Petition to the Senate

Football Discussion The Sorry Saga
821
5,364 supporters

Another CAS ‘strand’ collapses as suspicious changes are discovered in The Age interview

2 AUG 2016 — In a guilty finding against 34 Essendon players, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) referred to an interview by Mr Nick McKenzie of The Age newspaper wherein Mr Stephen Dank (Dank) admitted the use of Thymosin on the players. Dank sought to retract his comments sometime thereafter once it had been pointed out to him that Thymosin Beta-4 was a prohibited substance.

Let’s have a closer look at this interview.

Bruce Francis, a political science graduate, former OH&S lecturer and batsman with the Australian cricket team, has compiled a comprehensive response to the CAS ‘Strands in the Cable’ decision. Below is an extract from his document where he outlines some key facts surrounding this interview:

“…133. McKenzie interviewed Dank in early April 2013, and his article co-written with Richard Barker appeared in the Age on 11 April. The word ‘Thymosin’ was used twice, but there was no mention of ‘Thymosin Beta-4’. …”

For information, ‘Thymosin’ is also known as Thymomodulin. Thymomodulin is an immunity booster that can be safely given to babies and is legal for athletes to use. ASADA/WADA claimed ‘Thymosin’ was Thymosin Beta-4, a prohibited substance. Thymosin Beta-4 is not an immunity booster.

“…134. McKenzie and Baker wrote:

"Records of Hird and Dank’s dealing reveal the coach knew specific details about the supplementation regime, including the intravenous administration of vitamins and injections into the stomach or oral administration of other supplements, including an immune-booster known as Thymosin”.

When asked why Thymosin peptides were given to players as an immune system booster when there is debate about their effectiveness, Dank said:

‘Well, apart from the fact that we won 11 out of our first 14 games … at the end of the day, I was very happy with the science’.

  1. On 24 August 2013, The Age published excerpts from Nick McKenzie’s April interview with Dank.

  2. Inexplicably, this article mentions Thymosin Beta-4, and quotes Dank saying he used it to boost the immune system of the players. As Thymomodulin boosts the immune system and as Thymosin Beta-4 does not, whatever Thymosin Dank said, he was clearly referring to Thymomodulin.

  3. Furthermore, it is incomprehensible, and in fact beyond the realm of possibility, that if Dank admitted to administering Thymosin Beta-4, and McKenzie pointed out to him that Thymosin Beta-4 was a banned substance, that McKenzie and Baker would not have included the admission and McKenzie’s comment in the original article on 11 April. There is no plausible explanation for such an omission.

  4. It is preposterous that any credibility has been given to the sudden inclusion of ‘Thymosin Beta-4’ in a follow-up article four and a half months later. It is impossible to understand why ASADA, WADA, and the CAS panel didn’t simply dismiss this reference as totally unreliable.

  5. If McKenzie had any credibility after the 24 August article, it should have been in tatters over what many saw as a deliberate omission from a column written by him and Baker on 16 December 2013. Inter alia, they wrote:

"On June 15, 2012, Essendon’s then high-performance boss Dean Robinson emailed Hird, senior assistant coach Mark Thompson, football chief Danny Corcoran, doctor Bruce Reid and other senior officials a document titled Supplements till GF 2012”.

"One of the drugs to be injected fortnightly two days before a game was the anti-dementia drug Cerebrolysin”.

  1. ASADA’s Interim Report stated:

“On 15 June 2012, Robinson emailed Dr Reid a list of supplements to be administered between the mid-year bye and the 2012 Grand Final which included Thymomodulin and Cerebrolysin.”

  1. Some would believe that the omission of Thymomodulin from McKenzie’s article was an attempt to suppress facts that would have helped Essendon’s case. In my view, this omission and the fiasco of 24 August 2013 article, is at least sufficient evidence that McKenzie’s writings cannot be relied upon.

  2. Some of the issues that arise from this:

a) Was WADA inappropriately selective in the writings of McKenzie it chose to submit to the panel? Did WADA only submit the 24 August 2013 article; or did it also submit the 11 April 2013 article, pointing out the discrepancy between the two; and the 16 December 2013 article, pointing out the omission.

b) If WADA only tabled the 24 August 2013 article, how can it justify withholding information that supports the players’ case that they were administered Thymomodulin, not Thymosin Beta-4?

c) If in fact, both, or all three articles were submitted as evidence, the panel was clearly incompetent in not realising that the 11 April 2013 and 24 August 2013 articles, though reporting on the same interview, were factually and crucially substantially different.

d) Did WADA request McKenzie appear as a witness? If it didn’t, how did the panel allow some of McKenzie’s writings to be admitted as evidence? The words that Dank supposedly said to McKenzie during the interview are the only (purported) evidence that Thymosin Beta-4 was used at Essendon, and the panel seems to have given McKenzie’s accusation an inordinate amount of credibility and relevance. If the players’ lawyers couldn’t cross examine McKenzie, the panel should have rejected it……”

Below is a link to Bruce Francis full ‘Strands in the Cable’ document.
http://twitdoc.com/upload/thegovernorsm/cas-strands-response-bfrancis-2feb2016.pdf

Recently, we received the following comments on one of our petition updates:

Amanda Crameri · University of New England, Armidale
Wow, this petition is going so well, getting very close to 5000. Thanks to every one who has shared, contributed or written to help this keep going. There are so many good people behind the scenes fighting for justice. I don’t want my son to be called a drug cheat for the rest of his life- it is just wrong. There has been no way to counter what ASADA and WADA have done. The appeal in Switzerland is out of our control, as the Swiss seem to be in no hurry to look at it- the suspension will already have been served, before they make a determination. ASADA will think they have won- but the fight will never be over to clear the names of 34 players.

Please support this petition which requests a Senate Inquiry to sort this mess out.

Kindly read, consider, and sign this petition. If you have already signed, please share this petition using any of the links below.

Thank you for your support.

https://www.change.org/p/senator-richard-di-natale-senator-john-madigan-senator-nick-xenophon-inquiry-into-ethics-practices-of-asada-afl-wada-antidoping-case-against-the-34-efc-players/u/17454548

I was wondering if the Walkley Foundation might be interested in taking away McKenzie, Baker, SWSNBN, etc. Walkley, based on the above but, Fairfax dominates their Board:

The present Board of Directors (read more about them here):

Quentin Dempster, presenter StateLine, ABC (appointed Director and Chair)
Michael Janda, reporter, ABC News (member, MEAA Media Vice President)
Gina McColl, deputy editor, The Sunday Age (member, MEAA Media Vice President)
Kate McClymont, senior reporter, The Sydney Morning Herald (member, Chair of the Advisory Board)
Stuart Washington, senior business reporter, Fairfax Media (member)
Laurie Oakes, political editor, Nine Network (appointed Director)

However they should be interested. Given their “core mission”

The Walkley Foundation’s core mission is to celebrate and encourage excellence in Australian journalism, telling the stories of our nation and strengthening our democracy.

