Bruce Francis

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Crankyhawk said:
You didn't read my post properly. I am saying it is POSSIBLE that the tribunal would not care about looking to individualise evidence because at the end of the day it's just the three panel members who have a free rein to justify whatever decision they feel is right.
Click to expand...

It is indeed possible, but considering that ASADA's opening arguments last 4-5 days (?) I think we can probably imagine that they rather boringly repeated very similar evidence 34 times. That would explain the time it took. 34 players at 30 minutes each is 2 days or more. Each player having a charge read against him.

Player A. On or about this date, did this, as supported by this. Here is his statement of interview. Here is where he says ABC and admits all these facts etc. Then Player B, then player C etc.

The fact that the AFLPA response took half a day suggests that is them who dealt with the collective. If the AFLPA was attempting to make a case that this player couldn't be guilty because he was absent that day, or this player couldn't be guilty because he got 1 injection not 6 etc - then their defence would have taken much much longer.

The simple time lines suggest that ASADA is making individual cases and the AFLPA is presenting a single group defence.
 
Albert Ross said:
It is indeed possible, but considering that ASADA's opening arguments last 4-5 days (?) I think we can probably imagine that they rather boringly repeated very similar evidence 34 times. That would explain the time it took. 34 players at 30 minutes each is 2 days or more. Each player having a charge read against him.

Player A. On or about this date, did this, as supported by this. Here is his statement of interview. Here is where he says ABC and admits all these facts etc. Then Player B, then player C etc.

The fact that the AFLPA response took half a day suggests that is them who dealt with the collective. If the AFLPA was attempting to make a case that this player couldn't be guilty because he was absent that day, or this player couldn't be guilty because he got 1 injection not 6 etc - then their defence would have taken much much longer.

The simple time lines suggest that ASADA is making individual cases and the AFLPA is presenting a single group defence.
Click to expand...
a good start for the defense would be to show that the thymosin they signed for was xxxx, here is the proof.
That would put 1 massive dint into ASADA's case if they are relying on the consents.
 
Gigantor said:
In case you haven't been following the discussion, allow me to do you the courteousy of recapitulating.

An eminent member of the majority referenced the case in which a semi-professional footballer was caught red handed ordering and receiving a prohibited substance, and tried to draw a parallel between that case and the evidence used, and the fact that 34 players signed so-called consent forms.

I merely pointed out that there is an absolute abyss between the standard of evidence used in that case vis-à-vis the so-called consent forms.

In the case referenced above, the alleged offender:

1. ordered a prohibited substance (name and address on order form)

2. used his credit card to pay for it (credit card in name of alleged offender)

3. was expecting delivery of the package addressed to him and containing the prohibited substance (apprehended as evidence); and to cap it all off

4. he admitted to all of the above.

I am humbly stating the opinion that the so-called consent forms, in terms of standard of evidence, are a zillion miles away from the standard of evidence collected in the above case.
Click to expand...
Seriously, when is this considered spam?
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Gigantor said:
Allow me to remind you that the present discussion relates to two crackpot theories being espoused by eminent members of the majority (with a good deal of support I might add):

Theory 1:
The MRC Web Administrator uses the word "Thymosin" to link to a product they market to the general public called "Thymosin Beta 4", therefore all 34 players must have used TB4.

Theory 2:
34 players signed so-called consent forms which happen to refer to the word "Thymosin", therefore all 34 players must have used Thymosin Beta 4.

Further to that, the majority are of the view that the signing of the consent forms is equivalent to the standard of evidence used in a recent non-presence case in which the alleged offender:
1. ordered a prohibited substance (name and address on order form)

2. used his credit card to pay for it (credit card in name of alleged offender)

3. was expecting delivery of the package addressed to him and containing the prohibited substance (apprehended as evidence; and to cap it all off

4. he admitted to all of the above.

Needless to say, I disagree.
Click to expand...

Allow me to remind you that everyone on here thinks you are a deluded moron!! :eek:
 
Last edited:
Gigantor said:
I'll repeat the words I have used for over 12 months now: ASADA does not have direct evidence of any player having used TB4 (let alone all 34).

I have to keep reminding people: there are 34 players in the dock.

ASADA must provide evidence to the tribunal that each and everyonee of the 34 players used TB4.

