Bruce Francis Letter to Greg Hunt | 1 June 2017

1 June 2017


The Hon Greg Hunt MP

Minister for Sport


Dear Minister


Yesterday, I explained not only the sheer bastardry behind ASADA and WADA charging 26 of the 34 Essendon players, but the ineptness, bias and corruption in the Court of Arbitration for Sport finding those 26 players guilty of being administered Thymosin Beta-4.


Today, I shall explore the stupidity and injustice behind the guilt finding because the players signed a consent form to be administered Thymosin.


The logic, which is an oxymoron, behind the CAS panel’s decision


  1. Dank (according to WADA, and accepted by the CAS) introduced a team-based programme to Essendon.


  1. Thirty-four Essendon players consented to being administered Thymosin.


  1. Thymosin was Dank’s cover name for Thymosin Beta-4.


  1. Eight players admitted to being administered Thymosin, therefore, as it was a team-based programme, all 34 players were administered Thymosin.


  1. As Thymosin is the cover name for Thymosin Beta-4, 34 players were administered Thymosin Beta-4.


My Comment:


The following table is a summary of the players responses to the substances they admitted being administered. As no contrary evidence was offered by WADA or ASADA, it must be accepted as fact.


Substance No of Players Substance No of Players
AOD-9604 injections 8 Cerebrolysin Injections 21
AOD-9604 Cream 10 Colostrum Tablets 15
Comfrey Paste 7 Lact-A-Way 21
Lube All Plus 4 Melanotan II 15
Melatonin 6 PRP & Interleukin 1
Thymosin Injections 8 Traumeel Injections 4
Tribulus Tablets 32 Amino Acid Injections 34
Vitamin B IV Drips 38 Vitamin C IV Drips 38


Anyone viewing this table as a team-based programme where everyone received the same substances must be brain-dead or crooked..


This table clearly indicates that Essendon didn’t have a team-based programme where everyone received the same substances.


It is incomprehensible and unforgivable that two of the QCs on the CAS panel accepted this as a team-based programme, where all players had the same substances. I suspect Justice Spigelman was the dissenting voice on this issue.


‘Team-based programme’ was a term dreamed up by ASADA CEO Ben McDevitt in a wicked attempt to nail 34 Essendon players. He lied about its existence when he addressed a Senate Estimates hearing on 3 March 2016.


The fact that the players consented to being administered a substance is not proof they were administered it. Brent Stanton’s comment in his interview with ASADA on 7 May 2013 indicates that WADA’s claim was nonsense. Inter alia, Stanton stated:


“And then he [Dank] sort of just went through the four supplements that we could possibly take. ‘You won’t be taking them all (my emphasis). It will be down to needs or how you’re feeling.’ And he will be doing regular blood tests to see your blood levels.”


In the light of Stanton’s comments, it is incomprehensible that WADA argued that having an injection of one substance was proof every player was also injected with Thymosin Beta-4. It is even more astonishing that the CAS panel agreed with WADA’s nonsense.


The players received different substances from each other. Some were common, and many weren’t. It is illogical to think that an 18-year-old 165cm boy weighing 80kgs would be given the same nutritional and supplement programme as a 200cm 25-year-old ruckman weighing 115 kgs.

Serge Del Vecchio was one of WADA’s champion witnesses and he submitted a statement to ASADA which was tendered as evidence by WADA. Inter alia, he said: “I cannot be 100 per cent sure Mr Dank specifically said words he was administering peptides to Essendon players. The nature of our conversations were (sic) such that I was left with the understanding he was in fact giving the players peptides but what specific peptides I could not say. He gave me the impression he was giving peptides to all of the Essendon players and had developed different peptide programs for different groups of players depending on where these players were in their football development.” (My emphasis) To their shame, in their need to push the team-based nonsense, WADA and the CAS panel ignored the fact that Del Vecchio testified that “all of the Essendon players and had developed different peptide programs”. That part of Del Vecchio’s testimony didn’t suit WADA or the CAS.

  • Louis Braille could see from ASADA/WADA’s table (pages 417 – 421 of the Interim Report and my summary table above) that Dank didn’t design a ‘team-based program’.
  • Stevie Wonder could see each player had his own individually designed program.
  • A primary school student could deduce that it was outrageous to suggest if you had an injection of one substance you had an injection of every substance.
  • Even the village idiot knew that WADA was wrong to claim that if player ‘A’ had an injection he must also have been administered Thymosin. Sadly, the evidence indicates that the CAS wasn’t as bright as the village idiot.


An example of CAS irrational and biased cherry picking concerned the CAS panel’s response to the players signing consent forms to be administered Thymosin and AOD-9604.

The panel ruled that because 34 players consented to being administered Thymosin, they were administered Thymosin.


However, although 34 players also consented to being administered AOD-9604, the panel said it “accepts SOME players at least MAY also have been administered it [AOD-9604]”. This statement indicates that the panel believes that most  players consented to receiving AOD-9604 but didn’t receive it. Talk about double standards. Sorry, standards was obviously another oxymoron.


The different attitude by the panel from Thymosin and AOD-9604, is clearly an example of the panel’s bias, if not corruption.  No sensible person would accept the rationale behind being administered one (Thymosin) and then reject the identical rationale for the other (AOD-9604). Giving it’s appalling ‘judgement’ in this case, If WADA had claimed that AOD-9604 was a banned substance, I’m sure that the panel would have found that all 34 players who consented to receiving it, were administered it!


The CAS panel were confronted by overwhelming evidence – the table of admitted use of substance by the players; Brent Stanton’s statement; Serve Del Vecchio’s statement; and its (the panel’s) own assessment that consenting to being administered a substance (AOD-9604) didn’t mean they received it – yet the panel found all 34 players guilty of being administered Thymosin Beta-4. As Dr Julius Sumner Miller would say: “Why is it so?” Was it ineptness, bias or corruption?


Minister, given the incomprehensible and unconscionable decisions by the CAS panel, I suspect that you would be reluctant to admit that you also have a law degree. I can understand that.


What I can’t understand is why you are prepared to allow me to table proof, day after day for months, as to why you must establish a Royal Commission or resign. The sooner you accept you made a mistake through poor advice from your department, the less begging you will have to do for forgiveness.


Yours faithfully


Bruce Francis


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s