PART 2 BRUCE FRANCISS DISSECTION OF BEN MCDEVITTS SENATE ESTIMATES COMMENTS

Item (McDevitt) 1: The members of the club implemented a program to make Essendon
players bigger, stronger and able to recover more quickly to gain an advantage over their
opposition.
My Comment:
1. McDevitt and ASADA only alleged that Essendon administered one banned substance,
Thymosin. McDevitt alleged that Essendon used Thymosin to make the Essendon players
bigger, stronger, and able to recover more quickly. Essendon commenced its 2012 season
pre-season training on 19 October 2011. To my knowledge, no one has suggested that
Thymosin was administered prior to May 2012. The only evidence available indicates
that it was used for the first time in June 2012. This begs the question, if Essendon used
Thymosin to make the players bigger, stronger and able to recover more quickly why
werent they administered Thymosin on 19 October 2011 or shortly thereafter?
McDevitts claim has no foundation whatsoever.

2. This is a disingenuous comment made to imply that Essendon was doing something
sinister.
3. Every club, in every football code, has a program to make its players bigger, stronger and
able to recover more quickly.
4. It is only sinister if the club uses a banned substance to achieve the objective. Most
sensible people believe that there is no evidence Essendon used a banned substance.
5. Dank claimed on numerous occasions that he administered Thymomodulin because it was
an immune booster and consequently helped to not only ward off colds and flu but it
helped players to recover from colds and flu, which helped the players recover more
quickly from injuries. Most people accept that it takes longer to recover from ailments or
injuries when you have a cold or the flu.
6. Given that vials of Thymomodulin were found in Danks fridge, and given his
explanation for using Thymomodulin, it is far more plausible that Thymomodulin was
used than McDevitts laughable claim that Thymosin was used to make the players bigger
and stronger nine months after training for the 2012 season commenced.

PART 2 BRUCE FRANCISS DISSECTION OF BEN MCDEVITTS SENATE ESTIMATES COMMENTS

Item (McDevitt) 2: Secondly, I believe that they held the bar of 'comfortable satisfaction' so
high that, if allowed to remain, it would have set a precedent which would have made it
extremely difficult if not impossible, not only for ASADA, but for any anti-doping
organisation in the world to successfully prosecute a matter which did not, as in this case,
involve a positive test.
My Comment:
1. This is nonsense.

2. The bar of comfortable satisfaction remains. It is a subjective judgement and will

continue to be so at every tribunal hearing. If we accept McDevitts judgement that the
AFL Tribunal panel interpreted comfortable satisfaction too harshly, it doesnt mean
that future tribunal panellists were required to interpret the evidence as harshly as
McDevitt implied the AFL panellists did. McDevitt disingenuously was implying that the
AFL Tribunal panel had set a precedent. In my view he misled Parliament. The next
tribunal panellists will define comfortable satisfaction themselves. It wont be defined
by either the three CAS panellists or the three AFL Tribunal panellists.
Item (McDevitt) 3: Senator, let me just give you a couple of examples. As you know, I fully
supported the WADA appeal and I supported it in kind and financially. The decision to
appeal was totally WADA's. Do not overestimate my influence on WADA. They actually
undertook their own reviews and made their own decisions to appeal. Let me just give you a
couple of examples.
My Comment:
1. These are just weasel words.

2. No one has suggested that anyone other than WADA personnel had a vote on whether to
appeal. However, it is impossible to believe that McDevitt didnt have input into the
decision to appeal.

PART 2 BRUCE FRANCISS DISSECTION OF BEN MCDEVITTS SENATE ESTIMATES COMMENTS

3. For a start, ASADAs in kind and financial support totalling $130,000 must have had
some influence on WADAs decision to appeal. If WADA thought such support was only
pocket money, McDevitt should not have given it to WADA.

4. McDevitts comment: Do not overestimate my influence on WADA, implies that he had

little influence. Having raised the issue, McDevitt should be required to table all
communication between himself and WADA between 31 March 2015 and the CAS
hearing. He also should be required to table diary notes; notes from telephone
conversations with WADA personnel; the report emanating from his visit to WADA after
31 March 2015; and he should be required to table all communication with Australian
officials about his $130,000 donation to WADA.