… committed to promoting excellence in these crafts across all platforms, and ensuring a media space that is free, ethical and of high quality.

http://www.walkleys.com/governance/

822

Surely with all the evidence that abounds suggesting enormous problems in world anti doping, McKenzie and Baker might feel encouraged to employ their investigative journalist talents yet again?

823

"FOI: ASADA reveals 7 emails to and from Fairfax, but refuses to release contents of those emails.
13 March 2013 - email from Nick McKenzie to John Nolan (ASADA)
25 April 2013 - email from NM to JN
29 April 2013 - email from JN to NM
9 July 2013 - 3 emails from Richard Baker to JN
10 July 2013 - email from RB to JN "

well we all know if there was any smoking gun in any of those emails they would have released them to back up their absurd claims !!

824

I like the time they uncovered all the match-fixing when they reported that this a-league game had 7 times the normal amount bet on it but then it turned out to be that they forgot to divide the Hong Kong dollars by 7 to get the Australian dollar value.

825

I have asked friends and acquaintances to sign the petition. They are reluctant or refuse for the reason that they feel its a waste of time as EFC has been proven guilty already. What they are really saying is that they want EFC to be guilty and they don’t want to risk a change to the guilty status. It tribalism. The more this verdict sticks, the worse EFC will be and the better their tribe will be. They don’t want this car crash to end. Ever.

Whoever is driving this initiative, I have a suggestion that may get more support from non EFC supporters. Its probably too late but I think if the petition message was less about “Lets find EFC players innocent” and more about " Lets find the truth" or even to the extreme of " Lets shut those EFC supporters up one and for all" , I am confident that we will experience an increase petition responses from the non EFC supporters.

I know it will undermine the spirit of what the petition is about, but if we need signatures to get some traction on this Senate inquiry, then we should consider all avenues.

826

PETITION UPDATE

ASADA bluffs its way through questions, but did ASADA deliberately mislead the Senate?

AUG 30, 2016 — ASADA has responded to questions ‘on notice’ asked during a Senate Estimates Committee on 3 March 2016.
The ‘Justice for the 34’ (J34) group (https://www.facebook.com/justiceforthe34/?ref=bookmarks)
has reviewed ASADA’s answers to these questions.

This petition update comprises part 1 of J34’s review and comments, which are comprehensive and compelling. Clearly, ASADA is in trouble. Big trouble. Read on.

Ref No: SQ16-000248 Question:
Senator Madigan: Can ASADA please supply documentation that clearly shows Essendon players had clear and unambiguous access to the WADA banned substances list at the time the alleged offences took place that showed the substance Thymosin beta-4 was on the WADA banned list.

ASADA’s answer:
The World Anti-Doping Code mandates that the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) publish an annual list of Prohibited Substances and Methods. This is known as the ‘Prohibited List’. The Prohibited List has been published by WADA since 2004. The current Prohibited List is published on WADA’s website at www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/science-medicine/prohibited-list. Archived versions of the Prohibited List for each year since 2004 are accessible via the same link.
In addition to internet publication, WADA also makes the Prohibited List available for mobile devices with free applications available for download. The Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority website also contains an information page about the Prohibited List with a link to the Prohibited List at www.asada.gov.au/substances/prohibited-substances-and-methods.
For copies of the Prohibited List, please refer to the response provided to Question on Notice SQ16-000276.
Australian Football League (AFL) players are provided with annual education sessions from the AFL to assist them in their understanding of their obligations under the AF Anti-Doping Code.

J34 Review and comments:
Senator Madigan asked for documentation that clearly shows Essendon players had “clear and unambiguous access” to the list that showed Thymosin Beta 4.
The linked prohibited list on WADA’s website makes no mention of Thymosin or Thymosin Beta 4 as Thymosin Beta 4 is not a specified banned substance.
Dr. Ben Koh (Law in Sports, University of Technology Sydney) commented on an article related to ultrasound and platelet-rich plasma (PTP) “The point I am making is: for athletes who are neither pharmacologically, medically or legally trained, they cannot simply read the packaging of something and compare it to the WADA list to determined whether something is banned or not. For that matter, neither can doctors
And in case you are wondering, calling the national anti-doping organisation (ASADA for Australia) may not be useful either for the athlete as the personnel providing the information would not know how the “catch all” will be legally interpreted; this is even assuming s/he knows the substance the athlete is calling about. The confusion surrounding AOD9604 is an example in point” (1)
This clearly shows that the WADA code is obscure and difficult for anyone who is either medically trained or not to decipher what is permitted and what is not despite the training provided by the AFL.
In a recent interview by Tracey Holmes (ABC audio of The Ticket program) a WADA spokesperson confirmed the WADA rules that two of the three criteria applied to banning a substance, but advised that WADA does not release advice of the applicable criteria (2)
Under those circumstances it is impossible for an athlete or medical practitioner to establish the WADA status of a non-specified substance short of formal confirmation by the WADA Executive Committee
Category S0 is a “catch all” category which WADA can use to specify substances as banned at their own discretion (3)
This makes it impossible for any athlete or medical practitioner to determine what could be added to S0
In 2012 Thymosin Beta 4 was not explicitly listed on ASADA’s substance checking web site. The date it was added is unknown but thought to be early 2016.

SQ16-000276 Question:
Senator Madigan: Mr McDevitt, you refer to this WADA list of banned substances. I have been trying to find where this list is. For the benefit of the committee, could you point us to where this list is, because I am having difficulty finding this list that you have referred to tonight.
Mr McDevitt: I will give you the link.
Senator Madigan: Also, for the benefit of the committee, is ASADA able to furnish the committee with screen shots of the banned substances over the past five years, between 2010 and the present day?
Mr McDevitt: Essentially that will be copies of the list. Yes, I think we can get that for you.
Senator Madigan: And also tell us where we can get those ourselves—
Senator Madigan: Could you show us where TB4 is specifically mentioned on those lists of WADA from 2010 to the present day?
Mr McDevitt: I will take that on notice.

