Bruce Francis

[mxett]

Well name it then....as long as it's not another BF related source. You haven't named on EFC Board nor mentioned it in your PM.

Im not naming anyone, I said I wouldnt and thats that. But I can tell you it was independent to the post everyone is referring to, and confirmed the contents of that post was genuine. Who knows, maybe both are complete liars, but IMO they are not.

 

[toddkurnski]

Gigantor, you have a few people wanting to see the part of the interim report that you say has been rehashed. Can you please supply it so we can make up our own minds?

Thanks in advance.

 

[Gavstar]

Give me a farking break. PM me or one of the EFC mods, otherwise the only other sources we so far have are BF related. Not one credible journo nor any other footy industry source.

Credible journalists in regards to this? they are even more elusive.

 

[The_Wookie]

Give me a farking break. PM me or one of the EFC mods, otherwise the only other sources we so far have are BF related. Not one credible journo nor any other footy industry source.

Private persons can have sources of their own - they dont have to reveal them, its kind of like having an unsworn statement. It gets lesser weight than a proven source of course. Also lol at credible journalists.

Ive talked to the poster in question, and Im convinced the material was genuine.

 

[DesertRoo]

Because people only see what they want to see.

There is evidence that Charter and Alavi handled TB4 (but that evidence is not as clear cut as many are assuming).

It's not clear that any of the TB4 ended up at EFC.

There is evidence that Charter and Alavi had regular business dealings with MRC.

We know that MRC market TB4 to the general public.

There is evidence that MRC paid for one invoice from Alavi in relation to TB4 (although the evidence is a bit unclear).

That invoice was originally made out to EFC, but they were issued with a credit note.

Now - is ASADA relying on any of the above to back up their summary of evidence? All of it is in the interim report.

Are you honestly saying that this is the first time you have seen me say any of the above?

What are you insinuating here? Dank and Alavi have defrauded Essendon.

 

[mxett]

Give me a farking break. PM me or one of the EFC mods, otherwise the only other sources we so far have are BF related. Not one credible journo nor any other footy industry source.

feel free to boubt this info, thats fine. Not even I believe it 100% until its confirmed. But to say I'm worried is a huge understatement

 

[Aucklander]

How the **** do I ignore someone

Go to their profile page and press the ignore button.

 

[The_Wookie]

Thread has been re-opened.

• lay off the personal remarks re Gigantor
• Essendon folks querying Mxetts source and others, you have your own board for this.
• Please limit the discussion here to matters concerning Bruce Francis and his interim report theories.

Cheerio

 

[Ancient Tiger]

Correct.

There is one, and only one, Prohibited List.

TB4 is not specifically named in that Prohibited List.

It is widely accepted that it falls within the catch-all definition contained in S2, which in itself, would have to be one of the elements which need to be proven to the comfortable satisfaction of the Tribunal.

The code is very specific. Read it. Nobody can challenge the whether a drug should not be banned. WADA informs national anti doping bodies of additions to the Prohibited List. ASADA was informed in late 2011 that TB4 was now S2 rather than S0. ASADA immediately made changes on its website and hotline. There is no excuse. The WADA code says that athletes must check with their national anti doping bodies about individual drugs, not WADA itself. So what Dank was doing was incorrect. He was told that too. The question thus remains did anybody check with ASADA whether tb4 was banned during the 2012 season? The answer is no obviously. There is no further legal argument concerning this. It is futile to pursue this anymore.

 

[Satan]

The code is very specific. Read it. Nobody can challenge the whether a drug should not be banned. WADA informs national anti doping bodies of additions to the Prohibited List. ASADA was informed in late 2011 that TB4 was now S2 rather than S0. ASADA immediately made changes on its website and hotline. There is no excuse. The WADA code says that athletes must check with their national anti doping bodies about individual drugs, not WADA itself. So what Dank was doing was incorrect. He was told that too. The question thus remains did anybody check with ASADA whether tb4 was banned during the 2012 season? The answer is no obviously. There is no further legal argument concerning this. It is futile to pursue this anymore.

One wonders if efc players were too smart and arrogantly ignored to previous stage and thus missed the chance to argue the legality of tb 4

 

[Randomizor]

Thread has been re-opened.

• lay off the personal remarks re Gigantor
• Essendon folks querying Mxetts source and others, you have your own board for this.
• Please limit the discussion here to matters concerning Bruce Francis and his interim report theories.

Cheerio

Is there somewhere else we can discuss what we were before?

