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 below) 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.