Bruce Francis

[Randomizor]

What a wonderful work of absolute fiction

 

[Randomizor]

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 The ban was lifted and the $1000 fine was rescinded.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.

You can't say the case is weak without knowing all the evidence. Circumstantial is not equal to weak.

 

[hfchfc]

Sigh.

exactly.

 

[Gavstar]

Watsons evidence is unhelpful to him I would suggest.

"Watson, the only Essendon player to publicly admit to receiving injections of the contentious peptide AOD9604, told ASADA investigators that Dank explained to him there was "good" thymosin and "bad" thymosin.

He said that Dank injected him with "good" thymosin, which he had understood to be Thymomodulin.

The "bad" thymosin beta 4 is banned by the World Anti-Doping Agency."

- There are only two Thymosin's in question, neither of which is Thymomodulin.
- Since Chinese supplier only supplied TB4 and Dank has admitted to giving TB4 to the EFC players.
- Jobe has admitted taken a Thymosin provided by Dank (TB4)

Comfortably satisfied there, and the other six players who have admitted taken a Thymosin Gonski.

The other 27 players......... not so much but I would strongly suggest there are other documents we are not aware of.

 

[Max Headroom]

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

Yes, all I meant was that I think Bruce saw it as suspicious that the customs declaration wasn't included in the evidence.

I think it is more likely they hadn't got around to it at the time they released the report. ASADA weren't keen on supplying it in its preliminary format, they were under pressure by the AFL to do so and perhaps hadn't got all the information at that point. They were short on manpower and resources at the time.

 

[Randomizor]

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.

This seems to suggest the French appealed the CAS decision, rather than successfully getting off at the CAS though. And is he saying the Holmes was the lawyer or judge in this scenario?

This is all very teneous and a lot of non sequiturs.

 

[tesla1962]

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.

It's actually the comparison most use wrt loaded/leading questions. No one I know would consider its use to diminish the gravity of domestic violence in any way, but would see it as a well understood way to illustrate a situation where an assumption is implicit in the question. I think you are getting your 'knickers in a twist' about nothing here. It's not 'rocket science' or 'brain surgery'.

 

[Spongebob]

Why are we giving this any air.

The interim report was written for a specific purpose -- to allow Essendon to be banished from the finals, with some healthy fines and holidays added in.

It has no bearing at all on the SCNs, infractions or whatever briefs of evidence and presentations which have the players now before the tribunal.

old man yelling at clouds gif.

 

[hfchfc]

It's actually the comparison most use wrt loaded/leading questions. No one I know would consider its use to diminish the gravity of domestic violence in any way, but would see it as a well undsertood way to illustrate a situation where the assumption is implicit in the question. I think you are getting your 'knickers in a twist' about nothing here. It's not 'rocket science' or 'brain surgery'.

Show me one other occasion where "do you still beat your wife" has been used as a comparison to loaded. leading questions? By the way, I'm free balling so no knickers in a twist!! (sorry too much information). My point is that the bloke cannot be taken seriously.

 

[boncer34]

How does Bombertalk compare to Bomberblitz? Will Bruce get run off there too?

Nah.

Bruce can post whatever he wants, even if I don't read it.

 

[tesla1962]

Show me one other occasion where "do you still beat your wife" has been used as a comparison to loaded. leading questions? By the way, I'm free balling so no knickers in a twist!! (sorry too much information). My point is that the bloke cannot be taken seriously.

My point is that that example is used all the time and, as Wiki says below, is the 'traditional' example used (and I know Wiki has its flaws). It is used in a way to describe a type of question and not diminish the seriousness of domestic violence. In fact, the seriousness of the implicit assumption in that question gives it dramatic effect. For you to be taken seriously you need to discuss what Gigantor is saying rather than resort to silliness.

A loaded question or complex question fallacy is a question which contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).[1]

Aside from being an informal fallacy depending on usage, such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.[2]
The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, they will admit to having a wife and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed.[2] The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious.[2] Hence the same question may be loaded in one context, but not in the other. For example the previous question would not be loaded if it was asked during a trial in which the defendant has already admitted to beating his wife.[2]

 

[Cronos]

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".

...and yet Mr Xu, the same supplier, stated (in no uncertain terms):
“The Thymosin we synthesis (sic) and supply always refers to Thymosin Beta-4.’’