 

[The_Wookie]

Is there somewhere else we can discuss what we were before?

Discussions re: evidence and what no should go in the tribunal thread
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...al-closing-subs-details-in-op.1084109/page-66

 

[Randomizor]

You can take it to the ASADA are ready to go thread.

Cheers

 

[The_Wookie]

Cheers

Rather
http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threa...al-closing-subs-details-in-op.1084109/page-66

 

[Gigantor]

The code is very specific. Read it. Nobody can challenge the whether a drug should not be banned. WADA informs national anti doping bodies of additions to the Prohibited List. ASADA was informed in late 2011 that TB4 was now S2 rather than S0. ASADA immediately made changes on its website and hotline. There is no excuse. The WADA code says that athletes must check with their national anti doping bodies about individual drugs, not WADA itself. So what Dank was doing was incorrect. He was told that too. The question thus remains did anybody check with ASADA whether tb4 was banned during the 2012 season? The answer is no obviously. There is no further legal argument concerning this. It is futile to pursue this anymore.

You cannot challenge what is in the Prohibited List. I agree.

And that is precisely the point.

 

[Gigantor]

So you state unequivocally now that there was a sworn statement from a player regarding the presence of specifically TB4 on EFC premises in the interim report.

Can I see this section can Bruce post it?

How about you explain how the text in question is saying what you think it is saying?

 

[Gigantor]

Thread has been re-opened.

• lay off the personal remarks re Gigantor
• Essendon folks querying Mxetts source and others, you have your own board for this.
• Please limit the discussion here to matters concerning Bruce Francis and his interim report theories.

Cheerio

The so-called smoking gun text (which is a re-hash of the interim report) is very much related to Bruce Francis' theories, who has written many times how ASADA fills gaps in evidence by presumptions and poetic license totally at odds with the very evidence it is referencing.

 

[The_Wookie]

The so-called smoking gun text (which is a re-hash of the interim report) is very much related to Bruce Francis' theories, who has written many times how ASADA fills gaps in evidence by presumptions and poetic license totally at odds with the very evidence it is referencing.

again, you have no evidence that this is the case.

 

[Gigantor]

again, you have no evidence that this is the case.

No evidence of Bruce Francis' theories?

 

[The_Wookie]

No evidence of Bruce Francis' theories?

Youve no evidence that the material is from the interim report.

 

[toddkurnski]

The so-called smoking gun text (which is a re-hash of the interim report) is very much related to Bruce Francis' theories, who has written many times how ASADA fills gaps in evidence by presumptions and poetic license totally at odds with the very evidence it is referencing.

Please Gigantor, the interim report you claim is being rehashed, can I see it? If you keep referencing it, you have it right?

 

[Boxhead_31]

The so-called smoking gun text (which is a re-hash of the interim report) is very much related to Bruce Francis' theories, who has written many times how ASADA fills gaps in evidence by presumptions and poetic license totally at odds with the very evidence it is referencing.

Can you please supply the section or sections of the interim report of which this is a rehash, so that the two can be compared? Or even the info that has been posted that leads you to believe that this is a rehashing

I have been searching for the interim report to compare the info but cannot find one to compare against the other

 

[toddkurnski]

Can you please supply the section or sections of the interim report of which this is a rehash, so that the two can be compared?

I have been searching for the interim report to compare the info but cannot find one to compare against the other

So many people are interested now Gigantor, please, at least the section you keep referencing.

 

[Gigantor]

Youve no evidence that the material is from the interim report.

I said it was a re-hash of the interim report.

I am saying we have heard versions of these various stories already.

More broadly, on many occasions in the interim report, ASADA simply presume Thymosin = Thymosin Beta 4, and on that basis, conclude from the evidence that TB4 was used/transported, or whatever, even if the documentation being referenced refers to Thymosin (or other similar name).
That alone is sufficient for people to wait and see what any of this means.

The interim report refers to an invoice from Alavi to Essendon for Hexarelin and "Peptide Thymosin" which is later offset by a credit note.

Is ASADA relying on that? We don't know, but if it is, that's pretty lame.

 

[Gigantor]

Can you please supply the section or sections of the interim report of which this is a rehash, so that the two can be compared? Or even the info that has been posted that leads you to believe that this is a rehashing

I have been searching for the interim report to compare the info but cannot find one to compare against the other

I have never had the full interim report.

At one stage Bruce Francis had a blog with large slabs of the interim report and associated evidence quoted.

It is no longer accessible, and unfortunately, I only have very small bits copied.