Bruce Francis

[Percel]

Is this Bruce Francis the guy that played 3 Tests for Oz and helped Kerry Packer sign up players and other stuff for World Series Cricket??

What makes his opinion any more relevant than anyone else's?

To his defence, he apparently has an interim report (one finger typed from a copy he since destroyed)

Also in his defence, he is angrier than a wolverine, and fed on Kerry Packers corpse.

 

[yaco55]

The Essendon case is unprecedented in size and scale. Has a case of this size happened in the past? This isn't like someone missing a doping test or the Saad case which are pretty much cut and dried. This is a case with an enormous amount of documentation with the people being investigated have large legal teams and deep pockets and with investigators having to travel to foreign countries to try and unravel this mess.

Who says that it is the government interfering in the case rather than ASADA / the government asking for someone who is experienced in dealing with large, complex legal cases to run the show? I think it is pertinent that someone with a great deal of experience in this size of investigation is making sure it is running smoothly. Governments and ministers stick their beaks into everything, especially when the bills start mounting up.

This doesn't mean that ASADA has buckled under pressure or are concocting a completely fabricated case against Essendon.

You have given a reasonable response - Still doesn't answer the question - Has the Government previously employed a judge to review evidence ? You write about the Governments concern with ASADA's expenditure - Since the Government intervened ASADA's expenditure has skyrocketed. How strange.

 

[yaco55]

Any government interference was aimed at saving the players and making certain officials take the hit. One in particular who refused. Suggestions that they were out to get EFC for no good reason are just absurd.

You dont get it - The Government is not out to get EFC - They are out to get the AFL - EFC is collateral damage.

 

[yaco55]

But that was the Liberals. You previously said only the ALP interfered. Has ASADA ever had a case of this magnitude?

Do you read and absorb posts ? I posted in March/April 2014 that the appointment of Justice Downes was political interference - I have argued this case since - It seems like you may be out of your depth.

 

[yaco55]

Back to where no-one will question his views, instead they will lap it up as gospel.

BB will have a good vibe today

Bruce is hardly flavor of the month on BB - There are a number who question his analysis of events - I doubt that Bruce will enjoy a long shelf life on BB.

 

[yaco55]

Yes, I agree. It is telling us that none of those people want to commit themselves on paper where their words can be subject to external scrutiny.

Alavi, for example, has claimed in a Chip Legrand article that ASADA wanted him to sign a statement with errors in it but he refuses to attend the tribunal to give the real story. The tribunal where the defence at least will give him the opportunity to present the 'real' facts. He also won't go on record with his allegations against ASADA. ie no signed statement. no stat dec nothing. All of ASADA's evidence presented at the tribunal is subject to scrutiny. None of Alavi's or Charter's allegations can be subject to scrutiny because they refuse to commit themselves. That tells me they are afraid of their version of the truth.

I have had to give evidence is the past and the prosecutors wanted changes to my statements. Where it was just to clarify a point I agreed to those changes. Sometimes they wanted to make changes that were incorrect and I refused. The changes were not being asked for any improper purpose but because it was a technical issue that they did not understand well enough but I signed the statements that I was prepared to sign. Charter and Alavi all have the same opportunity. They can sign their own statements with what they are happy to submit but then they will be accountable for what they have said......and it appears they are doing all they can to avoid that. (I have no idea about Hobson)

The point is that we can suggest that Alavi and Charter are unreliable witnesses. As I posted previouslt, there are at least another 2 or 3 Essendon staffers who refused to sign ASADA statements - This never bodes well for an investigation.

 

[imperial_oz]

The point is that we can suggest that Alavi and Charter are unreliable witnesses. As I posted previouslt, there are at least another 2 or 3 Essendon staffers who refused to sign ASADA statements - This never bodes well for an investigation.

Alavi and Charter are dodgy as all heck. Personally I would take anything they said with a grain of salt and would be looking for supporting evidence from another source before putting a lot of faith in what they have to say.

Who are these 2 or 3 Essendon staffers? Why won't they sign ASADA statements? What aspect of this investigation do they have knowledge?