ASADA’s answer:

  1. The World Anti-Doping Code mandates that the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) publish an annual list of Prohibited Substances and Methods called the ‘Prohibited List’. The Prohibited List has been published by WADA since 2004.
  2. The current Prohibited List is published on the WADA website at www.wada-ama.org/en/resources/science-medicine/prohibited-list. Archived versions of the Prohibited List for each year since 2004 are also published at the same link. In addition to internet publication, WADA also makes the Prohibited List available for mobile devices with free applications available for download. The Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority website also contains an information page about the Prohibited List with a link to the Prohibited List at www.asada.gov.au/substances/prohibited-substances-and-methods.
  3. Copies of the WADA Prohibited List for 2010-2016 (inclusive) are at Attachment A.
  4. The substance Thymosin Beta 4 is prohibited under category S2 of the Prohibited List. It is a growth factor affecting muscle, tendon or ligament, vascularisation and regenerative capacity. The substance is also prohibited under category S0 of the Prohibited List as it has never been approved by any regulatory agency for human therapeutic use.
  5. The AFL Tribunal itself was comfortably satisfied that the substance Thymosin Beta 4 was at the relevant time a prohibited substance – see the link to the Tribunal’s public statement at www.afl.com.au/news/2015-03-31/full-tribunal-statement, which is at Attachment B.
  6. In coming to its conclusion, the Tribunal considered the expert report prepared by Professor David Handelsman. The report is at Attachment C.
  7. Had players performed an internet search at the relevant time, they would have found that the substance Thymosin Beta 4 was not approved for human use.

J34 review and comments:
Senator Madigan requested where Thymosin Beta 4 was specifically mentioned on the prohibited lists. Thymosin Beta 4 is not mentioned anywhere on the links provide.
Given ASADA’s answer points 1, 2 and 3 do not clarify where the chemical entity Thymosin Beta 4 can be found on the ASADA/WADA Banned List, an athlete would not have been able to use this system to be alerted that they might be using a banned substance.
Dr Andrew Garnham of the AFL advised that a substance cannot be on two different categories of the Prohibited list. You have stated that Thymosin Beta 4 is on both S0 and S2. (6)
WADA is consistent with Dr Andrew Garnham
The WADA Summary of Modifications of 2012 stated “As a reminder, it is stressed that if a designer drug or any other non-approved substance falls into any of the S1-S9 categories… Inclusion in S0 applies only after all the other categories have been considered inadequate.” (7).
The WADA Prohibited List of 2012 stated: “Any pharmacological substance which is not addressed by any of the subsequent sections of the List and with no current approval by any governmental regulatory health authority for human therapeutic use (e.g. drugs under pre-clinical or clinical development or discontinued, designer drugs, veterinary medicines) is prohibited at all times.” (8).
As a result of points above, it is clear that the WADA Prohibited List stipulates that a substance cannot be banned in 2 sections. Substances are either banned in S1-9, or if appropriate fall into S0.
ASADA claim it is banned in 2 categories. This shows a complete lack of understanding of WADA protocols.
The report by Professor Handelsman may be deemed an “expert” report by ASADA but has not been peer reviewed. The report did contain some caveats and inaccuracies, especially Dr Handelsman’s surety of the clinical evidence and the regulatory status of TB4 worldwide
It is completely illogical and unrealistic to expect the players to perform an internet search for Thymosin Beta 4 when they were informed they were receiving Thymosin or Thymomodulin.
An internet search Thymomodulin, as they were told they would be receiving, the search would not have shown that it isn’t approved for human use, given this substance is approved and even administered to infants.

References:

  1. Koh, Dr. Ben. A potential new method of performance-enhancement: ultrasound and platelet-rich plasma. Cycling Tips. [Online] 2016. http://cyclingtips.com/2016/03/a-potential-new-method-of-performance-enhancement-ultrasound-and-platelet-rich-plasma/.
  2. The Ticket. [Online] ABC Radio. http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/newsradio/audio/theticket/201604/r1554386_23302004.mp3.
  3. WADA. 2015 Wold Anti-Doping Code. [Online] https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/wada-2015-world-anti-doping-code.pdf.
    …
    …
  4. Garnham, Dr. Andrew. AFL360 - 20 Aug 2013 - Essendon and AOD 9604. AFL360. August 20, 2013 - see video.
  5. WADA. 2012 Prohibited List Change Summary. [Online] https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/WADA_Summary_Modifications_2012_List_EN.pdf.
  6. —. WADA 2012 Prohibited List. [Online] https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/WADA_Prohibited_List_2012_EN.pdf.

Clearly, ASADA is in trouble. More to come.

Please support this petition which requests a Senate Inquiry to sort this mess out.

Kindly read, consider, and sign this petition. If you have already signed, please ‘share’ and then ‘like’ this petition using any of the links below and/or your own social media platform.

Thank you sincerely for your support.

827

I am appalled that ASADA does its business this way. Signed petition, asking friends too also.

828

There is a significant amount of work done behind the scenes updating the petition. Thanks so much to Stabby, bomber5au, Standbyhird and others for all their efforts.

829
There is a significant amount of work done behind the scenes updating the petition. Thanks so much to Stabby, bomber5au, Standbyhird and others for all their efforts.

Sorry for my ignorance, what is it hoping to achieve?

cheers.

830
There is a significant amount of work done behind the scenes updating the petition. Thanks so much to Stabby, bomber5au, Standbyhird and others for all their efforts.

Sorry for my ignorance, what is it hoping to achieve?

cheers.

The simple answer is a Senate Inquiry. As well, the more we keep raising the issue the more likely the politicians will take it as important. It is important the truth comes out.

831

Maybe this should go in the DQAT, but Is this the same petition that was around sometime ago? I signed that one… is there any way to find if I signed this one already (Given that they scrutinise petitions for this kind of error).

832
Maybe this should go in the DQAT, but Is this the same petition that was around sometime ago? I signed that one... is there any way to find if I signed this one already (Given that they scrutinise petitions for this kind of error).

I have already signed it & it doesn’t give me the option to do so again

833

Thanks. I just tried again and the site remembered me without giving the option to sign. It must rely on cookies though because I had different result when accessing the site previously from another computer.

834

Now that Parliament has resumed I have sent to various Senators and MHRs, Ministers and Shadow Ministers my attitude re the EFC saga.
I am demanding action that none of them have taken but hope they will follow up on e.g. the Senate Estimates hearings from earlier and McDevious’ high handed approach to the matter.
I encourage everybody to do similar.

835
Maybe this should go in the DQAT, but Is this the same petition that was around sometime ago? I signed that one... is there any way to find if I signed this one already (Given that they scrutinise petitions for this kind of error).

I have already signed it & it doesn’t give me the option to do so again

me too.
836

ASADA bluffs its way through questions, but did ASADA deliberately mislead the Senate? Part 2

SEP 6, 2016 — ASADA has responded to questions ‘on notice’ asked during a Senate Estimates Committee on 3 March 2016.

The ‘Justice for the 34’ group (https://www.facebook.com/justiceforthe34/?ref=bookmarks)
has reviewed ASADA’s answers to these questions. This update comprises Part 2 of their review and comments, which are comprehensive and compelling. Clearly, ASADA is in trouble.

SQ16-000272 Question:
Senator Back: We know the 21 were tested. We know the 13 were not tested. Is that correct? Am I right in that summary? You mentioned 21 out of 34.
Mr McDevitt: You are arriving at a number of 13, but your number may actually be higher than that. I am not sure exactly how many times players might have doubled up.
Senator Back: Perhaps you could take it on notice.

