Bruce Francis

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Echols said:
Interesting isn't it. That's a different perspective to an Essendon poster who has Pm'd me recently and gone into detail about their concerns with who is writing what and why.

They seem quite concerned that Francis is a plant.

I was just asking the question, as I find it a little too hard to believe that he's just up and decided to fight city hall.
Click to expand...

Bruce has been writing on this for about 6 months.

BTW, according to the article in The Australian today, he was 100% right about Alavi's testimony.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Jedi Anderson said:
Things are really heating up on the HTB now. You are clearly a plurisation troll of the worst kind. Good thing this is on the net and not in person.

(We are both right): http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus

Tell you what though - I'm into Platypodes. Gonna start using it.
Click to expand...

But why is the plural of moose not meese (as in goose and geese)?
 
Max Headroom said:
My first (and possibly last) post. I have been following these pages for many months, but did not feel as though I knew enough to comment knowledgeably, and so I haven't.

But I had a desperate desire to find out what really went on, and this I thought was the best place to look.

I didn't want a purely Essendon view, I wanted an adult debate.

I am deeply disappointed in the treatment of Bruce Francis, who had access to more information than probably any of us. Certainly, his emotive "Letter to the Editor" style is polarising and therefore would raise hackles, but he has access to and has thoroughly analysed arguably more information than any of us and I would have liked him to be able to answer some probing questions and defend his opinions.

As an aside, there is a reason why scientific papers are never written in the first person, and it is because you must only discuss the facts, and provide logical reasoning and data without the addition of emotional or personal language to back up any conclusions. I think Bruce would have gained better reception generally if he had been able to avoid the emotive language. I personally was wary of taking his conclusions at face value, as deeply satisfying as they were to read at times.

Hearing about his personal situation has helped me understand why he has come to be so invested in this despite his non-interest in AFL previously.

Which is why I am so PISSED at the behaviour of some of the posters on this board who have attacked his motivations and Chelseacarlton contributed nothing to the debate but simply posted rude comments about his test career. (I consider it highly unlikely that you ever represented your country in anything, and even if you had you should have the personal experience to respect the fact that he did.)

It was only a few weeks ago that an Essendon BF poster tragically committed suicide. Many sympathetic posts came from supporters of all stripes. People talked about the need for looking out for others.

Bruce himself said he was not suicidal, but he hopes every day not to wake up, and the task of analysing the interim report gave him a reason to get out of bed after 12 months. And look how he was treated! This forum is a zoo full of monkeys throwing s**t at each other. In this case it is the rabid "Essendon is guilty on all counts" crew (aka foam royalty) but some Essendon supporters have also been culpable in the past.

He has the courage to post under his own name and wrote some deeply personal stuff only to be derided, followed up by indifference, sarcasm and a small minded troll post. His personal post about caring for his terminally ill parents was partially in response to a jibe about patients he thought was aimed at him. I wouldn't bother posting again here if I was him either.

With regard to the two "lies" some claimed that they caught him out on:

Firstly I perfectly understand why Bruce may have been inconsistent when talking about whether he spoke to or emailed his source, as he doesn't want to reveal her (or him). In fact I find it a bit reassuring that he isn't very good at covering his tracks, he isn't a practiced liar.

Secondly the development with Alavi who according to a conversation with one ASADA investigator (I too thought the wording "one" slightly odd) believed he got TB4 from Charter, but according to his interview with Chip was not exactly sure what it was. This last was all that was referenced by Bruce and the ASADA revelation is I believe a relatively new development that he may not have been aware of. He posted previously composed material I have seen before, I don't believe he was lying. I am surprised nobody has considered Alavi may have had some legal advice prior to talking to Chip, not unlike the Essendon players. i.e. tell the truth, but do not speculate - only say what you know to be true. He may have been told and believed it was TB4 (which it looks like it was, not that it proves much yet in my opinion), but he can truthfully say he didn't "know".

We are the poorer without him and I despair at the quality of this debate.
Click to expand...
I had no problem with Bruce's motivation or style. Nor do I have a problem with how most posters responded to him. This is an internet forum, after all.

I did, however, have a problem with his moral compass - his claim that an organisational chart excuses moral turpitude. This is merely a rehash of the Nuremberg defence.
 
Gigantor said:
Thursday 31 January 2013: the ACC and ASADA briefed AFL chief executive, Andrew Demetriou, deputy chief executive, Gillon McLachlan, and manager – integrity services, Brett Clothier on the findings of Project Aperio. During the meeting McLachlan enquired “Is it Essendon?” The ACC’s Paul Jevtovic said: “Say no more.” A briefing document stated that Essendon FC was under suspicion. A discussion then took place about an investigation into Essendon.



