Petition to the Senate

Football Discussion The Sorry Saga
841
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

Sorry BSD, I thought everyone would have read it by now, but here it is again.

Certainly worth another look.

842

http://www.aph.gov.au/Senators_and_Members/Guidelines_for_Contacting_Senators_and_Members/los

if anyone needs a list & contacts for all senators in the australian parliament send them all something who knows some might even be essendon supporters …or not!

843

BREAKING NEWS: 29 of 34 Essendon players filled out DCF correctly

CoqNchzxdIscQdp-800x450-noPad.jpg800×450

SEP 8, 2016 — In its judgement, the Court for Arbitration of Sport (CAS) Panel said: “The complete failure of the vast majority of Players who had to fill in a doping control form (“DCF”) during the season to reveal the receipt of injections does not encourage confidence in their statements as to the limited or sporadic nature of what they were injected with.”

An independent investigation has now confirmed at least 29 (out of 34) of these Essendon players had filled out their DCF correctly. Further, this independent investigation suggests doubt remain over remaining 5 player DCF’s as well.

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.
Mr Francis has been looking into the Essendon 34 investigation in greater detail. Below is an extract from this investigation:

“…On first reading this is another example of the panel generalising or being lazy and failing to be specific. As the panel had access to the players’ doping control forms it should have taken the extra minute to quantify how many of the 34 players didn’t fill in their forms correctly. On closer reading, we discover that once again the panel was being extraordinarily liberal with the truth. Only 21 players were drug tested during the period. As can be seen below, at least eight of the nine players I have information for filled out their forms correctly.

The horrifying aspect of the panel’s claim is it had no idea what it was talking about. The panel cannot substantiate that the 21 players didn’t reveal the receipt of injections. As Thymosin is the only banned substance, it is clearly the substance that concerned the panel that it had allegedly been omitted from the players’ doping control form. The players were required to list all substances taken within seven days of their test. The panel cannot name a single date that a specific player was injected. Consequently, it is astounding that the panel claimed that the players failed to follow the rules. The onus was on WADA to provide evidence that the players failed to record that they had received an injection within seven days of their test. WADA failed to offer any evidence to that effect. Unconscionably, without any evidence to support its determination, the panel implied that the players had colluded with each other and had lied when filling out their forms.

The outrageousness of the panel’s negative judgement of the players arising from this issue is exemplified by the following seven players who were cross-examined by the CAS panel:

  1. Scott Gumbleton did not have a doping test in 2012.
  2. Brent Prismall was tested on 6 December 2011. Prismall hadn’t received an injection at that stage and therefore he had nothing to declare on his doping control form.
  3. Jobe Watson was tested in January 2012 and 12 July 2012. Watson hadn’t been injected before February 2012 and refused to be injected by the end of April. Consequently, he cannot be accused of failing to fill out his form correctly.
  4. David Hille was tested on 14 May 2012. Like Watson, he too, refused injections before the end of April.
  5. Cory Dell’Olio was tested on 14 July 2012. As he had not received an injection in the previous seven days he had nothing to declare on his doping control form
  6. Mark McVeigh was tested on 23 January 2012. McVeigh had not been injected at that stage and therefore had nothing to declare on his doping control form.
  7. Ricky Dyson was tested on six occasions in 2012. As I don’t know, and the panel doesn’t know, when Dyson received his Thymosin injection, it is impossible to say whether he failed to fill out his form correctly.

Although Dyson Heppell and Ben Howlett were not required to appear at the hearing, they were in the same boat as the first six players listed above in that they were tested before (23 January 2012) receiving any injections… As they had not been injected at that stage they had nothing to declare on their doping control forms.

Seven of the remaining 12 players testified that they were never administered a Thymosin injection. Therefore, only a maximum number of five players may not have filled out their doping control forms correctly. I cannot comment on those five players because I have not seen their doping control test forms, despite having made a FOI request to ASADA for those forms on 22 June 2016.

My command of the English language is poor and my mathematical skills are worse. But in my book, five out of 34 doesn’t reconcile with the panel’s claim that “the complete failure of the vast majority of Players who had to fill in a doping control form (“DCF”) during the season to reveal the receipt of injections does not encourage confidence in their statements as to the limited or sporadic nature of what they were injected with”.

Shamefully, this statement was one of the major reasons the panel found the players guilty.

Regards

Bruce Francis”

Something is just not right with this whole investigation. 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.

844

I’m going to run out of screens. Every time I see that smug face of McDeviot I want to punch the screen or p155 on it.

845

Serious question for Stabby.

I notice that you have sent Jobe Watson (and others) a tweet with a link to your latest musings.

My question is, have you had direct communication with Jobe for him to indicate that he would like to receive such communication from you?

846
Serious question for Stabby.

I notice that you have sent Jobe Watson (and others) a tweet with a link to your latest musings.

My question is, have you had direct communication with Jobe for him to indicate that he would like to receive such communication from you?

