In a guilty finding against 34 Essendon players, the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) referred to an Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia (AATA) decision dated 31 December 2014 against Sandor Earl. Let's have closed look into the ‘analysis’ and ‘conclusions’ CAS used in order to justify a guilty verdict. This critical CAS ‘strand’ has been summarised as follows: ...The AAAT found expressly that Mr Dank, before he joined Essendon, had used TB-4 on a Mr Earl. ….. Given that Mr Dank’s text message referred to the product as being ‘so effective in soft tissue maintenance’, it is implausible that the applicant was being administered Thymosin Alpha. The likelihood is the substance being used by the applicant was Thymosin Beta-4. The Panel respectfully endorses that analysis and conclusion, while acknowledging that the decision is under appeal…. 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 identifies errors and mistakes in CAS’s findings: 13. Sandor Earl was a Penrith Panthers National Rugby League (NRL) player. 14. Contrary to the panel’s claim, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia (AATA) (which the panel has incorrectly referred to as the Australian Administrative Appeals Tribunal) did not find ‘expressly’ that Dank had used TB-4 on Earl. This is a totally unacceptable error that in the kindest light is careless and irresponsible. The weight that the panel gave to the AATA’s finding in its inaccurate version had catastrophic consequences for the players. 15. In the first step in anti-doping investigations in the NRL, the Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel (ADRVP) found that it was possible that Dank had used TB-4 on Earl. 16. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal of Australia (AATA) then considered and endorsed the ADRVP finding that it was possible that Dank used TB-4 on Earl. 17. The case then went to the NRL Anti-Doping Tribunal, in the same way that the ASADA charges against the Essendon players were heard by the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal. 18. On Wednesday, 14 October 2015, four weeks before WADA began the presentation of its case to the CAS panel, the NRL Anti-Doping Tribunal found Earl guilty of the following: • Use of CJC-1295 (eight violations) • Possession of CJC-1295 • Trafficking in Somatropin; Trafficking in Clenbuterol • Attempted trafficking in Testosterone 19. It is inexcusable that the CAS panel would have as its first ‘strand to the cable’, a totally false claim of an earlier infraction by Dank of administering Thymosin Beta-4 to a professional sportsman. 20. How could WADA present evidence that it must have known to be blatantly wrong? 21. A second inexcusable aspect of this ‘strand’ is that the accusation against Dank is based on the purported content of a text that has been altered from the original text. 22. The actual text sent by Dank to Dean Robinson on 2 August 2011 that the panel refers to read: ‘Hi mate. Just in consult for shoulder reconstruction. This case will be of interest to you. We are utilising Thymosin post surgically for one shoulder but prophylactically for the other, Thymosin is so effective in soft tissue maintenance.’ 23. WADA submitted the following altered version of the text’s contents to the CAS panel, implying Earl’s name had been included in the text: ‘On 2 August 2011, Mr Dank, in a text message to Mr Robinson, referred to his use of Thymosin for Mr Earl, adding, Thymosin is so effective in soft tissue maintenance.’ 24. It would appear that someone in ASADA, and/or later in WADA (corruptly if so) inserted Earl’s name into the text to advance a case against the 34 Essendon players. 25. This is still strand (i) and to put it as politely as I can, the way WADA has presented its case against the players is already looking decidedly improper; some might even perceive it as corrupt behaviour. 26. The person Dank was actually referring to in the text was a male in his mid-40s, who was not a professional athlete and whom Dank was treating at his Medical Rejuvenation Clinic (MRC) as a private patient. 27. The original text was obtained by the Australian Crime Commission (ACC) in its earlier investigation of corruption in sport. Evidence from that investigation is supposed to be sealed. 28. I understand that within the legislation, the ACC is entitled to provide the text message to ASADA for interest purposes but not for use in a case. ASADA is not entitled to provide a copy of the text, or any of its contents, to anyone else. 29. ASADA investigator Aaron Walker lodged an affidavit during the Middleton Federal Court hearing in August 2012. Clause 64 states: “ASADA had a substantial body of information which it had obtained from the Australian Crime Commission (ACC) about various activities which it was not able to share with the AFL. I did not share this information with the AFL and to the best of my knowledge the other ASADA investigators did not do so either. I was conscious throughout the investigation that ASADA had information from the ACC that it was not allowed to show to the AFL as it had been given to ASADA for specific purposes.” 30. As AFL’s general counsel Andrew Dillon used the text - before it was changed - in his charges against Essendon, it would appear that someone from ASADA gave it to him. It would therefore appear that ASADA breached the Australian Crime Commission Act and the Telecommunications Act. Breaches of the Acts attract custodial sentences. 31. Even the ASADA website, in its Register of Findings, refers to Earl as having been found guilty of anti-doping violations in relation to four substances, none of them Thymosin Beta-4. For the panel to use the Earl case as compelling evidence that 34 Essendon players took Thymosin Beta-4 is incomprehensible, and deserving of severe censure. 32. To present false findings against Earl in making the case against the players should place an automatic question-mark over the reliability of even the ‘facts’ included in the remaining fifteen ‘strands of the cable’, let alone the conclusions reached by the panel. 33. On this ‘strand in the cable’ alone, the Judgement of the CAS panel should be overturned on Appeal. Below is a link to Bruce Francis full ‘Strands in the Cable’ document. http://twitdoc.com/upload/thegovernorsm/cas-strands-response-bfrancis-2feb2016.pdf Below is a link to a blog by Sinclair Davidson, a Professor of Institutional Economics in the School of Economics, Finance and Marketing at RMIT University, and a Senior Research Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs. Mr Davidson says: "ASADA’s decision to pursue neither Bock nor Robinson sits at odds with the public statements of ASADA’s McDevitt about the Essendon case." Somethings is just not right. This whole ASADA/WADA investigation against these players can be summarised into three phrases: -Inexact proofs, -indefinite testimony, and -indirect inferences. 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. This petition is the only way of aggregating a large audience of people who are interested in sorting out this mess. Please get involved. Shares and Likes will help ‘your’ petition gain some traction. Thank you sincerely for your support.