ASADA’s answer:
During 2012, the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) conducted 51 urine tests and 55 blood tests on Essendon Football Club players. Of the samples that ASADA had collected and analysed during the relevant time period for our investigation, there were 26 urine samples in our long term storage facility at the National Measurement Institute from 15 players in the group of 34 Essendon players. A breakdown of the number of urine samples in the long term storage facility for each of the players in the Essendon 34 is provided below in a de-identified form:
Player (de-identified) Number of samples in long term storage for the relevant time period
Player 1 1
Player 2 4
Player 3 1
Player 4 4
Player 5 1
Player 6 1
Player 7 1
Player 8 4
Player 9 2
Player 10 1
Player 11 1
Player 12 1
Player 13 2
Player 14 1
Player 15 1

Total = 15 Players
Total = 26 samples

J34’s review and comments:

The period that constitutes the “relevant time period” is and why it is relevant has not been disclosed

The period at which ASADA believes Thymosin Beta 4 to have been used at the Essendon Football Club has not been disclosed to provide context to the “relevant time period”

The dates at which each of these samples were collected has not been provided. This makes it impossible to determine which of the 15 players tested had the opportunity to declare Thymosin/Thymomodulin

The CAS hearing determined that all 34 players willingly doped due to the player declarations despite:

  • Only 15 players tested
  • No explanation regarding how many of the 15 were tested during the period of time “Thymosin” was being used at Essendon
  • ASADA has not commented to provide a statistic showing how many 2012 AFL players from any club tested correctly filled in the non-mandatory declaration.

SQ16-000271 Question:
Senator Back:
Thank you, Senator Di Natale, that is fine. The advice to me was that they did receive assurance in writing from the Essendon Football Club that the product they were to be given was legal. Can you respond to that or can you take that on notice and advise the committee whether or not my assumption is accurate?
Mr McDevitt: I am not aware of that. I will take it on notice.

ASADA’s answer:
The Essendon players were provided with a form titled ‘Patient Information/Informed Consent Form’ from Stephen Dank. The document was not on an Essendon letterhead and did not mention the Essendon Football Club.
A copy of a redacted Patient Information/Informed Consent Form signed by an Essendon player giving consent to injections of “Thymosin” is attached.
The document states that “All components of the intervention/s are in compliance with current World Anti-Doping Authority (WADA) anti-doping policy and guidelines (see appendix for documentation to this effect) as of 1st January 2012”. No appendix was located from Essendon computer servers or files during Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority’s (ASADA) investigation. Moreover, players who were asked by ASADA investigators about the appendix did not recall seeing any appendix with the form.
The consent form also asserts that:
“I base this recommendation on the visual examination(s) I have performed, on x-rays, models, photos and other diagnostic tests that have been taken, and on my knowledge of your medical and physiological history.”
In their interviews, players also stated that they signed the forms despite no visual examinations being performed on them, and in the absence of x-rays, models, photos or other diagnostic tests. Nor were any players asked about their medical or physiological history.

J34’s review and comment:
The question was simply trying to ascertain if the players were explicitly told that all substances were WADA approved. The response is filled with information that does not need to be explained to answer this question.
This response shows a lack of understanding of the processes in sports science

  • Every athlete possesses a medical history that begins at a time he or she enters into even the junior levels of elite sport.
  • A biochemical, physiological and psychological profile is established and used as a baseline on which improvement is measured.
  • All injury analysis and recovery programs are recorded and used to tailor make training regimes for each individual.
  • At the beginning of pre-season training all team members are subject to a full range of testing. KPIs are compared and new baselines established, especially if they have been on a heavy weights program.
  • To suggest the signing of a consent form was somehow linked in time to biological marker testing and medical examination shows the lack of knowhow ASADA has in such matters of sports science.

The players were also given a presentation by the sports science department to provide context to the consent forms. At no point did ASADA mention this as it weakens this attempt to show that the players were complicit in a program set out to cheat.

ASADA are casting doubt on the players integrity by suggesting they signed documents they already knew was incorrect – example being that the document stated the program was based off visual examinations that have not been performed at that point

ASADA fail to mention in its response that this was a generic consent form and the players were advised that each player will get a specific program tailored to their situation. The contents of this presentation have not been made public.

SQ16-000273/SQ16-000274 Question SQ16-00273:
Senator Di Natale: What is the evidence that this improves recovery?
Mr McDevitt: —so the fact that you can train harder and if you recover more quickly then, yes, you can get bigger and stronger.
Senator Di Natale: What is the evidence that it improves recovery?
Mr McDevitt: I will have to take that on notice. What I can say to you—
Senator Di Natale: You are making claims about what effect this—
Mr McDevitt: It is promoted globally and it is distributed and trafficked globally because it is believed that it promotes recovery and, as I said to you, if you can recover more quickly you can train harder and you can get bigger and stronger, and that was the aim.

Question SQ16-000274
CHAIR: Can I ask one quick one? Just for clarification: you said that Thymosin beta-4 is on the banned list. Why is it on the banned list? Is it because it has not been tested or because it is known to be performance enhancing and unsafe?
Mr McDevitt: I would have to take it on notice. I suspect it will be a combination of both. I suspect it will be because it has not gone through a clinical trial—so it has not been determined to be fit for human consumption—on the one hand and, on the other, early science has most likely indicated that it does enhance performance. I suspect that for those two reasons it has probably been put on the banned list, but I will come back to you if that is wrong.

ASADA’s answer:
Please refer to the response provided to Question on Notice SQ16-000276. (Refer last weeks Part 1 Petition Update for full answer)

J34 review and comment:
The question was not answered
The report cited in SQ16-000276 from Dr Handelsman quotes a number of references in the bibliography to support his statements about wound healing and muscle regeneration properties of Thymosin Beta 4
These references relate to laboratory studies:

  • A small number in animal models
  • Many articles exploring the mechanisms of endogenous (naturally occurring) Thymosin Beta 4 in the body
    The above is not conclusive to say that exogenous (externally administered) Thymosin Beta 4 is performance enhancing
    The Handelsman report states there are no clinical trials or publications that refer to the clinical use of Thymosin Beta 4
    There are actually 3 areas of medicine that are currently using Thymosin Beta 4 as a treatment.
  • Clinical trial underway looking at the use of Thymosin Beta 4 in post heart attack patients.
  • Clinical trial completed showing the benefit of Thymosin Beta 4 in the treatment of corneal ulcers
  • A third clinical trial claims successful treatment of venous stasis ulcers
    All of these uses are some way of treatment, aimed to improve health or return patients to normal health. These treatments cannot be considered performance enhancing or allowing athletes to train harder or build muscle. Despite this WADA somehow considered Thymosin Beta 4 as performance enhancing.
    In paragraph 224 of the AFL tribunal findings when Dr Handelsman qualified his claim that Thymosin Beta 4 was considered a doping agent under S2.5 of the WADA Prohibited List:
    Dr Handelsman conceded that his opinion was based on and limited to animal studies given there have not been studies conducted on the benefit of administering Thymosin Beta 4 to humans (5)
    Dr Handelsman conceded that his opinion of Thymosin Beta 4 could change when the effect of Thymosin Beta 4 in humans was known (5).
    Dr Handelsman stated at the AFL Tribunal that TB4 was not registered anywhere in the world but then retracted his statement, when questioned by a player’s advocate, and admitted that he not checked the status of TB4 worldwide. (5)
    Given the Handelsman report was not conclusive in the reasons why Thymosin Beta 4 should be a banned substance, it is difficult to understand how ASADA justifies the assertion that the players and Mr. Dank set out to cheat using this particular substance
    Had the players and Mr. Dank deliberately set out to cheat, it is unlikely they would use a product with relatively unknown performance benefits instead of one of the many available substances that are not only performance enhancing but also very difficult to detect.

It is worth noting that despite the issues, the AFL Tribunal also found that Thymosin Beta 4 was considered a banned substance at the time.

This is not being disputed as such as it is pointing out the inconsistent and unclear method in which WADA/ASADA operates making it nearly impossible for any athlete or even medical practitioner to determine what is banned or not if it is not explicitly mentioned in the WADA Prohibited List.

References

  1. Koh, Dr. Ben. A potential new method of performance-enhancement: ultrasound and platelet-rich plasma. Cycling Tips. [Online] 2016. http://cyclingtips.com/2016/03/a-potential-new-method-of-performance-enhancement-ultrasound-and-platelet-rich-plasma/.
  2. The Ticket. [Online] ABC Radio. http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/newsradio/audio/theticket/201604/r1554386_23302004.mp3.
  3. WADA. 2015 Wold Anti-Doping Code. [Online] https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/wada-2015-world-anti-doping-code.pdf.
  4. Australian Department of Health. Health Portfolio Overview. [Online] http://www.health.gov.au/internet/budget/publishing.nsf/Content/2015-2016_Health_PBS_sup1/$File/2015-16_Health_PBS_1.03_Portfolio_Overview.pdf.
  5. AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal. AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal Finding. Herald Sun. [Online] http://media.heraldsun.com.au/multimedia/2015/aug/project/pdfs/Judgement.pdf.
  6. Garnham, Dr. Andrew. AFL360 - 20 Aug 2013 - Essendon and AOD 9604. AFL360. August 20, 2013 - see video last update
  7. WADA. 2012 Prohibited List Change Summary. [Online] https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/WADA_Summary_Modifications_2012_List_EN.pdf.
  8. —. WADA 2012 Prohibited List. [Online] https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/WADA_Prohibited_List_2012_EN.pdf.

Staying silent on some issues is misleading. Not answering the question is also misleading. Answering only part of the question is misleading again. Did ASADA intend to mislead the Senate?

More importantly, would any Australian athlete ever trust ASADA again?
Clearly, ASADA is in trouble.

Please support this petition which requests a Senate Inquiry to sort this mess out.
Kindly read, consider, and sign this petition. If you have already signed, please ‘share’ and then ‘like’ this petition using any of the links below and/or your own social media platform.
Thank you sincerely for your support

837
ASADA bluffs its way through questions, but did ASADA deliberately mislead the Senate? Part 2

SEP 6, 2016 — ASADA has responded to questions ‘on notice’ asked during a Senate Estimates Committee on 3 March 2016.

The ‘Justice for the 34’ group (https://www.facebook.com/justiceforthe34/?ref=bookmarks)
has reviewed ASADA’s answers to these questions. This update comprises Part 2 of their review and comments, which are comprehensive and compelling. Clearly, ASADA is in trouble.

SQ16-000272 Question:
Senator Back: We know the 21 were tested. We know the 13 were not tested. Is that correct? Am I right in that summary? You mentioned 21 out of 34.
Mr McDevitt: You are arriving at a number of 13, but your number may actually be higher than that. I am not sure exactly how many times players might have doubled up.
Senator Back: Perhaps you could take it on notice.

ASADA’s answer:
During 2012, the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) conducted 51 urine tests and 55 blood tests on Essendon Football Club players. Of the samples that ASADA had collected and analysed during the relevant time period for our investigation, there were 26 urine samples in our long term storage facility at the National Measurement Institute from 15 players in the group of 34 Essendon players. A breakdown of the number of urine samples in the long term storage facility for each of the players in the Essendon 34 is provided below in a de-identified form:
Player (de-identified) Number of samples in long term storage for the relevant time period
Player 1 1
Player 2 4
Player 3 1
Player 4 4
Player 5 1
Player 6 1
Player 7 1
Player 8 4
Player 9 2
Player 10 1
Player 11 1
Player 12 1
Player 13 2
Player 14 1
Player 15 1

Total = 15 Players
Total = 26 samples

J34’s review and comments:

The period that constitutes the “relevant time period” is and why it is relevant has not been disclosed

The period at which ASADA believes Thymosin Beta 4 to have been used at the Essendon Football Club has not been disclosed to provide context to the “relevant time period”

The dates at which each of these samples were collected has not been provided. This makes it impossible to determine which of the 15 players tested had the opportunity to declare Thymosin/Thymomodulin

The CAS hearing determined that all 34 players willingly doped due to the player declarations despite:

  • Only 15 players tested
  • No explanation regarding how many of the 15 were tested during the period of time “Thymosin” was being used at Essendon
  • ASADA has not commented to provide a statistic showing how many 2012 AFL players from any club tested correctly filled in the non-mandatory declaration.

SQ16-000271 Question:
Senator Back:
Thank you, Senator Di Natale, that is fine. The advice to me was that they did receive assurance in writing from the Essendon Football Club that the product they were to be given was legal. Can you respond to that or can you take that on notice and advise the committee whether or not my assumption is accurate?
Mr McDevitt: I am not aware of that. I will take it on notice.

ASADA’s answer:
The Essendon players were provided with a form titled ‘Patient Information/Informed Consent Form’ from Stephen Dank. The document was not on an Essendon letterhead and did not mention the Essendon Football Club.
A copy of a redacted Patient Information/Informed Consent Form signed by an Essendon player giving consent to injections of “Thymosin” is attached.
The document states that “All components of the intervention/s are in compliance with current World Anti-Doping Authority (WADA) anti-doping policy and guidelines (see appendix for documentation to this effect) as of 1st January 2012”. No appendix was located from Essendon computer servers or files during Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority’s (ASADA) investigation. Moreover, players who were asked by ASADA investigators about the appendix did not recall seeing any appendix with the form.
The consent form also asserts that:
“I base this recommendation on the visual examination(s) I have performed, on x-rays, models, photos and other diagnostic tests that have been taken, and on my knowledge of your medical and physiological history.”
In their interviews, players also stated that they signed the forms despite no visual examinations being performed on them, and in the absence of x-rays, models, photos or other diagnostic tests. Nor were any players asked about their medical or physiological history.