Friday 1 February 2013:Clothier spoke to ASADA chief executive, Ms Aurora Andruska about conducting a joint investigation. Clothier pointed out that the AFL rules compelled the players to cooperate under threat of sanction whereas ASADA did not have that power.
(BF)
Click to expand...

Gigantor said:
Friday 1 February 2013: Demetriou and Evans had a number of discussions. Although Demetriou knew it was against the law to tell anyone, evidence suggests he told David Evans about his briefing. I assume Demetriou believed if Essendon dobbed itself in, it would reduce the penalty and the AFL and Essendon would look more responsible and suffer less ridicule in the media. I believe Hird’s version of what happened for a number of reasons. In particular, because Hird had nothing to gain. In fact, he had a lot to lose. As soon as Hird told ASADA that Demetriou told Evans to self-report, Essendon lost any chance of having the penalties reduced if found guilty.

(BF)
Click to expand...

The bolder parts are part of the reason I can't take Bruce seriously and his work is full of misinterpretations of fact.

As a former employee of the acc and who was there the day AD and other CEOs from other sports turned up for their briefing I have a very good understanding of the process.

The briefing was not in any way secret or held at a classified level. It was held in the conference room and was a normal meeting. The conclusions being discussed by jevtovic were as a result of examination whose content specifically cannot be be shared. The outcome though, can. Eg 'Your sport has raised our attention..

That Jevotovic never confirmed it was Essendon clarifies that the content of examinations was not shared, just the outcome.

There is nothing confidential about that and AD is allowed to draw his own conclusions about that shared outcome and then call Evans and talk to him about it. He is not breaking the law by telling people about his briefing, indeed he and the other CEO's of major sports were being given a heads up as they should. He is allowed to try and apply damage control to what he suspected was coming. There's a reason the ACC published a statement saying that AD had done nothing wrong... because he hadn't. Despite this people keep pushing the line.

The quotes above show to me that the articles written are poorly researched and use selective conclusions to bias the reader...and they're full of such examples. He comes across as an enthusiastic amateur.
 
Jedi Anderson said:
Things are really heating up on the HTB now. You are clearly a plurisation troll of the worst kind. Good thing this is on the net and not in person.

(We are both right): http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platypus

Tell you what though - I'm into Platypodes. Gonna start using it.
Click to expand...

To quote from The Australian Platypus Conservancy:

Given that the word platypus is derived from Greek, its plural form should (strictly speaking) be platypodes and definitely not platypi (which would be valid only if platypus were derived from Latin). However, given that platypus has now entered the English language as the common name for the species, the accepted plural is either platypuses or platypus.​

Also didn't know that there is no collective noun for platypuses or word for a juvenile platypus :)
 
Tazmania said:
The bolder parts are part of the reason I can't take Bruce seriously and his work is full of misinterpretations of fact.

As a former employee of the acc and who was there the day AD and other CEOs from other sports turned up for their briefing I have a very good understanding of the process.

The briefing was not in any way secret or held at a classified level. It was held in the conference room and was a normal meeting. The conclusions being discussed by jevtovic were as a result of examination whose content specifically cannot be be shared. The outcome though, can. Eg 'Your sport has raised our attention..

That Jevotovic never confirmed it was Essendon clarifies that the content of examinations was not shared, just the outcome.

There is nothing confidential about that and AD is allowed to draw his own conclusions about that shared outcome and then call Evans and talk to him about it. He is not breaking the law by telling people about his briefing, indeed he and the other CEO's of major sports were being given a heads up as they should. He is allowed to try and apply damage control to what he suspected was coming. There's a reason the ACC published a statement saying that AD had done nothing wrong... because he hadn't. Despite this people keep pushing the line.

The quotes above show to me that the articles written are poorly researched and use selective conclusions to bias the reader...and they're full of such examples. He comes across as an enthusiastic amateur.
Click to expand...
Interesting. What if the damage control means that all evidence of a major doping program is destroyed so that an antidoping body cannot prosecute? Is that the desired outcome? If so, it seems very strange.
Would love you to clarify. Thanks.
 
tigerwill said:
If their concerns were genuine, why wasn't the Board told it was over the supplements program?
Click to expand...
I've heard from a couple of sources that there was some real friction between Robinson and Hird/coaches because the coaching staff were altering the tailored training programs Robinson had in place for each of the players. The word I heard was that Robinson believed these changes exacerbated the spate of soft tissue injuries Essendon experienced during the 2012 season and that it was this stuff that lead to Robinson being on the outer with Hird.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

fabulousphil said:
or perhpas you cam just have a look at it seriously and then tell me whats wrong with it, is it in any way unreasonable


Dear Jon / Guys

I have some incredibly bad news for you and your colleagues at the Age. I am not sure anyone at Fairfax Media genuinely believes in anything. However, for the sake of this argument, I shall assume Fairfax Media believes Dank’s alleged comment to Nick McKenzie that he gave the Essendon players Thymosin Beta-4 is the smoking gun that will lead to the players being convicted. Fairfax Media writers have pushed this line so often I have been forced to reach for the bucket. I have had enough and it’s time Fairfax Media was exposed for its duplicity and breaches of the various journalists’ codes.