You say it doesn't bode well for an investigation and I agree. I would also point out it doesn't bode well for an organisation that states it wants the truth to be known so their name will be cleared to have staff members who refuse to provide statements. One could be persuaded to think they have something to hide.

 

[peppy la pew]

Bruce is hardly flavor of the month on BB - There are a number who question his analysis of events - I doubt that Bruce will enjoy a long shelf life on BB.

Fair enough, I will admit I have never been there

 

[imperial_oz]

Do you read and absorb posts ? I posted in March/April 2014 that the appointment of Justice Downes was political interference - I have argued this case since - It seems like you may be out of your depth.

I disagree with strongly here.

The appointment of an acknowledged expert to review the conduct of a government body in a high profile investigation is actually quite common and a very good thing for all concerned. Essendon have consistently attacked ASADA amid allegations of improper conduct and the appointment of an independent person is something that should be welcomed by Essendon supporters.

You would have an argument if the purpose of appointing Downes was to destroy or fabricate evidence to achieve a political purpose. Clearly that is not the case. The appointment was made a different political party as a review. There was no political reason to push a particular result as a failed investigation could be used to embarrass the last government. That didn't happen.

Downes wasn't appointed to run the investigation, he was appointed to conduct a review.

The allegation of political interference does not survive scrutiny.

 

[BlueWorld]

Do you read and absorb posts ? I posted in March/April 2014 that the appointment of Justice Downes was political interference - I have argued this case since - It seems like you may be out of your depth.

No need to act that way. You posted that Bruce thought there was political interference from the ALP but not the LP. If you wish to post alternate theories then please post supporting evidence otherwise you would appear to be making stuff up to suit your obvious delusion that EFC did nothing wrong and they were set up by the government. Truly ridiculous.

 

[BlueWorld]

You dont get it - The Government is not out to get EFC - They are out to get the AFL - EFC is collateral damage.

Ridiculous. Post some supporting evidence or stop making up stupid delusions that it is everyone's fault but EFC's.

 

[yaco55]

Alavi and Charter are dodgy as all heck. Personally I would take anything they said with a grain of salt and would be looking for supporting evidence from another source before putting a lot of faith in what they have to say.

Who are these 2 or 3 Essendon staffers? Why won't they sign ASADA statements? What aspect of this investigation do they have knowledge?

You say it doesn't bode well for an investigation and I agree. I would also point out it doesn't bode well for an organisation that states it wants the truth to be known so their name will be cleared to have staff members who refuse to provide statements. One could be persuaded to think they have something to hide.

One staff member is Suki Hobson - It's on public record that in her mind the ASADA statement was not a true refection of her interview - People usually refuse to sign staements because they are wrong - It's not a decision taken lightly.

 

[yaco55]

Fair enough, I will admit I have never been there

Looks like Bruce has disappeared from BB - Famous last words.

 

[yaco55]

No need to act that way. You posted that Bruce thought there was political interference from the ALP but not the LP. If you wish to post alternate theories then please post supporting evidence otherwise you would appear to be making stuff up to suit your obvious delusion that EFC did nothing wrong and they were set up by the government. Truly ridiculous.

My posts are not about any delusions that EFC did nothing wrong - MY POST CLEARLY ASKS why did the Federal Government get Justice Downes to review ASADA's case? And remember that Justice Downes reviewed ASADA's case file for Essendon and Cronulla. So this is not a solely Essendon situation.

I have not come up with a satisfactory answer for this intervention. The point about Bruce is that his internal biases will allow him to say that the ALP Government interfered in the process, but his internal biases will not countenance that The Liberal Government could do the same.

Strange how earlier, I suggested that Bruce may have outlived his stay on BB, presto a few hours later his thread has disappeared. I think, I have some idea of what I talk about !

 

[Bombfire]

My posts are not about any delusions that EFC did nothing wrong - MY POST CLEARLY ASKS why did the Federal Government get Justice Downes to review ASADA's case? And remember that Justice Downes reviewed ASADA's case file for Essendon and Cronulla. So this is not a solely Essendon situation.