J34’s review and comment:
The question was simply trying to ascertain if the players were explicitly told that all substances were WADA approved. The response is filled with information that does not need to be explained to answer this question.
This response shows a lack of understanding of the processes in sports science

  • Every athlete possesses a medical history that begins at a time he or she enters into even the junior levels of elite sport.
  • A biochemical, physiological and psychological profile is established and used as a baseline on which improvement is measured.
  • All injury analysis and recovery programs are recorded and used to tailor make training regimes for each individual.
  • At the beginning of pre-season training all team members are subject to a full range of testing. KPIs are compared and new baselines established, especially if they have been on a heavy weights program.
  • To suggest the signing of a consent form was somehow linked in time to biological marker testing and medical examination shows the lack of knowhow ASADA has in such matters of sports science.

The players were also given a presentation by the sports science department to provide context to the consent forms. At no point did ASADA mention this as it weakens this attempt to show that the players were complicit in a program set out to cheat.

ASADA are casting doubt on the players integrity by suggesting they signed documents they already knew was incorrect – example being that the document stated the program was based off visual examinations that have not been performed at that point

ASADA fail to mention in its response that this was a generic consent form and the players were advised that each player will get a specific program tailored to their situation. The contents of this presentation have not been made public.

SQ16-000273/SQ16-000274 Question SQ16-00273:
Senator Di Natale: What is the evidence that this improves recovery?
Mr McDevitt: —so the fact that you can train harder and if you recover more quickly then, yes, you can get bigger and stronger.
Senator Di Natale: What is the evidence that it improves recovery?
Mr McDevitt: I will have to take that on notice. What I can say to you—
Senator Di Natale: You are making claims about what effect this—
Mr McDevitt: It is promoted globally and it is distributed and trafficked globally because it is believed that it promotes recovery and, as I said to you, if you can recover more quickly you can train harder and you can get bigger and stronger, and that was the aim.

Question SQ16-000274
CHAIR: Can I ask one quick one? Just for clarification: you said that Thymosin beta-4 is on the banned list. Why is it on the banned list? Is it because it has not been tested or because it is known to be performance enhancing and unsafe?
Mr McDevitt: I would have to take it on notice. I suspect it will be a combination of both. I suspect it will be because it has not gone through a clinical trial—so it has not been determined to be fit for human consumption—on the one hand and, on the other, early science has most likely indicated that it does enhance performance. I suspect that for those two reasons it has probably been put on the banned list, but I will come back to you if that is wrong.

ASADA’s answer:
Please refer to the response provided to Question on Notice SQ16-000276. (Refer last weeks Part 1 Petition Update for full answer)

J34 review and comment:
The question was not answered
The report cited in SQ16-000276 from Dr Handelsman quotes a number of references in the bibliography to support his statements about wound healing and muscle regeneration properties of Thymosin Beta 4
These references relate to laboratory studies:

  • A small number in animal models
  • Many articles exploring the mechanisms of endogenous (naturally occurring) Thymosin Beta 4 in the body
    The above is not conclusive to say that exogenous (externally administered) Thymosin Beta 4 is performance enhancing
    The Handelsman report states there are no clinical trials or publications that refer to the clinical use of Thymosin Beta 4
    There are actually 3 areas of medicine that are currently using Thymosin Beta 4 as a treatment.
  • Clinical trial underway looking at the use of Thymosin Beta 4 in post heart attack patients.
  • Clinical trial completed showing the benefit of Thymosin Beta 4 in the treatment of corneal ulcers
  • A third clinical trial claims successful treatment of venous stasis ulcers
    All of these uses are some way of treatment, aimed to improve health or return patients to normal health. These treatments cannot be considered performance enhancing or allowing athletes to train harder or build muscle. Despite this WADA somehow considered Thymosin Beta 4 as performance enhancing.
    In paragraph 224 of the AFL tribunal findings when Dr Handelsman qualified his claim that Thymosin Beta 4 was considered a doping agent under S2.5 of the WADA Prohibited List:
    Dr Handelsman conceded that his opinion was based on and limited to animal studies given there have not been studies conducted on the benefit of administering Thymosin Beta 4 to humans (5)
    Dr Handelsman conceded that his opinion of Thymosin Beta 4 could change when the effect of Thymosin Beta 4 in humans was known (5).
    Dr Handelsman stated at the AFL Tribunal that TB4 was not registered anywhere in the world but then retracted his statement, when questioned by a player’s advocate, and admitted that he not checked the status of TB4 worldwide. (5)
    Given the Handelsman report was not conclusive in the reasons why Thymosin Beta 4 should be a banned substance, it is difficult to understand how ASADA justifies the assertion that the players and Mr. Dank set out to cheat using this particular substance
    Had the players and Mr. Dank deliberately set out to cheat, it is unlikely they would use a product with relatively unknown performance benefits instead of one of the many available substances that are not only performance enhancing but also very difficult to detect.

It is worth noting that despite the issues, the AFL Tribunal also found that Thymosin Beta 4 was considered a banned substance at the time.

This is not being disputed as such as it is pointing out the inconsistent and unclear method in which WADA/ASADA operates making it nearly impossible for any athlete or even medical practitioner to determine what is banned or not if it is not explicitly mentioned in the WADA Prohibited List.

References

  1. Koh, Dr. Ben. A potential new method of performance-enhancement: ultrasound and platelet-rich plasma. Cycling Tips. [Online] 2016. http://cyclingtips.com/2016/03/a-potential-new-method-of-performance-enhancement-ultrasound-and-platelet-rich-plasma/.
  2. The Ticket. [Online] ABC Radio. http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/newsradio/audio/theticket/201604/r1554386_23302004.mp3.
  3. WADA. 2015 Wold Anti-Doping Code. [Online] https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/wada-2015-world-anti-doping-code.pdf.
  4. Australian Department of Health. Health Portfolio Overview. [Online] http://www.health.gov.au/internet/budget/publishing.nsf/Content/2015-2016_Health_PBS_sup1/$File/2015-16_Health_PBS_1.03_Portfolio_Overview.pdf.
  5. AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal. AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal Finding. Herald Sun. [Online] http://media.heraldsun.com.au/multimedia/2015/aug/project/pdfs/Judgement.pdf.
  6. Garnham, Dr. Andrew. AFL360 - 20 Aug 2013 - Essendon and AOD 9604. AFL360. August 20, 2013 - see video last update
  7. WADA. 2012 Prohibited List Change Summary. [Online] https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/WADA_Summary_Modifications_2012_List_EN.pdf.
  8. —. WADA 2012 Prohibited List. [Online] https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/WADA_Prohibited_List_2012_EN.pdf.