In short, no.

I had heard directly, and through third parties that some player families are very supportive of the petition. Notwithstanding this, the players wont and rightfully shouldn’t respond on twitter. If they do, it wont be good for their AFL career.

847

ASADA spent $12000 on testing Ricky Dyson?
Good to see everyone’s money being well spent

848
ASADA spent $12000 on testing Ricky Dyson? Good to see everyone's money being well spent

Yeah but also involved testing that recruiter that actually considered Ricky Dyson + a third rounder.

849

What’s hiding within ASADA records?

SEP 15, 2016 — The Anti Doping Rule Violation Panel (ADRVP) is an ‘independent body’ operating within the ASADA system. From evidence supplied by ASADA investigators, the ADRVP considers:

  • whether there is a possible violation (an assertion of a possible violation) and

  • decides to enter the athlete or support persons name on the ASADA Register of Findings.

On 3 November 2014, the ADRVP met to present case material gathered and analysed by the ASADA investigators. The panel consisted of Mr Hayden Opie, Dr Diana Robinson, Mr Paul Carey and Mr Stuart Thorn, and was chaired by Professor Andrew McLachlan.

The 34 Essendon players were named and a statement recorded that shows why the players were to be placed on the Register of Findings in accordance with clause 4.10 of the NAD Scheme. After the player citations, this additional statement (refer page 14 of document linked https://www.righttoknow.org.au/request/1926/response/5761/attach/html/4/Document%201%203rd%20November%202014%20signed%20minutes.pdf.html ) was included:

‘Based on the information provided the ADRVP concludes that the athletes have been the victims of deception and the panel consider the athletes to have a low level of culpability in these cases.’

This is a very interesting statement. In fact, this ADRVP conclusion appears to be at odds with entire WADA prosecution of this case, the CAS Panel decision, as well as parts of the explanation ASADA CEO Mr Ben McDevitt made to an Australian Senate committee on 3 March 2016.

There have been numerous FOI requests seeking the board minutes and discussions for this particular ADRVP meeting. They have all been unsuccessful as ASADA claim no minutes of these discussions actually exist.

How could such a distinguished panel reach a conclusion and decision to place these players of the Register of Findings without a board room discussion?

For information ASADA’s FOI responses are below:

23 June 2016 – FOI request: “Those attachments relate to minutes of 3 November 2014 and constitute a record of decisions as an outcome of discussions. They do not constitute a record of discussions of the ADRVP…”

23 June 2016 – ASADA Response: The ADRVP said the only documents identified as being within the scope of that request were those outlined in the decision letter of 21 June 2016 (i.e. the players Register of Findings citation)

23 June 2016 - FOI request “Can you please confirm that there are no records of discussions between ADRVP members and with other persons in relation to the decision to place 34 Essendon players on the Register of Findings, other than those provided to me…

24 June 2016 – ASADA Response: ADRVP said all documents identified as falling within that category had been provided.

24 June 2016 - FIO request: “My letter… raised a question of fact in relation to my request for copies of records of discussions of ADRVP members in relation to the decision to place 34 Essendon players on the Register of Findings. . . Could you please respond to that question of fact with a factual response, whether or not there are no records other than those you have provided to me.”

12 July 2016 – ASADA Response: CEO Ben McDevtt from ASADA responded that he was bringing a fresh, independent mind to the review and that the documents that were disclosed were all the records and there were no additional documents.

16 July 2016 - FOI request: “Your letter misconstrues two important facts. First, the documents provided to me do not constitute records of discussions, rather they are documents recording decisions. Second, a plain reading of my FOI request establishes that the FOI request is not limited to material which might be available to the original FOI decision maker, or to documents held by ADRVP members. My request covers all documents of discussions irrespective of authorship and wherever/however held by ASADA. It is my understanding that if such documents are in existence and are held by any ASADA official or form part of ASADA records, they are subject to the FOI Act. My previous question of fact in that respect to ASADA has gone unanswered.”

18 July 2016 - FOI request: “Could you please respond to my question - with a yes or no - whether there are any ASADA documented records of discussions held by ASADA other than the records of decisions you have supplied to me.”

19 July 2016 – ASADA Response: ADRVP answered it wasn’t possible to give a definitive yes or no answer and it wasn’t appropriate to do so.

19 July 2016 - FOI request: “Could you please clarify whether, in conducting the internal review, the secretariat to the Panel was consulted as to the existence of documents other than those provided to me. I find it puzzling that no records of discussions were established or maintained, including the minutes of meetings of the Panel additional to that of 3 November. Was that the only meeting of the Panel? Also, if I had made my request directly to ASADA, would I have received a different response?”

20 July 2016 – ASADA Response: ADRVP replied that ASADA and itself considered the matter closed and would not be responding to further enquiries in relation to it.

What on earth is going on here?

