Dr. Kim Sawyer is a Senior Fellow, University of Melbourne, PhD (ANU). His principal research interests are in regulation, finance, and philosophy. In a recent letter to Australian Senate, he wrote: “The WADA codes are contestable; continuously evolving as new compounds and scientific evidence emerge. The codes are indicative, not definitive. In the Essendon case, ASADA zeroed in on the substance Thymosin Beta 4 which was determined to be prohibited in 2012, although never explicitly listed.in the WADA code. ASADA’s hypothesis was that the players had been administered with Thymosin Beta 4. Their hypothesis appeared to be pre-determined rather than evidentiary. In particular there was - No evidence from urine/blood tests that the players had taken Thymosin Beta 4. - No physical evidence of the presence of the compound at the club. - No documentary evidence of the presence of the compound at the club. - No witness testimony of the presence of the compound at the club. When a regulator assumes a pre-determined position without evidence, they must build a circumstantial case. Circumstantial evidence creates risks that rights may be violated. In this case - The standard of proof used to prove the case was below 50%; establishing a precedent which biases all future anti-doping cases towards the presumption of guilt. The risk that the innocent will be found guilty has increased. - While ASADA purported to be certain the players had taken Thymosin Beta 4, they also asserted that one of the most troubling issues was they could not be certain what had been taken. Contradictory statements such as these weaken regulation; they connote arbitrariness when regulation has to be non-arbitrary. And pre-determination dilutes the rights of defendants. An independent observer apprised of the Essendon case may question whether the players were afforded their rights in relation to - Their right not to self-incriminate. - Their right to confidentiality. - Their right to due process. - Their right not to be penalised more than once for the same infraction. The role of an anti-doping authority is to protect sport from cheating so as to preserve the integrity of sport for future generations. But that authority must also protect the rights afforded by common law so as to preserve those rights for future generations. A Senate inquiry is necessary to ascertain whether Australian common law rights are protected in anti-doping investigations”. Read Dr Sawyers’ full letter here; https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0R3eVxJh0eGZVNCNGtZd2J1NFE/view Dr Sawyer is a speaker at the Symposium hosted by JUSTICE FOR THE 34. If you are interested in this topic, you should attend, but be quick, there are only only a few tickets left. - Lecture Theatre G08, Melbourne Law School, Melbourne University. Ground Floor, 185 Pelham St, Carlton. Enter via Pelham St into main foyer area. - 15 November 2016, 6.30pm – 8.30pm - For free tickets: www.trybooking.com/239743 - Gold coin donation at the door. Otherwise, please support this petition which requests a Senate Inquiry to sort this mess out. Kindly read, consider, and sign and forward this petition. If you have already signed, please ‘share’ and then ‘like’ this petition using any of the links below and/or your preferred social media platform. Thank you sincerely for your support.