Staying silent on some issues is misleading. Not answering the question is also misleading. Answering only part of the question is misleading again. Did ASADA intend to mislead the Senate?

More importantly, would any Australian athlete ever trust ASADA again?
Clearly, ASADA is in trouble.

Please support this petition which requests a Senate Inquiry to sort this mess out.
Kindly read, consider, and sign this petition. If you have already signed, please ‘share’ and then ‘like’ this petition using any of the links below and/or your own social media platform.
Thank you sincerely for your support

https://www.change.org/p/senator-richard-di-natale-senator-john-madigan-senator-nick-xenophon-inquiry-into-ethics-practices-of-asada-afl-wada-antidoping-case-against-the-34-efc-players/u/17769602

This petition is so deserving of the support from tens of thousands of Bomber supporters. People, we need to work hard to bring them in.

838
ASADA bluffs its way through questions, but did ASADA deliberately mislead the Senate? Part 2

SEP 6, 2016 — ASADA has responded to questions ‘on notice’ asked during a Senate Estimates Committee on 3 March 2016.

The ‘Justice for the 34’ group (https://www.facebook.com/justiceforthe34/?ref=bookmarks)
has reviewed ASADA’s answers to these questions. This update comprises Part 2 of their review and comments, which are comprehensive and compelling. Clearly, ASADA is in trouble.

SQ16-000272 Question:
Senator Back: We know the 21 were tested. We know the 13 were not tested. Is that correct? Am I right in that summary? You mentioned 21 out of 34.
Mr McDevitt: You are arriving at a number of 13, but your number may actually be higher than that. I am not sure exactly how many times players might have doubled up.
Senator Back: Perhaps you could take it on notice.

ASADA’s answer:
During 2012, the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority (ASADA) conducted 51 urine tests and 55 blood tests on Essendon Football Club players. Of the samples that ASADA had collected and analysed during the relevant time period for our investigation, there were 26 urine samples in our long term storage facility at the National Measurement Institute from 15 players in the group of 34 Essendon players. A breakdown of the number of urine samples in the long term storage facility for each of the players in the Essendon 34 is provided below in a de-identified form:
Player (de-identified) Number of samples in long term storage for the relevant time period
Player 1 1
Player 2 4
Player 3 1
Player 4 4
Player 5 1
Player 6 1
Player 7 1
Player 8 4
Player 9 2
Player 10 1
Player 11 1
Player 12 1
Player 13 2
Player 14 1
Player 15 1

Total = 15 Players
Total = 26 samples

J34’s review and comments:

The period that constitutes the “relevant time period” is and why it is relevant has not been disclosed

The period at which ASADA believes Thymosin Beta 4 to have been used at the Essendon Football Club has not been disclosed to provide context to the “relevant time period”

The dates at which each of these samples were collected has not been provided. This makes it impossible to determine which of the 15 players tested had the opportunity to declare Thymosin/Thymomodulin

The CAS hearing determined that all 34 players willingly doped due to the player declarations despite:

  • Only 15 players tested
  • No explanation regarding how many of the 15 were tested during the period of time “Thymosin” was being used at Essendon
  • ASADA has not commented to provide a statistic showing how many 2012 AFL players from any club tested correctly filled in the non-mandatory declaration.

SQ16-000271 Question:
Senator Back:
Thank you, Senator Di Natale, that is fine. The advice to me was that they did receive assurance in writing from the Essendon Football Club that the product they were to be given was legal. Can you respond to that or can you take that on notice and advise the committee whether or not my assumption is accurate?
Mr McDevitt: I am not aware of that. I will take it on notice.

ASADA’s answer:
The Essendon players were provided with a form titled ‘Patient Information/Informed Consent Form’ from Stephen Dank. The document was not on an Essendon letterhead and did not mention the Essendon Football Club.
A copy of a redacted Patient Information/Informed Consent Form signed by an Essendon player giving consent to injections of “Thymosin” is attached.
The document states that “All components of the intervention/s are in compliance with current World Anti-Doping Authority (WADA) anti-doping policy and guidelines (see appendix for documentation to this effect) as of 1st January 2012”. No appendix was located from Essendon computer servers or files during Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority’s (ASADA) investigation. Moreover, players who were asked by ASADA investigators about the appendix did not recall seeing any appendix with the form.
The consent form also asserts that:
“I base this recommendation on the visual examination(s) I have performed, on x-rays, models, photos and other diagnostic tests that have been taken, and on my knowledge of your medical and physiological history.”
In their interviews, players also stated that they signed the forms despite no visual examinations being performed on them, and in the absence of x-rays, models, photos or other diagnostic tests. Nor were any players asked about their medical or physiological history.

J34’s review and comment:
The question was simply trying to ascertain if the players were explicitly told that all substances were WADA approved. The response is filled with information that does not need to be explained to answer this question.
This response shows a lack of understanding of the processes in sports science

  • Every athlete possesses a medical history that begins at a time he or she enters into even the junior levels of elite sport.
  • A biochemical, physiological and psychological profile is established and used as a baseline on which improvement is measured.
  • All injury analysis and recovery programs are recorded and used to tailor make training regimes for each individual.
  • At the beginning of pre-season training all team members are subject to a full range of testing. KPIs are compared and new baselines established, especially if they have been on a heavy weights program.
  • To suggest the signing of a consent form was somehow linked in time to biological marker testing and medical examination shows the lack of knowhow ASADA has in such matters of sports science.

The players were also given a presentation by the sports science department to provide context to the consent forms. At no point did ASADA mention this as it weakens this attempt to show that the players were complicit in a program set out to cheat.

ASADA are casting doubt on the players integrity by suggesting they signed documents they already knew was incorrect – example being that the document stated the program was based off visual examinations that have not been performed at that point

ASADA fail to mention in its response that this was a generic consent form and the players were advised that each player will get a specific program tailored to their situation. The contents of this presentation have not been made public.

SQ16-000273/SQ16-000274 Question SQ16-00273:
Senator Di Natale: What is the evidence that this improves recovery?
Mr McDevitt: —so the fact that you can train harder and if you recover more quickly then, yes, you can get bigger and stronger.
Senator Di Natale: What is the evidence that it improves recovery?
Mr McDevitt: I will have to take that on notice. What I can say to you—
Senator Di Natale: You are making claims about what effect this—
Mr McDevitt: It is promoted globally and it is distributed and trafficked globally because it is believed that it promotes recovery and, as I said to you, if you can recover more quickly you can train harder and you can get bigger and stronger, and that was the aim.