Does anyone believe the ADRVP board would make a critical decision and place these players on the Register of Findings, without any discussions at all?

What’s else is hiding within ASADA records?

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.

850

ASADA knocks on the front door, comes in through the back door. Does ASADA follow the spirit of rule?

Philip Nelson
Australia

Sep 27, 2016 — Many people have grave concerns at how ASADA behaves and its views on the legal rights of Australia’s athletes.

Dr Ben Koh, a sports medicine expert, revealed that in 2011 ASADA attempted “to access confidentially held medical information” held by Medicare.

“In that programme, athletes’ medical records were cross checked for evidence that they were using WADA banned substances.

“The scheme was abandoned when the Office of the Privacy Commissioner and the Australian Government Solicitor deemed the programme illegal and that ASADA did not have legal authority to conduct the programme.”

Source: ‘Anti-Doping and Medical Privacy’, 19 July 2013, LawInSport.

But if anything, ASADA is persistent.

Was it a coincidence that the day before the infamous “blackest day” press conference on 7 February 2013, legislation was introduced to expand ASADA’s powers? Luckily, The Greens were able to insert an amendment that stopped ASADA stripping away athletes’ right to silence.

A copy of The Greens Senators Dissenting Report 2013 can be viewed here:

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/download/legislation/amend/s902_amend_da4b1a3c-7250-4046-bc9a-c799c7277a46/upload_pdf/7368_ASADA%20Bill%202013_AG.pdf;fileType=application%2Fpdf

Again in the following year, The Greens Senators Dissenting Report dealt with the ‘ASADA Amendment Bill of 2014’. They raised the following concerns about proposed changes:

  • Mr Ian Predergast, AFL Players Association, said that the Bill’s penalties “are not compatible with Australian employment law.
  • Mr Nolan [QC] submitted that ASADA were asking for increased powers even though they had not demonstrated an ability to investigate and prosecute cases in a timely and reasonable manner.
    The Inquiry heard evidence of 14 and 18 month waits for cases to be prosecuted.”
  • Mr Redman from the Law Institute of Victoria pointed out that in other countries cases are heard within a few days, whereas in Australia they can take months.”
  • Mr Garnsey (Australian Athletes’ Alliance) outlined concerns about how the media were able to accurately report on confidential ASADA investigations. “We got a blow-by-blow description of what was happening in that [Essendon] investigation through the daily media. Information was in the possession of the media before players’ lawyers knew. It should never have been open to the media to have access to that sort of information—and it was also reported as fact what was about to happen in the investigation, which subsequently proved to be quite accurate down the track.”

Senator Di Natale added that athletes, some just young kids, were not familiar with legal processes, and if ASADA wanted to question them, they had to have the same rights if they were questioned by the police or other legal jurisdictions.

The Australian Athletes’ Alliance (AAA) General Secretary Ian Prendergast said athletes should not give up fundamental rights taken for granted by others in society.

A copy of The Greens Senators Dissenting Report 2014 can be viewed here:

http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate/Community_Affairs/ASADA/Report/d01

Further, Tracey Holmes’ The Ticket, 29 November 2015, backs up this Greens Senators Dissenting Report. In her interview, Barrister Anthony Crocker stated:
“ASADA was acting outside its mandate by compelling athletes to give up their common law right to silence.”

He claimed ASADA was using a loophole by inserting a new harsh provision into the anti-doping regulations of National Sporting Organisations, which athletes are compelled to sign.

“The common law privileges against self-incrimination … are abrogated by this Article,” the provision reads.

Listen to Tracey Holmes, The Ticket, plus Anthony Crocker from 18’40” onwards:

http://www.abc.net.au/newsradio/content/s4362015.htm

This is just not fair.

We know ASADA cannot be trusted. Therefore, why should ASADA be permitted, through a private contractual arrangement, to make an athlete hand over the very protections Parliament says ought to be retained?

Read Tracey Holmes’ article here:

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.

851

The Justice for the 34 group have a submission to a number of Senators and MPs going this week articulating the need for a Senate enquiry.

There are a number of events being proposed to further the cause. Once finalised, i will post details.

852
The Justice for the 34 group have a submission to a number of Senators and MPs going this week articulating the need for a Senate enquiry.

There are a number of events being proposed to further the cause. Once finalised, i will post details.

Look forward to the post.

853
The Justice for the 34 group have a submission to a number of Senators and MPs going this week articulating the need for a Senate enquiry.

There are a number of events being proposed to further the cause. Once finalised, i will post details.

Thanks Heffsgirl and Team

854
The Justice for the 34 group have a submission to a number of Senators and MPs going this week articulating the need for a Senate enquiry.

There are a number of events being proposed to further the cause. Once finalised, i will post details.

Thanks Heffsgirl and Team

PETITION UPDATE 4 OCTOBER 2016

A New York Attorney on ASADA’s removal of Australian Athletes’ right to silence.