5. NB. My FOI request for all communication documents between ASADA and WADA for
the period 31 March 2015 and 20 June 2015 was rejected on the grounds that 17,500
pages met my criteria. When I refined my FOI request to all communication (and diary
notes) between McDevitt and WADA it was rejected on the grounds that not a single
piece of paper existed. That meant that McDevitt didnt notify anyone at WADA when he
was arriving in Canada; he didnt make a single diary note of any appointments he
attended in Canada; he didnt thank anyone at WADA for agreeing to pay his travel
expenses; and surprisingly he didnt commit anything in writing about his decision to
give $130,000 of Australian taxpayers money to help convict 34 Australian players who
had been found not guilty by an Australian tribunal.
6. McDevitt claimed that the AFL Tribunal decision was manifestly wrong for a number of
reasons. It is illogical that WADA didnt ask McDevitt to explain his reason for his view.
Item (McDevitt) 4: No record was kept within Essendon; indeed, the absence of such record
was the subject of forceful criticism by the AFL Tribunal and relied upon by it as a reason to
find ASADA's case to be insufficiently substantiated.
My Comment:
1. This is factually untrue. ASADA was given a spreadsheet by Essendon titled
Thymomodulin that was created by Dean Wallis on 27 June 2012. I have never seen it

PART 2 BRUCE FRANCISS DISSECTION OF BEN MCDEVITTS SENATE ESTIMATES COMMENTS

and cant comment on how thorough it was or when the last entry was made. Irrespective
of how thorough it was it is important to note that it was for Thymomodulin.

2. Comprehensive records were kept of all IV treatments that the players received at
Skinovate Clinic.
3. Comprehensive records were kept of the Cerebrolysin and amino acid injections the
players received at HyperMED.
4. Legally, perfect records should have been kept by both the club and the players for every
substance that was administered. As the administration of Thymosin was the only
substance of concern to the CAS panel, the absence of records for other substance didnt
affect the panel.
5. The CAS panels claim that there was a desire to shroud the regime in a veil of secrecy
was nonsense:

The players were told that they would be administered Thymosin if they
consented to it and if Dank thought it could help.

Dean Robinson sent Dr Reid an email on 15 June 2012 which outlined the
proposed schedule for administering Thymomodulin.

As stated above, Dean Wallis created and maintained a spreadsheet of

Thymomodulin injections.

Dean Wallis found and photographed three vials of Thymomodulin which were
left in Danks fridge.

The secrecy was requested in order to protect Danks intellectual property.

Item (McDevitt) 5: The appeal option had two possible routes for me. One was to appeal to
the AFL anti-doping appeals tribunal, which would mean that the matters would remain
under the umbrella of the AFL's framework, and the second option, which was the one I took,
was to forgo my appeal option, refer the matters to WADA and allow them then, if they saw
fit, to initiate an appeal to CAS. I did not have a direct opportunity to appeal to CAS. Quite
4

PART 2 BRUCE FRANCISS DISSECTION OF BEN MCDEVITTS SENATE ESTIMATES COMMENTS

frankly, this matter was going to end up in CAS anyway. I can almost guarantee you that,
if the result of that appeals tribunal had been the players being found guilty, they would have
almost certainly themselves exercised their appeal option, which was open to them, to then go
to the CAS. I can tell you also that, if the appeals tribunal had found in favour of the players
and applied and accepted the same logic of the lower tribunal in the original decision, then,
for the exact same reasons I have just outlined to you, I would have then initiated my right of
appeal to CAS.
My Comment:
1. It is not a major point but McDevitt is talking nonsense. He was obviously not close
enough to the players or their legal teams to know that he could almost guarantee that
they would have appealed a guilty finding from the AFL tribunal.

2. If McDevitt had appealed the AFL tribunals not guilty verdict and lost again in an
appeals hearing there is no way he could guarantee that he would have appealed to the
Court of Arbitration for Sport. The media, and presumably the Minister for Sport, would
have opposed such action.
Item (McDevitt) 6: Absolutely. I think the main thing we have got to do with these matters is
get to the truth. We need to expose the facts.
My Comment:
Amazingly, McDevitt kept a straight face when he made this comment. ASADA and WADA
were driven by the need for a conviction rather than the truth. For example, McDevitt claims
there is proof that Mark McVeigh was injected with Thymosin. If McDevitt wants us to
believe he and ASADA and WADA are driven by the truth he should be compelled to table
the evidence that McVeigh was administered Thymosin.
Item (McDevitt) 7: We acted entirely as a model litigant would act, and we took the option
of going to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.
My Comment:
A model litigant doesnt change evidence; fabricate evidence; omit evidence; and knowingly
table evidence which it knew were untrue. In particular, a model litigant would prefer guilty
5

