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 2015, 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.” http://www.essendonfc.com.au/news/2016-01-12/aflpa-statement 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.