I am quite confident that they will fail to prove that all 34 players used TB4.
Click to expand...

Just on that. I ask the community where do we think ASADA pulled the number 34 from? Is it the number of people who signed the consent form?
...or is it the number of players who stated they got injected in a room at Windy Hill on the day Dank and the tracked TB4 (Thymosin) arrived onsite with Dank?
Perhaps a spread sheet or a schedule for the Thymosin (TB4) injections was uncovered?

If the 34 players all got injections the day TB4 turned up and hadn't had injections in the days prior would this be enough evidence? Placed next to a player confession and Dank admitting to not knowing TB4 was S2 at the time in an interview with a journo it surely must me enough.

Can't believe the general public will accept the tribunal giving the players the "all clear" if all this is the case.
 
I hope Bruce is as active on the West Germany swimming, China gymnasts and Russian weightlifters boards.
Sorry, but the whole purpose of the WADA code is to keep sport clean, not encourage systematic doping schemes where records are not kept (destroyed). I feel sorry for the players if they get suspended but we can't have sporting organisations crossing the line when it comes to drugs.
 
Bruce still doesn't get it. The history of sport has been riddled with instances where the pharmacists have been one step ahead of the drug testers. The only way to prevent this is to put the onus on the sportsperson or sporting club to satisfactorily document every drug that is administered. "Unknown substances" administered in a systemic way can't be tolerated, and player ignorance is no excuse.

Bruce, all we are asking is that the sport is played on a level playing field. In essence you are saying that the players are innocent because of the lack of satisfactory recording of the drugs administered by those associated with the EFC. Really Bruce?
 
THE KEY QUESTION FOR YOU AND THE TRIBUNAL MEMBERS IS IF WE HYPOTHETICALLY ACCEPT ASADA’S CLAIM ONE OF THE UNKNOWN AMINO ACIDS WAS THYMOSIN BETA-4, how can anyone, including the tribunal members and the media, know with any confidence which player received Thymosin Beta-4 and which received a different amino acid.

LOL Hypothetically accept.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

That's the stupidest thing I've read during the entire drug taking debacle.
 
5 Players said they received Thymosin. Obviously they are unreliable and (weaken BF's arguments) therefore are irrelevant.

Alavi told Chip he didn't know what he compound therefore how can ASADA know-Maybe it is because there is evidence gathered after the IR.
 
Armchair Critic said:
THE KEY QUESTION FOR YOU AND THE TRIBUNAL MEMBERS IS IF WE HYPOTHETICALLY ACCEPT ASADA’S CLAIM ONE OF THE UNKNOWN AMINO ACIDS WAS THYMOSIN BETA-4, how can anyone, including the tribunal members and the media, know with any confidence which player received Thymosin Beta-4 and which received a different amino acid.

LOL Hypothetically accept.
Click to expand...


Where have I heard this 3,500 times before?
 
Dr Hooper administered an unknown amino acid purchased in the United States. He looked at the label and implied Thymosin Beta-4 was not one of the ingredients listed on the label.

WTF does that mean? Great evidence there, trust the evidence of a doctor that doesn't know what he injected, but implied that the banned substance was not included. Way to enhance your credibility 'Mr Francis'.
 
I can’t accept that anyone would convict innocent players just to ensure you caught a guilty player. Our legal system has never operated that way and hopefully never will.

I agree with this sentiment. Unless the tribunal is sure that each and everyone of the 34 players took TB4, they should not all be pronounced guilty just to make sure they have caught the guilty party. Mr Francis is quite correct that our legal system has never worked that way.

Unless ASADA can identify the specific players who used TB4 (with actual evidence rather than guesswork), then they must all be acquitted.
 
Apex Predators said:
Dr Hooper administered an unknown amino acid purchased in the United States. He looked at the label and implied Thymosin Beta-4 was not one of the ingredients listed on the label.

WTF does that mean? Great evidence there, trust the evidence of a doctor that doesn't know what he injected, but implied that the banned substance was not included. Way to enhance your credibility 'Mr Francis'.
Click to expand...

ASADA's own evidence shows Dr Hooper stating that it was a 'multi vitamin amino acid mix'. He stated that there was nothing on the labelling to suggest that it was TB4.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top