Item (The Age – 24 August 2013 excerpts from Nick McKenzie’s interview in April with Steve Dank) 1:

NM: Thymosin Beta 4 – why was that used in Essendon players given there is an opinion from a doctor or researcher and other scientists that its effects are uncertain? (note: The AFL believes it has a strong circumstantial case that TB-4 was used on players.)


SD: That's not totally true Nick because, with all due respect, right, there is good data – very good data – that supports Thymosin Beta 4 in the immune system [my emphasis].


NM: OK, why give it to all Essendon players if only some of them had colds and flu? [my emphasis]


SD: Well, the point is that there is a degree of immunosuppression after a game or a hard training week, right. Often times the ability to back up next week is decreased by the hit on the immune system. [my emphasis].


NM: Did you see any indications in Essendon players that it actually helped them?


SD: Well apart from the fact they won 11 out of their first 14, right, and we did regular bloods [blood tests] . . . at the end of the day I was very happy with the science, I was very happy after working a long time in football, right, that there are periods of malaise which are possibly related to sub-clinical flus and sub-clinical colds, right, which can affect performance.” [my emphasis]


My Comment:


1. McKenzie made the initial statement that Dank used Thymosin Beta-4. It was a bit like “have you stopped beating your wife”.


2. Dank inadvertently ran with the word Thymosin Beta-4, which McKenzie had planted in his head.


3. It was obvious to all but the brain-dead, or mischievous, people at the Age, that Dank was talking about Alpha 1 or Thymomodulin. Dank went to great lengths explaining that the substance he used helped the immune system. Thymosin Alpha 1 and Thymomodulin are used to help the immune system. Thymosin Beta-4 suppresses the immune system in order to help speed tissue injury recover. Although Dank mentioned Thymosin Beta-4, he clearly wasn’t talking about Thymosin Beta-4.


BUT THERE IS MORE, MUCH MORE TO DISCREDIT THE AGE:



On 11 April 2013, Nick McKenzie and Richard Baker, said, "Records of Hird and Dank's dealing reveal the coach knew specific details about the supplementation regime, including the intravenous administration of vitamins and injections into the stomach or oral administration of other supplements, includingAN IMMUNE-BOOSTER KNOWN AS THYMOSIN[my emphasis].


These two clowns went on to say: "When asked why Thymosin peptides were given to players as an immune system booster [my emphasis] when there is debate about their effectiveness, Dank said: 'Well, apart from the fact that we won 11 out of our first 14 games ... at the end of the day, I was very happy with the science."


For those at the Age who have no understanding of the benefits of each substance, let's simplify what Baker and McKenzie have said:


1. There are records of Essendon using the immune-boosting Thymosin [my emphasis]. Guess what? The immune-boosting Thymosin is Thymosin Alpha 1 and Thymomodulin.


2. Dank admits to using the immune-boosting Thymosin on the Essendon players.


Given this amazing admission by Baker and McKenzie, one naturally wants to know the consequences of this revelation:


1. Baker and McKenzie, and many others from the Age, who have made a big deal about Dank saying he gave the players Thymosin Beta-4, all should be hauled before the Australian Journalists Council for unbalanced reporting. Every time an Age journalist referred to Dank saying Thymosin Beta-4 they should have included details of his comment on 11 April 2013. Baker and McKenzie made a big deal of what was obviously an inadvertent slip-of-the-tongue, but have deliberately ignored that there were not only records of the players being administered AN IMMUNE-BOOSTER KNOWN AS THYMOSINbut they quoted Dank as saying he used the immune-boosting variety.


2. At the risk of being vulgar, ASADA can shove Baker and McKenzie's smoking gun where the sun doesn't shine. Baker and McKenzie have provided compelling evidence that the players were administered the immune-boosting Thymomodulin.


Sadly, there is more to the shenanigans at the Age.