Question SQ16-000274
CHAIR: Can I ask one quick one? Just for clarification: you said that Thymosin beta-4 is on the banned list. Why is it on the banned list? Is it because it has not been tested or because it is known to be performance enhancing and unsafe?
Mr McDevitt: I would have to take it on notice. I suspect it will be a combination of both. I suspect it will be because it has not gone through a clinical trial—so it has not been determined to be fit for human consumption—on the one hand and, on the other, early science has most likely indicated that it does enhance performance. I suspect that for those two reasons it has probably been put on the banned list, but I will come back to you if that is wrong.

ASADA’s answer:
Please refer to the response provided to Question on Notice SQ16-000276. (Refer last weeks Part 1 Petition Update for full answer)

J34 review and comment:
The question was not answered
The report cited in SQ16-000276 from Dr Handelsman quotes a number of references in the bibliography to support his statements about wound healing and muscle regeneration properties of Thymosin Beta 4
These references relate to laboratory studies:

  • A small number in animal models
  • Many articles exploring the mechanisms of endogenous (naturally occurring) Thymosin Beta 4 in the body
    The above is not conclusive to say that exogenous (externally administered) Thymosin Beta 4 is performance enhancing
    The Handelsman report states there are no clinical trials or publications that refer to the clinical use of Thymosin Beta 4
    There are actually 3 areas of medicine that are currently using Thymosin Beta 4 as a treatment.
  • Clinical trial underway looking at the use of Thymosin Beta 4 in post heart attack patients.
  • Clinical trial completed showing the benefit of Thymosin Beta 4 in the treatment of corneal ulcers
  • A third clinical trial claims successful treatment of venous stasis ulcers
    All of these uses are some way of treatment, aimed to improve health or return patients to normal health. These treatments cannot be considered performance enhancing or allowing athletes to train harder or build muscle. Despite this WADA somehow considered Thymosin Beta 4 as performance enhancing.
    In paragraph 224 of the AFL tribunal findings when Dr Handelsman qualified his claim that Thymosin Beta 4 was considered a doping agent under S2.5 of the WADA Prohibited List:
    Dr Handelsman conceded that his opinion was based on and limited to animal studies given there have not been studies conducted on the benefit of administering Thymosin Beta 4 to humans (5)
    Dr Handelsman conceded that his opinion of Thymosin Beta 4 could change when the effect of Thymosin Beta 4 in humans was known (5).
    Dr Handelsman stated at the AFL Tribunal that TB4 was not registered anywhere in the world but then retracted his statement, when questioned by a player’s advocate, and admitted that he not checked the status of TB4 worldwide. (5)
    Given the Handelsman report was not conclusive in the reasons why Thymosin Beta 4 should be a banned substance, it is difficult to understand how ASADA justifies the assertion that the players and Mr. Dank set out to cheat using this particular substance
    Had the players and Mr. Dank deliberately set out to cheat, it is unlikely they would use a product with relatively unknown performance benefits instead of one of the many available substances that are not only performance enhancing but also very difficult to detect.

It is worth noting that despite the issues, the AFL Tribunal also found that Thymosin Beta 4 was considered a banned substance at the time.

This is not being disputed as such as it is pointing out the inconsistent and unclear method in which WADA/ASADA operates making it nearly impossible for any athlete or even medical practitioner to determine what is banned or not if it is not explicitly mentioned in the WADA Prohibited List.

References

  1. Koh, Dr. Ben. A potential new method of performance-enhancement: ultrasound and platelet-rich plasma. Cycling Tips. [Online] 2016. http://cyclingtips.com/2016/03/a-potential-new-method-of-performance-enhancement-ultrasound-and-platelet-rich-plasma/.
  2. The Ticket. [Online] ABC Radio. http://mpegmedia.abc.net.au/newsradio/audio/theticket/201604/r1554386_23302004.mp3.
  3. WADA. 2015 Wold Anti-Doping Code. [Online] https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/wada-2015-world-anti-doping-code.pdf.
  4. Australian Department of Health. Health Portfolio Overview. [Online] http://www.health.gov.au/internet/budget/publishing.nsf/Content/2015-2016_Health_PBS_sup1/$File/2015-16_Health_PBS_1.03_Portfolio_Overview.pdf.
  5. AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal. AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal Finding. Herald Sun. [Online] http://media.heraldsun.com.au/multimedia/2015/aug/project/pdfs/Judgement.pdf.
  6. Garnham, Dr. Andrew. AFL360 - 20 Aug 2013 - Essendon and AOD 9604. AFL360. August 20, 2013 - see video last update
  7. WADA. 2012 Prohibited List Change Summary. [Online] https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/WADA_Summary_Modifications_2012_List_EN.pdf.
  8. —. WADA 2012 Prohibited List. [Online] https://wada-main-prod.s3.amazonaws.com/resources/files/WADA_Prohibited_List_2012_EN.pdf.

Staying silent on some issues is misleading. Not answering the question is also misleading. Answering only part of the question is misleading again. Did ASADA intend to mislead the Senate?

More importantly, would any Australian athlete ever trust ASADA again?
Clearly, ASADA is in trouble.

Please support this petition which requests a Senate Inquiry to sort this mess out.
Kindly read, consider, and sign this petition. If you have already signed, please ‘share’ and then ‘like’ this petition using any of the links below and/or your own social media platform.
Thank you sincerely for your support

TB4 might have been banned at the time, but our our players were told, believed and trusted they were being given Thymodulin which is not TB4. And; that's what at least one player I know of checked for on the ASADA website, NOT TB4. After being well and truly had with AD9604, debacle, why would the players trust any of WADA/ASADA/AFL? Would you?
839

The latest update of the petition gives me hope.

I will write soon to the various senators and do what I can to engage with them around the issue of McDeceit misleading the Senate, as this is an issue that they should take particularly seriously.

Wouldn’t it be great if we could get Derryn to call out, “Shame, Shame, Shame!”, to McDeceit in parliament and make the headlines once more, and McD be pinned for misleading parliament which should lose him his job and bring attention to the truth.

Things should hot up again, in the near future, with the return of the suspended players (to training at least) and it will be a big event when they are allowed out in the open with media access in November, this is not allowed prior to the end of the suspension, with their training being supposedly in private. Some time soon there will be the result of the Swiss appeal as well.

With Hurley’s interview on the Footy Show, it is drawing attention to how much he feels the suspension. If Jobe talks about his feelings that will be big news too.

I do want things to settle down and to move on once we get into the football next year, but the upcoming events will be big, if we like it or not, and if we can at least get politicians to take the facts seriously and for ASADA to come under scrutiny, that is our best hope of some sort of hearing.

And, who knows, the Swiss Appeal may surprise us.

840

FFS Pls quote stabby’s post a few more times, my scroll finger isn’t quite worn out yet! FFS.