The guy is an absolute babbling peanut.
- Moderator
- #2,565
ok guys, discuss the data, not the person or Ill have to shut this down.
Strapping Young Lad
Moderator
- Apr 19, 2006
- 97,454
- 236,060
- AFL Club
- Hawthorn
- Other Teams
- Storm, Spurs, Socceroos
Isn't this thread about the person though....who is choosing to interpret the data in ways he sees fit and is the only source of that data. Ergo to discuss the data you have to discuss his interpretation of it and he himself and his motivations for the method of interpretation. Basic Intelligence Analysis technique.
- Sep 15, 2011
- 5,619
- 9,349
- AFL Club
- Carlton
- Other Teams
- Liverpool FC, Lakers, Longhorns
Well I think Bruce needs to familiarise himself with the Wookie's timeline and why a weirdly labelled alleged bottle of thymomodulin present in a fridge on Grand Final Week (24th Sept 2012) weeks after Dank's dismissal might have very little to do with ASADA's case.
As Argy points out the TB4 was present much earlier (December 2011) and the program started prior to Reid discovering it in mid-Jan 2012 and players did not sign consents until >3 weeks after Reid's discovery.
As Argy points out the TB4 was present much earlier (December 2011) and the program started prior to Reid discovering it in mid-Jan 2012 and players did not sign consents until >3 weeks after Reid's discovery.
My Comment:
• McKenzie made the initial statement that Dank used Thymosin Beta-4. Dank was not asked what he used. McKenzie told him what he used. It was a bit like “have you stopped beating your wife”.
Wow, just wow! In what walk of life is asking someone if they used ThymosinBeta-4 the same as asking them "have you stopped beating your wife". If there was even the slightest hint of credibility it has run out the door right there.
• McKenzie made the initial statement that Dank used Thymosin Beta-4. Dank was not asked what he used. McKenzie told him what he used. It was a bit like “have you stopped beating your wife”.
Wow, just wow! In what walk of life is asking someone if they used ThymosinBeta-4 the same as asking them "have you stopped beating your wife". If there was even the slightest hint of credibility it has run out the door right there.
...if fantasy is your preferred genre.
evo
Let's hit the f*ken road!
So this is what Gigity has based his belief on that ASADA has 'no evidence'?
LOL, seems there is heaps of evidence
LOL, seems there is heaps of evidence
It is if that isn't your hand!?
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.
- Status