In a column on December 16, 2013, Baker and McKenzie said:


"On June 15, 2012, Essendon's then high-performance boss Dean Robinson emailed Hird, senior assistant coach Mark Thompson, football chief Danny Corcoran, doctor Bruce Reid and other senior officials a document titled Supplements till GF 2012.


"One of the drugs to be injected fortnightly two days before a game was the anti-dementia drug Cerebrolysin.


The Interim Report said "On 15 June 2012, Robinson emailed Dr Reid a list of supplements to be administered between the mid-year bye and the 2012 Grand Final which included Thymomodulin ... and Cerebrolysin."


Gee, I wonder why Baker and McKenzie didn't mention that the 15 June 2012 email had a schedule for administering Thymomodulin? It is amazing that vital information was left out. A bit like ASADA deliberately leaving out Jobe Watson’s evidence from the Interim Report that he was administered Thymomodulin.


Jon, please do me a favour, stop pushing the garbage about Dank admitting he used Thymosin Beta-4. And please tell your mates the Age has been caught out again. Baker and McKenzie have stuffed up – again


Bruce Francis

Or perhaps you can just accuse me of hanging off someones freckle. :D
Click to expand...

shark.jpg
 
Ancient Tiger said:
Interesting. What if the damage control means that all evidence of a major doping program is destroyed so that an antidoping body cannot prosecute? Is that the desired outcome? If so, it seems very strange.
Would love you to clarify. Thanks.
Click to expand...
Personally I wouldn't have gone public with it for exactly those reasons but it was a decision made anyway and I wasn't privy to the reasons.
 
Guys

As you know I am almost an ‘atheist’. Apart from Tony Nolan QC, Chip Le Grand, Tracey Holmes, Alan Jones and Graham Cornes, I have had no faith in the media or any of the legal participants including Justice Middleton, Garry Downes, Burnside, Grace, Hargreaves, Dillon, Hardie or anyone on ASADA’s team from the janitor up to the hopelessly out of their depth CEOs.

I have forced fed you like little babies examples of ASADA changing a witnesses’ evidence; omitting evidence; fabricating evidence; lying; accepting evidence from a key witnesses, which the investigators knew was wrong, etcetera

Now we have today’s debacle where Chip Le Grand has quoted Nima Alavi saying that ASADA tried to persuade him to sign an affidavit which they knew was false.

If there is an ounce of decency in any of you, you should be demanding that your editors write a front page story insisting the case be dismissed immediately.

I know enough about the law that perjury is a gaolable offence. Hopefully, trying to persuade someone to knowingly commit perjury carries the same penalty.

Bruce Francis
 
Dan Cooper said:
Guys

As you know I am almost an ‘atheist’. Apart from Tony Nolan QC, Chip Le Grand, Tracey Holmes, Alan Jones and Graham Cornes, I have had no faith in the media or any of the legal participants including Justice Middleton, Garry Downes, Burnside, Grace, Hargreaves, Dillon, Hardie or anyone on ASADA’s team from the janitor up to the hopelessly out of their depth CEOs.

I have forced fed you like little babies examples of ASADA changing a witnesses’ evidence; omitting evidence; fabricating evidence; lying; accepting evidence from a key witnesses, which the investigators knew was wrong, etcetera

Now we have today’s debacle where Chip Le Grand has quoted Nima Alavi saying that ASADA tried to persuade him to sign an affidavit which they knew was false.

If there is an ounce of decency in any of you, you should be demanding that your editors write a front page story insisting the case be dismissed immediately.

I know enough about the law that perjury is a gaolable offence. Hopefully, trying to persuade someone to knowingly commit perjury carries the same penalty.

Bruce Francis
Click to expand...

I miss Bruce, thanks for filling that hole.
 
Dan Cooper said:
Guys

As you know I am almost an ‘atheist’. Apart from Tony Nolan QC, Chip Le Grand, Tracey Holmes, Alan Jones and Graham Cornes, I have had no faith in the media or any of the legal participants including Justice Middleton, Garry Downes, Burnside, Grace, Hargreaves, Dillon, Hardie or anyone on ASADA’s team from the janitor up to the hopelessly out of their depth CEOs.

I have forced fed you like little babies examples of ASADA changing a witnesses’ evidence; omitting evidence; fabricating evidence; lying; accepting evidence from a key witnesses, which the investigators knew was wrong, etcetera

Now we have today’s debacle where Chip Le Grand has quoted Nima Alavi saying that ASADA tried to persuade him to sign an affidavit which they knew was false.

If there is an ounce of decency in any of you, you should be demanding that your editors write a front page story insisting the case be dismissed immediately.

I know enough about the law that perjury is a gaolable offence. Hopefully, trying to persuade someone to knowingly commit perjury carries the same penalty.