Nikki Dryden, a New York attorney and Canadian Olympic swimmer, writes why ASADA’s removal of Australian Athletes’ right to silence is arguably unlawful:

A push to expand ASADA’s legislative powers to investigate doping resulted in the 2013 ASADA Amendment Bill being drawn up.

The draft bill initially included a clause removing athletes’ right to silence and privilege against self-incrimination. This proved highly controversial.

During debate, there were Australian legal organizations voicing concerns over the issue, including the Institute for Public Affairs, which noted:

“The privilege against self-incrimination is a basic legal right.”

“There is no justification for removing it in these circumstances… the power to compel athletes to answer questions and produce documents that may assist ASADA in its investigations… are exercised without the need for warrants to be issued by the courts.”

As a result, the Australian Parliament passed the Bill without the clause, reaffirming the right to silence for Australia’s athletes.

CIRCUMVENTION BY CONTRACTUAL WAIVER: THE NEW ASADA TEMPLATE FOR NATIONAL SPORTS ORGANISATIONS

By January 1, 2015, most of Australia’s national sporting organizations (NSOs) had updated their Anti-Doping Policies (ADPs) using a template provided by ASADA that removed these rights, this time by contract.

ASADA’s template could remove these rights, notwithstanding the lack of legislative authority, by implementing a “contractual arrangement between the sport and members of the sport.”

The AOC also updated a By-Law in its Anti-Doping Code obliging Australian athletes to cooperate and assist ASADA even if to do so would incriminate them, or they risked losing their spot on the Australian Olympic team.

Several sports, including Australian Football and Rowing, that had not previously followed the ASADA ADP template on this issue, now had to remove these common rights rather than risk disqualification from the Olympic Games.

THE RIGHT TO SILENCE AND PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION

An individual’s right to silence and privilege against self-incrimination are protected in law at a number of levels.

Under customary international law, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) affirmatively protects an individual’s rights against self incrimination, stating that no person shall “be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt.”

In compliance with international law, the WADA Code (2015) at no point forces athletes to cooperate, nor does it force athletes to give up their right to silence or the privilege against self-incrimination.

CAS PRECEDENT REGARDING SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TO THE CODE

There is precedent from CAS on the rule against national organisations making substantive changes to the Code.

In United States Olympic Committee (USOC) v IOC, the panel outlined the purpose of Article 23.22:

“to ensure that Signatories do not introduce provisions that negate, contradict, or otherwise change the WADA Code articles that are mandatory…”

“The panel finds that “through unilateral action by the IOC…” the rule in question changed the effect of the WADA Code anti-doping regulations.”

CAS ruled against the British Olympic Association (BOA) on a similar issue.

SUBVERSION OF THE RULE OF LAW

In addition to violating the WADA Code, ASADA and the AOC have also arguably subverted the rule of law by abrogating athletes’ rights to silence and privilege against self incrimination.
If key rights are to be abrogated, it must be by way of due legal process – namely legislative backing - rather than by backdoor contractual waiver backed by coercive punishment.

THE ATHLETE’S VIEW

Australia’s athletes have not been given a choice about giving up their common law rights, and in some cases, are unknowingly contracting them away.

They are required to sign the ADPs for their sport, and as Australian attorney Barry Crocker argued, the preambles to the ADPs are “simply false and misleading.”

The Australian Athletes’ Alliance (AAA), a union representing the top 8 professional (and notably non-Olympic) sports, said that:

“while athletes are committed to clean sport, they believe in retaining fundamental rights others in society take for granted in the purported aim of achieving that objective.”

“The right against self incrimination is an important fundamental right that must be protected for athletes, which Parliament has made clear.”

What started as an attempt to fight doping in Australian sport has risen to the level of arguably violating not just common law, but also the WADA Code and international sports law, and undermining the rights of the athletes they are trying to protect.

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.

855
The Justice for the 34 group have a submission to a number of Senators and MPs going this week articulating the need for a Senate enquiry.

There are a number of events being proposed to further the cause. Once finalised, i will post details.

Thanks Heffsgirl and Team

PETITION UPDATE 4 OCTOBER 2016

A New York Attorney on ASADA’s removal of Australian Athletes’ right to silence.

Nikki Dryden, a New York attorney and Canadian Olympic swimmer, writes why ASADA’s removal of Australian Athletes’ right to silence is arguably unlawful:

A push to expand ASADA’s legislative powers to investigate doping resulted in the 2013 ASADA Amendment Bill being drawn up.

The draft bill initially included a clause removing athletes’ right to silence and privilege against self-incrimination. This proved highly controversial.

During debate, there were Australian legal organizations voicing concerns over the issue, including the Institute for Public Affairs, which noted:

“The privilege against self-incrimination is a basic legal right.”

“There is no justification for removing it in these circumstances… the power to compel athletes to answer questions and produce documents that may assist ASADA in its investigations… are exercised without the need for warrants to be issued by the courts.”

