Back in April 2016, ASADA (former) chief executive Ben McDevitt, spent five days defending his organisation over its failure to pursue a prima facie case against Nathan Bock and former Gold Coast Football Club high performance manager Dean Robinson. This was after sports scientist Stephen Dank publicly admitted to supplying the retired All-Australian defender with a banned peptide. ASADA said they would reopen the investigation, but according to FOI documents, they never did. Back in the second half of 2012, a supplements program was implemented at the Melbourne Football Club, which was very similar to the Essendon program. The Melbourne Football Club supplements program had similar injections to the Essendon program, the electronic communications (in which legal substance Thymomodulin was mentioned) was similar, the architect of the program was similar (Stephen Dank), the secrecy obligations were the same, and there were no positive samples from either club. Despite all these similarities, they were not subject to an ASADA investigation, no report was issued and there were no penalties. On 3 March 2016, Ben McDevitt stated to Senators (refer Hansard, Senate transcript, p24, 25) "Frankly, this stuff about thymomodulin—the 'good' thymosin—was shown to be absolute rubbish" No ASADA investigation, report or sanctions confirms ASADA has accepted Melbourne players were given the legal substance Thymomodulin; but not Essendon. Why is there such inconsistency with ASADA? Another example: Text messages relevant to the Melbourne Football Club program were not presented to the Court of Arbitration of Sport. The transcript of a relevant ABC 7.30 Report of April 18, 2013 relating to the Melbourne program was not presented to the Court of Arbitration of Sport; yet a transcript of the ABC 7.30 Report program of May 2, 2013 relating to the Essendon program was presented to the Court of Arbitration of Sport. The conclusion is neither ASADA nor WADA wished to present any evidence relating to another program which clearly suggested the Essendon players being administered with a legal substance Thymomodulin, not the banned substance Thymosin Beta 4. The attached FOI letter identifies only 3 documents within the scope of an FOI request into an investigation into Melbourne Football Club: an internal email from 2012, and 2 interviews in 2013. This is a blatantly inadequate investigation into one of the most significant anti-doping cases in world sport as: 1. ASADA has no records of discussions, briefings, minutes nor decisions flowing on from the 2 interviews. This indicates no internal deliberations were held by ASADA in respect to the two interviews; 2. Only 2 interviews were conducted concerning these activities, compared to how many at Essendon. Why weren't a significant number, if not all Melbourne players interviewed; 3. The resulting 2015 guilty finding against Sports Scientist Stephen Dank did not trigger any further ASADA enquiries or investigations into Melbourne or Gold Coast players. Why? Its clear ASADA does not accept it was obliged to eliminate all possibilities pointing to the players innocence. However the evidence is now too compelling to ignore. Kindly support a Senate Inquiry into this whole sordid affair by adding your name/details this petition, and then ask others to support it. If you have already supported the petition, take positive action by sending an email to the decision makers. It takes just one click or you can create your own email - go here to take postive action: https://www.change.org/p/senator-richard-di-natale-senator-nick-xenophon-senator-the-hon-george-brandis-qc-inquiry-into-ethics-practices-of-asada-afl-wada-anti-doping-case-against-the-34-essendon-football-club-players/u/19400777 Social media sharing tips: Use the main links (on the RHS of webpage) to share the original petition. Use the links below this update to share this update. 

 For further information, contact Justice of the 34 via their Facebook page. Thank you for your support and patience.