The Governor · @TheGovernorSM
20th Dec 2014 from TwitLonger
Bruce Francis's latest response
Bruce Francis recently published an excellent critique on @BomberBlitzCast and it is about time for the AFL propaganda machine (@Culbert_Report @GregBaum and @RitaPanahi ) to take notice:
I wonder if Greg Baum will be placing his head in the sand? My strong source told me you were in the wrong back in 1985 and you owe Bruce Francis the biggest apology of all time. But, your ego will get in the way as usual!!!
5.5.6. Fabrication of Responses to Admitted use of Substances by Players
During the player interviews, the players were asked what substances they were administered. Some players could recall the names of the substances, but others couldn’t. It appears those players who couldn’t recollect the names of the substances were then given the specific names of the substances and asked if they could recall being administered with them. Despite this very questionable prompting, a number of players were still not certain whether they had been administered the named substance. ASADA collated the responses and produced a distorted table titled, ‘Admitted use of substances by Players and Officials’
In creating the table in the manner they did, they destroyed the integrity of the investigation. Inexplicably, ASADA translated the following responses as a player admitting to having been administered the specific substance:
• “I did not use AOD-9604”;
• “I did not use”;
• “I’m not 100% sure”;
• “it’s a familiar name”;
• “may have been”;
• “not sure”;
• “it could have been that or it could have been”;
• “ringing a bell”;
• “couldn’t be exact if I was”;
• “I’ve definitely heard the word”;
• “that’s one of the reasons I didn’t take it as on the sticker it said ‘For medical research purposes only’”;
• “more than likely”;
• “couldn’t recall”.
• “Receiving one in the bum” or “a bit more painful” were recorded as a yes for Cerebrolysin even though the players never mentioned the word Cerebrolysin. In some instances, when a player couldn’t even be prompted, ASADA decided for itself that it was “more than likely”. These “more than likely” assessments by ASADA were recorded as the players having admitted to being administered the substance:
Examples of the distortion of the evidence to record admissions by the players:
i. xxxxx is asked about Thymosin, “Oh, I’m not sure it’s just a very familiar name to me yeah, I’m not sure if I did or not, but.” In the table this response is recorded as ‘yes’ in the Thymosin column.
ii. xxxxxxx is unsure if he took Tribulus, “I am not 100% sure.” This response by xxxxxx is recorded as ‘yes’ in the Tribulus column.
iii. xxxxxx recalls receiving cream from xxxxxx that he did not use, “I could see the amount of cream in there with the blue lid or – I think it might have been blue tack on top. Although xxxxxxxx also says he did not use AOD-9604 cream ASADA recorded him with a ‘yes’ in the AOD-9604 cream column.
iv. Xxxxxxxx declares he was not sure if he used Colostrum, “Yeah, I’m not 100% sure.” This response is recorded as ‘yes’ in the Colostrum column
v. xxxxx recalls that he may have been injected with Cerebrolysin, “It could have been that or it could have been Thymosin. I’m not 100 per cent sure on that.” This response was recorded as a ‘yes’ for both Cerebrolysin and Thymosin. It should not have been recorded as yes for either substance.
vi. xxxxxxx recalls that he may have been injected with Thymosin, “But, to me, Thymosin is ringing a bell.” “May have” and “ringing a bell” would not constitute a yes in a court of law. Thymosin was mentioned in the newspapers almost daily so it is no wonder it rang a bell. That is a long way from being 100 per cent certain he was administered Thymosin.
vii. Xxxxxxx also recalls being given an injection at HyperMED, “But we did receive one in the bum … and he said it was an Amino Acid”. This response was recorded correctly as a ‘yes’ for an unknown amino acid and inappropriately also as a ‘yes’ for Cerebrolysin. Irrespective of what the others may or may not have been administered, “One [injection] in the bum” hardly constitutes a certainty it was Cerebrolysin!
viii. xxxxxxxx recalls that he may have been injected with Thymosin, “But couldn’t be exact if I was, but I believe I did have a – that name certainly rings a bell, yep.” “May have”, couldn’t be exact” and “ringing a bell” didn’t entitle ASADA to record a ‘yes’ in the Thymosin column.
ix. xxxxxxx recalls receiving cream from xxxxxxx that he claims he did not use, “When I tore my quad later in the year I remember him giving like a syringe – it was like a thing and it had a little log on it and he said put it in the fridge for a day and rub it on your quad.” Although xxxxxx claims he didn’t use the cream, it was recorded as a ‘yes’ in the AOD-9604 column.