As a result, the Australian Parliament passed the Bill without the clause, reaffirming the right to silence for Australia’s athletes.

CIRCUMVENTION BY CONTRACTUAL WAIVER: THE NEW ASADA TEMPLATE FOR NATIONAL SPORTS ORGANISATIONS

By January 1, 2015, most of Australia’s national sporting organizations (NSOs) had updated their Anti-Doping Policies (ADPs) using a template provided by ASADA that removed these rights, this time by contract.

ASADA’s template could remove these rights, notwithstanding the lack of legislative authority, by implementing a “contractual arrangement between the sport and members of the sport.”

The AOC also updated a By-Law in its Anti-Doping Code obliging Australian athletes to cooperate and assist ASADA even if to do so would incriminate them, or they risked losing their spot on the Australian Olympic team.

Several sports, including Australian Football and Rowing, that had not previously followed the ASADA ADP template on this issue, now had to remove these common rights rather than risk disqualification from the Olympic Games.

THE RIGHT TO SILENCE AND PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION

An individual’s right to silence and privilege against self-incrimination are protected in law at a number of levels.

Under customary international law, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) affirmatively protects an individual’s rights against self incrimination, stating that no person shall “be compelled to testify against himself or to confess guilt.”

In compliance with international law, the WADA Code (2015) at no point forces athletes to cooperate, nor does it force athletes to give up their right to silence or the privilege against self-incrimination.

CAS PRECEDENT REGARDING SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TO THE CODE

There is precedent from CAS on the rule against national organisations making substantive changes to the Code.

In United States Olympic Committee (USOC) v IOC, the panel outlined the purpose of Article 23.22:

“to ensure that Signatories do not introduce provisions that negate, contradict, or otherwise change the WADA Code articles that are mandatory…”

“The panel finds that “through unilateral action by the IOC…” the rule in question changed the effect of the WADA Code anti-doping regulations.”

CAS ruled against the British Olympic Association (BOA) on a similar issue.

SUBVERSION OF THE RULE OF LAW

In addition to violating the WADA Code, ASADA and the AOC have also arguably subverted the rule of law by abrogating athletes’ rights to silence and privilege against self incrimination.
If key rights are to be abrogated, it must be by way of due legal process – namely legislative backing - rather than by backdoor contractual waiver backed by coercive punishment.

THE ATHLETE’S VIEW

Australia’s athletes have not been given a choice about giving up their common law rights, and in some cases, are unknowingly contracting them away.

They are required to sign the ADPs for their sport, and as Australian attorney Barry Crocker argued, the preambles to the ADPs are “simply false and misleading.”

The Australian Athletes’ Alliance (AAA), a union representing the top 8 professional (and notably non-Olympic) sports, said that:

“while athletes are committed to clean sport, they believe in retaining fundamental rights others in society take for granted in the purported aim of achieving that objective.”

“The right against self incrimination is an important fundamental right that must be protected for athletes, which Parliament has made clear.”

What started as an attempt to fight doping in Australian sport has risen to the level of arguably violating not just common law, but also the WADA Code and international sports law, and undermining the rights of the athletes they are trying to protect.

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.

PETITION UPDATE 11 OCTOBER 2016

Philip Nelson

DUMMY SPITS, BAD SCIENCE, BEST GUESSES.

On Tuesday, 31 March 2015, the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal brought down its preliminary judgement.

It ruled that “The decision of the tribunal is the tribunal is not comfortably satisfied that any player violated clause 11.2 of the AFL Anti-Doping Code.”

Later, in its Full Decision, the Panel added that “in the Tribunal’s view, this submission [TB4] of the ASADA CEO flies in the face of much of the evidence given by Dr Vine on this issue which is accepted by the Tribunal.”

“Further, the Tribunal found that a consideration of the facts and circumstances on which the ASADA CEO relied, did not support the submission that the substance tested at Bio-21 was TB4.”

“Many of the reasons provided by the ASADA CEO were contentious and lacked any proper evidentiary basis.”

However, the case against the cleared 34 Essendon players, after ASADA refused to appeal, ended up before the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS).

In its Arbitral Award [judgement] in April 2016, CAS ruled, among its many points, that:
— “this Panel is not obliged to follow the AFL Tribunal’s reasoning…”
— “TB4 administered by Dank to the players… has been the Panel’s preferred starting point…”

Starting point? Shouldn’t that be their finishing point?

But there were many concerns about the CAS judgement and WADA’s testing.

The AFL Players’ Association responding to the CAS verdict, stated it was “bitterly disappointed by today’s decision of the Court of Arbitration for Sport and shattered for each and every player involved.”

“We have maintained a consistent position that these players did nothing wrong, and today’s decision does nothing to change our view.”

“We are staggered to read comments attributed to the ASADA CEO today, that “there were very little grounds for the players to claim they were at no significant fault.”