I have not come up with a satisfactory answer for this intervention. The point about Bruce is that his internal biases will allow him to say that the ALP Government interfered in the process, but his internal biases will not countenance that The Liberal Government could do the same.

Strange how earlier, I suggested that Bruce may have outlived his stay on BB, presto a few hours later his thread has disappeared. I think, I have some idea of what I talk about !

The thread was deleted because of possible disclosure of confidential information- nothing to do with bias on Bruce's behalf.

 

[Spongebob]

My posts are not about any delusions that EFC did nothing wrong - MY POST CLEARLY ASKS why did the Federal Government get Justice Downes to review ASADA's case? And remember that Justice Downes reviewed ASADA's case file for Essendon and Cronulla. So this is not a solely Essendon situation.

I have not come up with a satisfactory answer for this intervention. The point about Bruce is that his internal biases will allow him to say that the ALP Government interfered in the process, but his internal biases will not countenance that The Liberal Government could do the same.

Strange how earlier, I suggested that Bruce may have outlived his stay on BB, presto a few hours later his thread has disappeared. I think, I have some idea of what I talk about !

It was reported, i think in the fed court and elsewhere, that Andruska requested the appointment of a senior legal figure to review the cases not the minister just installing someone.

 

[speedytiger]

You have given a reasonable response - Still doesn't answer the question - Has the Government previously employed a judge to review evidence ? You write about the Governments concern with ASADA's expenditure - Since the Government intervened ASADA's expenditure has skyrocketed. How strange.

Has ASADA ever come up against such a litigious opponent?

 

[Dave]

BF has released a very detailed account of player evidence on BB this morning.

I'm reluctant to repeat it here for privacy reasons.

However, his point is that ASADA is fabricating evidence.

He argues that ASADA puts player A in the yes column for taking drug B if they said in their interview when asked if taking that drug that they "were not 100% sure".

BF obviously does not understand the strict liability rules that govern drugs in sport.

I'd say you obviously don't understand the difference between a table titled "Player use as suspected by ASADA" and "Admitted use of substances by Players and Officials".

ASADA may well believe players used the substances as outlined in BF's post, but compiling them in a table with a title that alleges the players have admitted to using the substances is disingenuous at best and fraudulent at worst.

 

[DonsRule]

It was reported, i think in the fed court and elsewhere, that Andruska requested the appointment of a senior legal figure to review the cases not the minister just installing someone.

Happy to be proven wrong here, but anything I've seen has said it was just an appointment by Dutton

 

[Ned_Flanders]

Has ASADA ever come up against such a litigious opponent?

So a brief should only be reviewed like that if someone is expected to challenge it?

 

[yaco55]

The thread was deleted because of possible disclosure of confidential information- nothing to do with bias on Bruce's behalf.

My post about Bruce and his biases had nothing to do with Bruce's thread being removed from BB. How could you make that inference ?

 

[yaco55]

It was reported, i think in the fed court and elsewhere, that Andruska requested the appointment of a senior legal figure to review the cases not the minister just installing someone.

So ASADA's CEO requested the appointment of Justice Downes - That's at odds with everything that I've read - It's hard to understand any CEO wanting outside interference - Could this be a first !

 

[imperial_oz]

One staff member is Suki Hobson - It's on public record that in her mind the ASADA statement was not a true refection of her interview - People usually refuse to sign staements because they are wrong - It's not a decision taken lightly.

Good then. She can get a statement drafted to her satisfaction and sign that.

Did you ever consider that maybe she doesn't want to sign something that was damaging to the club? People usually refuse to sign statements that contain stuff they don't like rather than make corrections and sign that.

 

[yaco55]

Has ASADA ever come up against such a litigious opponent?

Many times - Athletes that have financial support tend to be litigious - Many cases end up in CASA and that costs money.

 

[yaco55]

Good then. She can get a statement drafted to her satisfaction and sign that.

Did you ever consider that maybe she doesn't want to sign something that was damaging to the club? People usually refuse to sign statements that contain stuff they don't like rather than make corrections and sign that.

This is the same person who wouldn't go along with Sarak Lukin's spin. Maybe ASADA refuses to change the statement.