PART 2 BRUCE FRANCISS DISSECTION OF BEN MCDEVITTS SENATE ESTIMATES COMMENTS

players found innocent rather than innocent players found guilty. On this occasion 26 players
who denied being administered Thymosin have been found guilty when there is no evidence
that they were administered Thymosin. The other eight players have been found guilty
through the use of changed evidence; fabricated evidence; and through the omission of
evidence.
Item (McDevitt) 8: There are 23 Australians who are arbitrators on the Court of Arbitration
for Sport. It is a body which is totally independent of sports, Court of Arbitration for Sport, a
totally independent body of eminent experts in sports law.
My Comment:
Its stretching the truth to say the CAS is a totally independent of sports. John Coates is
president of the International Council of Arbitration for Sport, which is the supreme organ of
the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Coates is also president of the CAS. He is president of the
Australian Olympic Committee and vice president of the International Olympic committee.
Coates is the most influential sports official in Australia. Coates reportedly had more to do
than anyone else with organisations such as the AFL having to comply with the WADA code.
Item (McDevitt) 9: There are other players beyond the 34 who were not given the injections.
Our evidence is that there were two threshold issues applying to the 34 that were quite
critical. All 34 said they did receive injectionsof the players who we proceeded against
and all 34 did a sign consent form for various substances including Thymosin.
My Comment:
McDevitt is being underhanded again. Senator Back was talking specifically about
Thymosin. McDevitt was implying that the 34 players who admitted to receiving injections
were admitting to receiving Thymosin injections. That is untrue. There is no evidence
whatsoever that 26 players received a Thymosin injection.
Item (McDevitt) 10: No, the 30 tested missions covered a total of 21 players, and on all 30
testing missions none of those 21 players ever declared receiving an injection from Mr Dank.

PART 2 BRUCE FRANCISS DISSECTION OF BEN MCDEVITTS SENATE ESTIMATES COMMENTS

My Comment:
1. This is another example of McDevitt and the CAS panel making a judgement when there
was insufficient evidence to make such a judgement. I hasten to add that I share their
scepticism, but as there is insufficient evidence. They were wrong to make such a
judgement.

2. The players were required to list the names of all substances that they were administered
within seven days of being tested. WADA stated that none of the 21 players who were
tested listed a single substance. I share McDevitt, WADA and the CAS panels view that
some of the players forms could not have been filled out correctly. However, the only
way this could be proved was to cross-reference the players test forms with the Essendon
injecting schedule. As no such injecting schedule exists it is impossible to prove that any
of the players lied about not receiving a substance within seven days of being injected.
3. In light of the above, it was outrageous for the CAS panel to decide against the players on
the grounds that they had conspired to lie
Item (McDevitt) 11: That is how it happened. They were asked questions around what have
you been given in terms of medication, supplements, any substances, vitamins, anything?
What have you been given in the previous seven days? What we had is that not one of them
declare these injections.
My Comment:
As stated in response to Item 9, neither McDevitt nor the CAS panel can identify a single
player who didnt fill out his test form correctly.
Item (McDevitt) 12: As I said earlier, their own doctor gave evidence to say that none of
them approached him in relation to these particular injections.
My Comment:
1. McDevitt is disingenuously implying that there was something sinister, and a conspiracy
of silence, in not discussing the matter with Dr Reid. The players had been told that Dr
Reid had approved every substance. The players trusted Dank and Robinson in the same
7

PART 2 BRUCE FRANCISS DISSECTION OF BEN MCDEVITTS SENATE ESTIMATES COMMENTS

way I imagine every player at every club trusted their sports scientists; their physios; their
nutritionists; their weight trainers etcetera

2. In 2010, the AFL included a clause (7.4) in its anti-doping code that required every player
at every club to table prior to the start of the season a list of every substance that he was
administered in the previous 12 months. The AFL never checked with compliance of 7.4
at any club, presumably, because it trusted the players and the doctors to comply. History
tells us that the AFL trust was misplaced. It doesnt imply that the AFL was doing
something sinister.
3. The players trusted ASADA to run a fair investigation. They didnt expect ASADA to
change evidence; omit evidence; and fabricate evidence. As with Dank, the players made
a mistake in trusting ASADA.
4. When the government appointed McDevitt as chief executive of ASADA they trusted him
to exonerate guilty players rather than convict innocent players. The evidence suggests
that trust was misplaced. In this instance the evidence, or lack of it, indicates at least 26
innocent players have been found guilty.
Item (McDevitt) 13: You are arriving at a number of 13, but your number may actually be
higher than that. I am not sure exactly how many times players might have doubled up.
My Comment:
McDevitt remembered what made him a great cop. He should be commended on this
occasion for his honesty.
Item (McDevitt) 14: What the failure to declare was evidence of was not the offence in its
own right, but what the CAS found was that the failure to declare on 30 separate missions to
21 players was indicative of the course of conduct and the culture of secrecy around this
particular program.
My Comment:
This issue was addressed in Item 9. There wasnt a culture of secrecy as argued by the CAS
panel. The secrecy was requested to protect Danks intellectual property.
8

PART 2 BRUCE FRANCISS DISSECTION OF BEN MCDEVITTS SENATE ESTIMATES COMMENTS

Item (McDevitt) 15: To be frank, it was not a supplements program. This is not
supplements; this is banned substances. This was an injections regime, not a supplements
program.
My Comment:
1. McDevitt has mislead Parliament in claiming that there were banned substances (plural).
The players were charged with being administered one banned substance.