“This is despite his previous recommendation to WADA and the AFL that it would be appropriate to reduce the sanction on the basis of no significant fault or negligence…”

“… we have seen no evidence throughout this process that proves the players were administered supplements which were not compliant with the Code.”

“To the players – again the victims of this sorry saga – you can stand with your heads held high, notwithstanding today’s decision.”

In Chip Le Grand’s updated ‘The Straight Dope’, he wrote how WADA “commissioned one of its accredited laboratories, the Institute of Biochemistry at the German Sports University, Cologne, to develop a test for Thymosin Beta 4…”

The lab’s results had trouble differentiating endogenous [naturally occuring] TB4 from exogenous [introduced] TB4.

Daryl Adair, Associate Professor of Sport Management, UTS, commented on Twitter: “Cologne could not find what was alleged. Why.”

Jason Mazanov, recognised international expert on the management of drugs in sport and the anti-doping policy, UNSW, has written that for WADA “proof isn’t needed for any of the criteria [3 grounds for banning substances], and evidence of performance enhancement is lacking in all but a handfull of instances.”

Worldwide, there are concerns with CAS judgements.

In the European monthly magazine, ‘Lab Time’ October 2016, an article, ‘Borderline Analysis’, by 4 leading scientists and Professors in Biochemistry and Research from the University of Oslo, Oslo University Hospital, and University of Tromso, concluded that:

“Another troubling doping case is questioning WADA’s credibility again.”

“Some WADA-accredited laboratories and also sports judges base their conclusions and verdicts on uncertain, inconsistent results and interpretations.

“That’s fatal for those individual athletes who are innocent and for the credibility of the entire anti-doping system.”

“In May 2014, the Irish sprinter and law student Steven Colvert was tested for performance-enhancing drugs.

“The WADA-accredited laboratory in Cologne reported that his urine contained traces of synthetic recombinant erythropoietin (rEPO), a drug that must be injected and cannot be unintentionally ingested. Colvert claimed he was innocent, but was found guilty.”

“After reading our article in Lab Times in September 2015, Colvert contacted us and asked if we could help him evaluate the data that formed the basis for the conviction.”

“We found that there are indeed troubling aspects to the data and our considerations concern the level of certainty that one can achieve when measuring very small differences with scientific methods.”

“We fear that Colvert’s sentence for drug abuse might have been unjustified.”

http://www.labtimes.org/labtimes/currentissue/index.lasso

More concerns on the CAS judgement have emerged.

— Brendan Schwab, Head of UNI World Athletes: “The Essendon case further highlights the incompatability of the WADA Code with professional sports.”

— Howard Jacobs, leading US Sports Lawyer: “Par. 125-126… appears biggest evidentiary stretch…”

— James Kitching, Head of Sports Legal Services, Disciplinary and Governance: “The Award is very strong on ‘use’. Re ‘prohibited substance’, first time ever without direct evidence a finding has been made.”

— Mike Morgan, Partner of Morgan Sports Law, USA: “Terrifying decision. Players found guilty because they could not prove they hadn’t used TB4 thus effectively turning the Burden of Proof on its head.”

— Renee Anne Shirley, former Executive Director of the Jamaican Anti-Doping Commission: “CAS does not publish all its ‘full’ decisions, and this is also a part of the lack of transparency in global AD…But few care!”

Chip Le Grand, in his updated edition of ‘The Straight Dope’ has the most telling words: “The biggest doping case in Australian sport, and the careers and reputations of a generation of Essendon footballers, are determined by a best guess.”

All of this has resulted from ASADA stepping aside and having WADA step in.

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.

856

Senate Committee membership is now up on APH site. Sport, in Health portfolio continues to come under Community Affairs. That Committee has reverted to past practice of separating legislation/ departments and special references (such as Lyme disease) with different chairs, some different members. Those closer to the scene and dynamics might be able to gauge whether that would give a greater chance for the petition to get up provided we could get a champion or two. Time to do some lobbying of members, including the human headline?
PS surprised to see a Rage article today, reporting Gordon questioning McDevious version of the truth.

857
Senate Committee membership is now up on APH site. Sport, in Health portfolio continues to come under Community Affairs. That Committee has reverted to past practice of separating legislation/ departments and special references (such as Lyme disease) with different chairs, some different members. Those closer to the scene and dynamics might be able to gauge whether that would give a greater chance for the petition to get up provided we could get a champion or two. Time to do some lobbying of members, including the human headline? PS surprised to see a Rage article today, reporting Gordon questioning McDevious version of the truth.

PETITION UPDATE 18 OCT 2016
PHILIP NELSON

“If he didn’t sign, the hearing will proceed without him and his clients.”

That’s how CAS warned Tony Hargreaves, a highly experienced criminal lawyer representing 32 of the Essendon players, when he raised concerns with CAS about a document setting out ground rules for the CAS hearing.

Hargreaves had no choice and signed the document but set out his concerns in a sworn affidavit.