x. Xxxxxxxx recalls he may have been injected with Thymosin by xxxxx, “Thymosin rings a bell like. I’ve definitely heard the word but, you know, I wouldn’t be up to tell you if I was injected with it or not.” ASADA recorded xxxxxx uncertainty as a ‘yes’ in the Thymosin column.
xi. xxxxxxx received AOD-9604 cream from xxxxxx. “Yeah, that’s one of the reason I didn’t take it is on the sticker it said ‘For medical research purposes only’”. This response was recorded as a ‘yes’ in the AOD-9604 column.
xii. xxxxxxx recalls receiving an injection at HyperMED. He couldn’t name the substance. “That one was quite – I remember that being quite – a bit more painful. It only lasted for, you know, maybe a minute, and then you are fine again.” Although some other players who admitted, with prompting of the name, being administered Cerebrolysin experienced the injection in a similar way, ASADA was out of order in recording xxxxxx as admitting having been administered Cerebrolysin.
xiii. xxxxxxxx recalls receiving one injection [substance unknown] from xxxxxxx. “It was just one in the glute.” This response was recorded as xxxxxx admitting to having been injected with Cerebrolysin.
xiv. xxxxxxx recalls he may have used AOD-9604, “Yes, I may have – I’m not 100% sure but AOD now is a very familiar name but I’m really unsure if or I haven’t – taken that. This was recorded in the table as xxxxxxx admitting he was administered AOD-9604.
xv. xxxxxxxx also recalls receiving an injection from xxxxxxxxx that may have been AOD-9604, “I’d just assumed it was the same as the recovery thing that we had had the whole way along.” This is not an admission of having been administered AOD-9604, but is recorded as one.
xvi. xxxxxxx also recalls receiving an injection from xxxxxx that “may have been Thymosin”, “No, not the first time.” This was inappropriately recorded as an admission of having been administered Thymosin.
xvii. xxxxxxxxx recalls he received an Amino Acid injection, and “got an injection in the bum.” This is not an admission by xxxxxxx of having been administered Cerebrolysin, but is recorded as such.
xviii. xxxxxxxx recalls receiving an injection xxxxxxxx that may have been Cerebrolysin. “I’m going to give you a vitamin and as well to help in your recovery.” This is not an admission by xxxxxx of having been administered Cerebrolysin.
xix. xxxxxxxx claims he received two injections to his gluteal xxxxxx that were described as vitamins. xxxxxx also claims that xxxxx indicated that the injections might help him sleep. This response was not an admission by xxxxxx that he was administered Melanotan II, yet it was recorded as a ‘yes’ in the Melanotan II column.
xx. xxxxxxx recalls I got two from him on one occasion. ASADA was not entitled to make a judgment on behalf of the player along the lines of “one is likely to have been Cerebrolysin” and then record a ‘yes’ in the Cerebrolysin column, yet they did.
xxi. xxxxxx recalls Thymosin being mentioned “so yes, I think more than likely I have had Thymosin.” This is not an admission by xxxxxx that he had been injected with Thymosin.
xxii. xxxxxxx recalls being injected at xxxxxx which is likely to have been Cerebrolysin. This is not an admission by xxxxxx that he was administered Cerebrolysin.
xxiii. xxxxxxx recalls being injected up to 4 times, likely to be Cerebrolysin, “He said, I’ll – I’ll give you another injection just into, like, side of my hip, sort of thing”. This is not an admission by xxxxxxx that he was administered Cerebrolysin.
xxiv. Xxxxxxx recalls an injection likely to be Cerebrolysin. “Went into a room, yeah, and got a, yeah, got a jab in, in, in the bum.” This is not an admission by xxxxxx that he was administered Cerebrolysin.
xxv. xxxxxx recalls that he may have been injected with AOD-9604, “But I may have, but, yes I couldn’t - couldn’t recall if I – I certainly did, yeah.” This is not an admission by xxxxxx that he was administered AOD-9604.
xxvi. xxxxxxx recalls receiving approximately 3 injections of Amino Acids “I received an injection, from what I can recall, in the glute,” This is not an admission by xxxxxx that he was administered Cerebrolysin.
xxvii. xxxxxx recalls receiving and injection that is consistent with a Cerebrolysin injection, “And I – that one stands out for me because I remember walking out sore.” This is not an admission by xxxxx that he was administered Cerebrolysin.
xxviii. xxxxx recalls that he was injected in his glute and suggests he may have received Cerebrolysin. “Yes, yes, it wasn’t like a long lasting thing; it would be like for 10, 15 seconds.” This response doesn’t constitute is not an admission by xxxxx that he was administered Cerebrolysin.