Bruce Francis
Click to expand...

Excellent stuff!

Now take your evidence to the ACC where it can be assessed, investigated and any person acting illegally or corruptly can be held to account.

Not sure why you would restrict your amazing evidence to a forum on BigFooty instead of giving it to somebody who could actually do something. Oh and I've not seen any of this evidence you've 'forced fed' (sic) so perhaps you could reduce your grandiose claims a little until you have actually produced something concrete.

Maybe your prejudices are starting to run away with you. Maybe.
 
Dan Cooper said:
Guys

As you know I am almost an ‘atheist’. Apart from Tony Nolan QC, Chip Le Grand, Tracey Holmes, Alan Jones and Graham Cornes, I have had no faith in the media or any of the legal participants including Justice Middleton, Garry Downes, Burnside, Grace, Hargreaves, Dillon, Hardie or anyone on ASADA’s team from the janitor up to the hopelessly out of their depth CEOs.

I have forced fed you like little babies examples of ASADA changing a witnesses’ evidence; omitting evidence; fabricating evidence; lying; accepting evidence from a key witnesses, which the investigators knew was wrong, etcetera

Now we have today’s debacle where Chip Le Grand has quoted Nima Alavi saying that ASADA tried to persuade him to sign an affidavit which they knew was false.

If there is an ounce of decency in any of you, you should be demanding that your editors write a front page story insisting the case be dismissed immediately.

I know enough about the law that perjury is a gaolable offence. Hopefully, trying to persuade someone to knowingly commit perjury carries the same penalty.

Bruce Francis
Click to expand...
Why didnt alvai say this under oath in court last week?
 
imperial_oz said:
Excellent stuff!

Now take your evidence to the ACC where it can be assessed, investigated and any person acting illegally or corruptly can be held to account.

Not sure why you would restrict your amazing evidence to a forum on BigFooty instead of giving it to somebody who could actually do something. Oh and I've not seen any of this evidence you've 'forced fed' (sic) so perhaps you could reduce your grandiose claims a little until you have actually produced something concrete.

Maybe your prejudices are starting to run away with you. Maybe.
Click to expand...
What a strange post. Not sure why you think Bruce only posts on Big Footy. Obviously havent been reading
 
Tazmania said:
The bolder parts are part of the reason I can't take Bruce seriously and his work is full of misinterpretations of fact.

As a former employee of the acc and who was there the day AD and other CEOs from other sports turned up for their briefing I have a very good understanding of the process.

The briefing was not in any way secret or held at a classified level. It was held in the conference room and was a normal meeting. The conclusions being discussed by jevtovic were as a result of examination whose content specifically cannot be be shared. The outcome though, can. Eg 'Your sport has raised our attention..

That Jevotovic never confirmed it was Essendon clarifies that the content of examinations was not shared, just the outcome.

There is nothing confidential about that and AD is allowed to draw his own conclusions about that shared outcome and then call Evans and talk to him about it. He is not breaking the law by telling people about his briefing, indeed he and the other CEO's of major sports were being given a heads up as they should. He is allowed to try and apply damage control to what he suspected was coming. There's a reason the ACC published a statement saying that AD had done nothing wrong... because he hadn't. Despite this people keep pushing the line.

The quotes above show to me that the articles written are poorly researched and use selective conclusions to bias the reader...and they're full of such examples. He comes across as an enthusiastic amateur.
Click to expand...
Bruce has said elsewhere he had no issues with AD tipping off Evans. Actually thought it ws the right thing to do to protect the competion iirc. His issue was AD lying about tipping David off (He Vlad did tip him off)
 
Satan said:
Why didnt alvai say this under oath in court last week?
Click to expand...

Because he is lllllllyyyyyiinnnng. About pretty much everything.

ASADA's case, regardless of its veracity, is primarily based on the testimony of a convicted criminal liar and a bog standard liar.
 
kfc1 said:
What a strange post. Not sure why you think Bruce only posts on Big Footy. Obviously havent been reading
Click to expand...

I'm also aware he posts on BB but thats hardly the point.

If he actually has evidence of criminality, this is not the place to put it. Nor is a media campaign to newspaper editors as he suggests. There are correct places to lodge that information and n one of them include the public arena.

I think Bruce has less 'evidence' than he has invective.
 
andrewb said:
Bruce has been writing on this for about 6 months.

BTW, according to the article in The Australian today, he was 100% right about Alavi's testimony.
Click to expand...

Really? How could Alavi do anything with the material if he didn't know what it was. That's right he couldn't...

He is not being truthful.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top