A CAS media release later stated that the Swiss Federal Tribunal “decided not to entertain the appeal.”

The Appeal’s full judgement is in German and is still being translated.

On 12 October 2016, Chip Le Grand, a Walkley-winning journalist, wrote “Appeal documents reveal that -
• former High Court judge Kenneth Hayne,
• former Federal Court judge Ray Finkelstein,
• former Federal Court judge Neil Young and
• former Victorian Supreme Court judge Jack Rush

  • all submitted legal opinions in support of the players’ case to the Swiss court.”

Hayne: WADA’s right of appeal should have been limited to demonstrating that the AFL tribunal, which previously heard the case, either made an error of law or came to a manifestly unreasonable decision.

Young: CAS’s decision to conduct a second, full hearing of the case exposed the players to a form of double jeopardy and offended “fundamental principles of justice and fair dealing.’’

Rush: WADA was not entitled to appeal and the CAS panel was not entitled to review the merits of the AFL tribunal decision.

The players’ lawyers argued that according to the AFL rules and players rules, appeals against a decision of an AFL tribunal are limited. Australian contract law had precedence over CAS’s usual way of doing things.

Chip Le Grand revealed that “The appeal was argued entirely by written submissions, submitted to the Swiss court in French and German.”

On 13 October 2016, Chip Le Grand wrote that a “six-page document, ‘Order of Procedure’, set out the ground rules for the CAS hearing; the jurisdiction, the panel of arbiters who would hear the case, the lawyers who would be appearing for the parties and who would be called as witnesses.”

“The document also contained a single, contentious phrase: “The jurisdiction of CAS is not contested by the affected players.’’

But everyone involved in the case knew the question of jurisdiction had already been fiercely contested in multiple written submissions several months earlier, by two groups of players’ lawyers.

The Appeal ruling has dismayed the AFL Players Association and the lawyers of the 34 players. The lawyers believe the players have been done over once again.

Jack Rush said the Swiss court’s decision was “appalling’’ and the treatment of the players unfair during the drugs scandal.

Rush pointed out it was the AFL that changed the rules governing appeals to CAS — a change made after the case against the players had been heard by an AFL tribunal but before a decision had been handed down.

He added “What is obvious to those who have read the submissions concerning the appeal to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court — if the matter had been decided according to Australian law in an Australian court the decision would have been different.’’

The code in force at the time of alleged offences and the start of the anti-doping proceedings did not provide for a de novo appeal to CAS. The revised anti-doping code did.

“It doesn’t sit well for McDevitt to be coming out and talking about change of rules,’’ Rush said. “The rules changed mid-process. That is one of the primary, unacceptable parts of what has gone on here.’’

The Essendon Football Club stated “We maintain our view that the decision and penalty handed down by the Court of Arbitration for Sport was manifestly unfair on our players.”

Former Senator John Madigan added his support. “ASADA may think it’s been vindicated. Why have Australian Sportsmen and sportswomen right to a fair trial under law been handed to foreign bodies?”

On the ABC NewsRadio program, The Ticket (14 October 2016), Tracey Holmes’ guests were Chip Le Grand, international lawyer and barrister Paul Hayes and Brendan Schwab, human rights lawyer and head of Uni World Athletes.

• “A review of the sports justice should, at least, be considered.”
• “One wonders if the truth will ever be known.”
• “Rules are being developed by sporting organisations such as WADA which is overriding national law.”
• “The people who represented them [the players] have excellent reputations and they certainly know what they were doing.”
• “WADA is to be given stronger authority of national anti-doping organisations such as ASADA.”

Listen to the full program here - from 3’50”.

A final note - WADA is now pursuing private funding from the pharmaceutical industry. What influence will drug companies have in the future?

Source 1: “Doping scandal: Swiss court dimisses appeal by the Essendon 34”
Chip Le Grand, The Australian, 12 October 2016

Source 2: “Essendon players lose appeal as they had agreed to CAS rules”
Chip Le Grand, The Australian, 13 October 2016

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.

858

Soooooo… did the AFL (unofficially) know what the Tribunal decision would be when they changed the rules?

859
Soooooo… did the AFL (unofficially) know what the Tribunal decision would be when they changed the rules?

Aahhh, the almost invisible AFL. Media was very light on when ASADA and AFL went to court and failed to get subpoenas for Charter, Dank and Alavi. Judge said it was a terrible waste of time and money. ASADA and AFL joint prosecutors who lost in Anti-doping Tribunal that cleared the players. AFL profile very low. ASADA carried the can. Most think it was WADA only that changed the rules. Sure helps to have a friends in media.

860
Senate Committee membership is now up on APH site. Sport, in Health portfolio continues to come under Community Affairs. That Committee has reverted to past practice of separating legislation/ departments and special references (such as Lyme disease) with different chairs, some different members. Those closer to the scene and dynamics might be able to gauge whether that would give a greater chance for the petition to get up provided we could get a champion or two. Time to do some lobbying of members, including the human headline? PS surprised to see a Rage article today, reporting Gordon questioning McDevious version of the truth.