 

[Albert Ross]

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.

French's appeal was to CAS, but with the agreement of both parties CAS can convene where it likes and use local law. So this 'CAS appeal' was in Sydney using NSW law.

The original verdict did not apply the Briginshaw standard. The appeal established that the Briginshaw standard should apply. In other words this is the case that established that the burden of proof was somewhere between Balance of Probablites and Beyond Reasonable Doubt and the level of proof should depend on the seriousness of the case.

French had been found guilty on a low Balance of Probabilities standard. Once the bar was lifted there was enough doubt (although he was almost certainly guilty) to clear him. In particular the physical evidence (that contained the positive sample) had passed through many sets of hands (cleaners, stored in someone's filing cabinet, then the lab etc) and this chain was seen as possibly tainted. No physical evidence in this case.

This isn't a precedent in that we already know that the Comfortable Satisfaction is being used.

 

[hfchfc]

My point is that that example is used all the time and, as Wiki says below, is the 'traditional' example used (and I know Wiki has its flaws). It is used in a way to describe a type of question and not diminish the seriousness of domestic violence. In fact, the seriousness of the implicit assumption in that question gives it dramatic effect. For you to be taken seriously you need to discuss what Gigantor is saying rather than resort to silliness.

A loaded question or complex question fallacy is a question which contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).[1]

Aside from being an informal fallacy depending on usage, such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.[2]
The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, they will admit to having a wife and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed.[2] The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious.[2] Hence the same question may be loaded in one context, but not in the other. For example the previous question would not be loaded if it was asked during a trial in which the defendant has already admitted to beating his wife.[2]

Your reply is certainly good enough for me, I had never heard it as the "traditional example" before. And I certainly understand the use of a loaded question, I use them all the time with my kids!! Whilst I understand that it is not trivialising domestic violence, I just believe that it is in poor taste. Why can't they just ask "do you still watch pr0n on the computer" or something like that!

 

[Tiger2709]

Yes, all I meant was that I think Bruce saw it as suspicious that the customs declaration wasn't included in the evidence.

I think it is more likely they hadn't got around to it at the time they released the report. ASADA weren't keen on supplying it in its preliminary format, they were under pressure by the AFL to do so and perhaps hadn't got all the information at that point. They were sort on manpower and resources at the time.

It seems GG and Bruce are equally flexible in which of thymosin's was used, when it suits it's thymomodulin when it doesn't suit the situation as in the Chinese supplier doesn't sell Thymomodulin and the price paid is massively more than the real cost, then the drug becomes aplha1, nice this flexibility.

"your honour we aren't sure what we took but we know absolutely that it wasn't banned , it may have been Thymomodulin as that is what Jobe said and those evil ASADA people didn't show in evidence, then again as the supplier doesn't sell this it was probably Alpha 1, unless of course that is not for human consumption in which case it was definitely thymomodulin, or whichever is the least banned of these two, but honestly it's wasn't tb4 your honour.

 

[Albert Ross]

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

We don't know he didn't. Unless we have a transcript or recording of the interview, or the pre-interview correspondence we have no idea. Whatever appears in a newspaper will be an edit in some way or another.

Fortunately the Tribunal subpoenaed the actual transcript so that should alleviate your fears.

 

[Randomizor]

We don't know he didn't. Unless we have a transcript or recording of the interview, or the pre-interview correspondence we have no idea. Whatever appears in a newspaper will be an edit in some way or another.

Fortunately the Tribunal subpoenaed the actual transcript so that should alleviate your fears.

You know what I would have answered if I was Dank and hadn't used TB4 at Essendon?

"Sorry Nick, I never used TB4 at Essendon"

 

[Gavstar]

So ASADA is banned from asking leading questions during interrogations of potentially hostile witnesses while not in a court of law?

Can someone please point me to this legislative requirement.

Having a relative who was a police officer this is exactly the sort of question they'd ask to confuse a suspect. The suspect would then provide the necessary detail to clarify the topic and would potentially incriminate themselves. The leading question is useless for gaining an admission the follow up is not.

PS Always ask for your lawyer!!

 

[Tiger2709]

My point is that that example is used all the time and, as Wiki says below, is the 'traditional' example used (and I know Wiki has its flaws). It is used in a way to describe a type of question and not diminish the seriousness of domestic violence. In fact, the seriousness of the implicit assumption in that question gives it dramatic effect. For you to be taken seriously you need to discuss what Gigantor is saying rather than resort to silliness.

