I am writing to you in your capacity as Managing Director of News Limited’s mastheads in Victoria.
Loyalties, prejudices, malice and pride have affected everyone’s take on the Essendon saga. It’s time you looked in the mirror and salvaged the media’s reputation.
No one will ever know whether the players were administered Thymosin Beta-4, so, it is disingenuous to claim that is the issue. There are only four issues that should be on the table
- Is Thymosin the generic name for Thymosin Beta-4?
As ASADA unlawfully changed the name Thymosin to Thymosin Beta-4 on 51 occasions, ASADA clearly acknowledged that they weren’t the same substance. - Was Thymosin Beta-4 prohibited by name in 2011 and 2012?
Thymosin Beta-4 was not listed on ASADA’s ‘Check your Substances’ website by name as prohibited at 10:45:17 am on 4 February 2013. Someone at ASADA unlawfully changed its status between 10:45:17 am and 12:59:17 pm. - Is there proof the players were supplied and administered Thymosin Beta-4?
Como Compounding Pharmaceuticals’ comprehensive records indicate that neither Thymosin nor Thymosin Beta-4 were supplied to either Dank nor Essendon in calendar 2011 or 2012. - Is it possible to identify with acceptable certainty which players were administered Thymosin Beta-4?
Res ipsa loquitur, as ASADA made no attempt to prosecute the case against individual plyers, it was impossible to determine whether one player was administered Thymosin Beta-4, let alone 34 players.
It is irrefutable that the answer is NO to all four questions.
Our legal system is second to none and I think it is correct to embrace the core of that system:
You are innocent until proven guilty. Inexplicably, the burden of proof at the AFL’s tribunal is slightly lower than in our courts. Nevertheless, the same principle applies: the players are innocent until proven guilty.
Bruce Francis