PETITION UPDATE 18 OCT 2016
PHILIP NELSON

“If he didn’t sign, the hearing will proceed without him and his clients.”

That’s how CAS warned Tony Hargreaves, a highly experienced criminal lawyer representing 32 of the Essendon players, when he raised concerns with CAS about a document setting out ground rules for the CAS hearing.

Hargreaves had no choice and signed the document but set out his concerns in a sworn affidavit.

A CAS media release later stated that the Swiss Federal Tribunal “decided not to entertain the appeal.”

The Appeal’s full judgement is in German and is still being translated.

On 12 October 2016, Chip Le Grand, a Walkley-winning journalist, wrote “Appeal documents reveal that -
• former High Court judge Kenneth Hayne,
• former Federal Court judge Ray Finkelstein,
• former Federal Court judge Neil Young and
• former Victorian Supreme Court judge Jack Rush

  • all submitted legal opinions in support of the players’ case to the Swiss court.”

Hayne: WADA’s right of appeal should have been limited to demonstrating that the AFL tribunal, which previously heard the case, either made an error of law or came to a manifestly unreasonable decision.

Young: CAS’s decision to conduct a second, full hearing of the case exposed the players to a form of double jeopardy and offended “fundamental principles of justice and fair dealing.’’

Rush: WADA was not entitled to appeal and the CAS panel was not entitled to review the merits of the AFL tribunal decision.

The players’ lawyers argued that according to the AFL rules and players rules, appeals against a decision of an AFL tribunal are limited. Australian contract law had precedence over CAS’s usual way of doing things.

Chip Le Grand revealed that “The appeal was argued entirely by written submissions, submitted to the Swiss court in French and German.”

On 13 October 2016, Chip Le Grand wrote that a “six-page document, ‘Order of Procedure’, set out the ground rules for the CAS hearing; the jurisdiction, the panel of arbiters who would hear the case, the lawyers who would be appearing for the parties and who would be called as witnesses.”

“The document also contained a single, contentious phrase: “The jurisdiction of CAS is not contested by the affected players.’’

But everyone involved in the case knew the question of jurisdiction had already been fiercely contested in multiple written submissions several months earlier, by two groups of players’ lawyers.

The Appeal ruling has dismayed the AFL Players Association and the lawyers of the 34 players. The lawyers believe the players have been done over once again.

Jack Rush said the Swiss court’s decision was “appalling’’ and the treatment of the players unfair during the drugs scandal.

Rush pointed out it was the AFL that changed the rules governing appeals to CAS — a change made after the case against the players had been heard by an AFL tribunal but before a decision had been handed down.

He added “What is obvious to those who have read the submissions concerning the appeal to the Swiss Federal Supreme Court — if the matter had been decided according to Australian law in an Australian court the decision would have been different.’’

The code in force at the time of alleged offences and the start of the anti-doping proceedings did not provide for a de novo appeal to CAS. The revised anti-doping code did.

“It doesn’t sit well for McDevitt to be coming out and talking about change of rules,’’ Rush said. “The rules changed mid-process. That is one of the primary, unacceptable parts of what has gone on here.’’

The Essendon Football Club stated “We maintain our view that the decision and penalty handed down by the Court of Arbitration for Sport was manifestly unfair on our players.”

Former Senator John Madigan added his support. “ASADA may think it’s been vindicated. Why have Australian Sportsmen and sportswomen right to a fair trial under law been handed to foreign bodies?”

On the ABC NewsRadio program, The Ticket (14 October 2016), Tracey Holmes’ guests were Chip Le Grand, international lawyer and barrister Paul Hayes and Brendan Schwab, human rights lawyer and head of Uni World Athletes.

• “A review of the sports justice should, at least, be considered.”
• “One wonders if the truth will ever be known.”
• “Rules are being developed by sporting organisations such as WADA which is overriding national law.”
• “The people who represented them [the players] have excellent reputations and they certainly know what they were doing.”
• “WADA is to be given stronger authority of national anti-doping organisations such as ASADA.”

Listen to the full program here - from 3’50”.

A final note - WADA is now pursuing private funding from the pharmaceutical industry. What influence will drug companies have in the future?

Source 1: “Doping scandal: Swiss court dimisses appeal by the Essendon 34”
Chip Le Grand, The Australian, 12 October 2016

Source 2: “Essendon players lose appeal as they had agreed to CAS rules”
Chip Le Grand, The Australian, 13 October 2016

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.

And; thanks to the AFL, who deliberately undermined their own employees by changing the rules to a "de novo" to help WADA, knowing full well what that would mean to the ESSENDON 34 players.

The question I am asking is, why did the AFL do that and what is in it for the AFL???