A loaded question or complex question fallacy is a question which contains a controversial or unjustified assumption (e.g., a presumption of guilt).[1]

Aside from being an informal fallacy depending on usage, such questions may be used as a rhetorical tool: the question attempts to limit direct replies to be those that serve the questioner's agenda.[2]
The traditional example is the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" Whether the respondent answers yes or no, they will admit to having a wife and having beaten her at some time in the past. Thus, these facts are presupposed by the question, and in this case an entrapment, because it narrows the respondent to a single answer, and the fallacy of many questions has been committed.[2] The fallacy relies upon context for its effect: the fact that a question presupposes something does not in itself make the question fallacious. Only when some of these presuppositions are not necessarily agreed to by the person who is asked the question does the argument containing them become fallacious.[2] Hence the same question may be loaded in one context, but not in the other. For example the previous question would not be loaded if it was asked during a trial in which the defendant has already admitted to beating his wife.[2]

I don't totally agree, if to the the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" you answered no then you have answered correctly and couldn't be charged as the answer no does not necessarily equate to the fact that you still may be beating your wife, it could just as easily mean you cant stop something you haven't started.

 

[Albert Ross]

Your reply is certainly good enough for me, I had never heard it as the "traditional example" before. And I certainly understand the use of a loaded question, I use them all the time with my kids!! Whilst I understand that it is not trivialising domestic violence, I just believe that it is in poor taste. Why can't they just ask "do you still watch pr0n on the computer" or something like that!

Popularised by Groucho Marx, so been around for heading on 100 years. Tastes change.

 

[tesla1962]

I don't totally agree, if to the the question "Have you stopped beating your wife?" you answered no then you have answered correctly and couldn't be charged as the answer no does not necessarily equate to the fact that you still may be beating your wife, it could just as easily mean you cant stop something you haven't started.

"No, I have not stopped beating my wife" could not "just as easily mean" you haven't started beating your wife. The word stop implies that at some stage you started.

 

[Tiger2709]

"No, I have not stopped beating my wife" could not "just as easily mean" you haven't started beating your wife. The word stop implies that at some stage you started.

The original example you gave was to give a yes or no answer, you didn't do that in the above example, using your above example I could as easily say "no, I never started beating my wife", but if it is limited to a yes or no answer only then the answer no does not necessarily imply guilt, as you cant have stopped doing something you never started, I do not agree that the word stopped has to imply that something was started, it just an assumption.

My point being you cant have stopped something you never started so with a choice of yes or no, no is the correct answer and should not necessarily imply guilt, unless you have made the assumption that the action started.

 

[tesla1962]

The original example you gave was to give a yes or no answer, you didn't do that in the above example, using your above example I could as easily say "no, I never started beating my wife", but if it is limited to a yes or no answer only then the answer no does not necessarily imply guilt, as you cant have stopped doing something you never started, I do not agree that the word stopped has to imply that something was started, it just an assumption.

sorry i am out of here now

I don't even want the 5 minute argument, let alone the full half hour

 

[blackshadow]

There is no argument, I am right you are wrong that is just fact, maybe it's time for you to head back to Bruce's bed time stories, they'll keep you all warm and snuggly.

Read by gigity...

 

[Pinnell]

French's appeal was to CAS, but with the agreement of both parties CAS can convene where it likes and use local law. So this 'CAS appeal' was in Sydney using NSW law.

The original verdict did not apply the Briginshaw standard. The appeal established that the Briginshaw standard should apply. In other words this is the case that established that the burden of proof was somewhere between Balance of Probablites and Beyond Reasonable Doubt and the level of proof should depend on the seriousness of the case.

French had been found guilty on a low Balance of Probabilities standard. Once the bar was lifted there was enough doubt (although he was almost certainly guilty) to clear him. In particular the physical evidence (that contained the positive sample) had passed through many sets of hands (cleaners, stored in someone's filing cabinet, then the lab etc) and this chain was seen as possibly tainted. No physical evidence in this case.

This isn't a precedent in that we already know that the Comfortable Satisfaction is being used.

Funny how Bruce is using French as a case study. Got off on technicalities. I see why he likes it...