2. On 4 April 2013, ASADA lead investigator John Nolan addressed two senior AFL
officials, three Essendon board members and a number of senior ASADA executives.
Nolan read out a list of 70 supplements that ASADA suspected were administered at
Essendon. As it transpires, only one of them, Thymosin, was alleged to be a banned
substance.
3. I suspect most rational people would declare 70 supplements a supplement program.
4. There were no WADA rules with respect to the number of injections that a player could
receive so McDevitts claims about an injections regime was a disingenuous attempt to
besmirch the players in the eyes of an ignorant media and public. As it transpires less than
10 of the alleged 70 supplements were administered by injection.
5. The extent of the phoney ASADA / AFL injection campaign is best illustrated by the
public statements by Demetriou, McLachlan, John Fahey and McDevitt. Demetriou
estimated that the players received 10,000+ injections; McLachlan suggested 4000+
injections; Fahey said 3000+ and McDevitt suggested hundreds if not thousands.
6. McDevitts estimate was surprisingly small considering ASADA stated publicly that
Dank intended administering 1104 AOD-9604 injections. As it transpired a total of 40
AOD-9604 injections were given to the Essendon players.
Item (McDevitt) 16: I know you are very focused on the test. Again, I just need to say to you
that the CAS did not convict or find guilty these players purely because they had not declared
something on a test. They looked at that aspect simply to say that that was consistent with the
other facts that led them to believe that this was a program that the players had agreed to
9

PART 2 BRUCE FRANCISS DISSECTION OF BEN MCDEVITTS SENATE ESTIMATES COMMENTS

keep secret; a program that the players, as a collective group, agreed was taking them right
to the edge.
My Comment:
1. This is untrue, fanciful and hypocritical. The players did not as a collective group agree
that it was taking them right to the edge. McDevitt should be required to provide proof to
substantiate his claim.

2. McDevitt constantly used the term right to the edge as an inflammatory device to
besmirch the players. A substance is either WADA permitted or WADA banned. There
isnt a category called right to the edge. If a person is driving his car at 59 km/h in a
60km zone he is abiding by the law. If he is driving at 61 km/h he is breaking the law.
Similarly, if a player is taking a permitted substance he is operating within the law and
should not be besmirched.
3. McDevitt was being hypocritical because the Australian Institute of Sport website boasted
about its cutting edge performance-enhancing supplement program.
4. Every club is obsessed with keeping its supplement programs a secret. Each club was
asked to reveal whether their club had an individually-based supplement program or a
team-based program. The clubs were not asked to reveal a single substance in the
program but still none replied.
Item (McDevitt) 17: For the wider appeal, the costs were in the order of $130,000, and a
$10,000 cost for the CAS arbitration fee. Ultimately, the CAS costs themselves were to be
paid by Essendon and the AFL, not by ASADA.
My Comment:
McDevitts comment implies that ASADAs $130,000 was refunded and the hearing didnt
cost ASADA a cent. I hope McDevitt hasnt misled Parliament again.
Item (McDevitt) 18: Penalties are determined by the sport itself or, if it goes to a tribunal,
by the tribunal. In relation to the Essendon players, discussions on penalties were had with
relevant parties in June 2014 and in November 2014. I engaged in those discussions with a
10

PART 2 BRUCE FRANCISS DISSECTION OF BEN MCDEVITTS SENATE ESTIMATES COMMENTS

view to trying to get some resolution on these matters. That was what I was trying to do. I
tried to do that before infraction notices were issued. The reason I did that is that there were
opportunities for playersand it is the same for any athleteto come forward, for example,
and claim substantial assistance if they come forward and give assistance or if they decide
that they want to mount a defence of no significant fault. In this case, and this is where it
becomes important, to actually claim no significant faultand I did put it out there and said,
'Look, you may be able to try to establish this claim and no significant faultthe players
said: 'No, we are not going try that. We are going to fight it. And what we are going to do is
deny it.' To get no significant fault, you have to firstly admit that, yes, you had the substance.
So once they made that critical choice to go to a hearing, the onus was then on them to prove
no significant fault. If they had stayed in a state of denial and hence
My Comment:
1. I believe McDevitts actions were reprehensible. The players made it very clear from day
one, and on numerous occasions after that, that they didnt believe that they had been
administered a banned substance. On 9 February 2013, ASADA chief executive Aurora
Andruska, deputy Trevor Burgess, senior general counsel Elen Perdikogiannis,
investigators John Nolan and Paul Simonsson; AFLs Gillon McLachlan and Brett
Clothier; Essendons David Evans and Ian Robson all accepted that the players believed
that they were not given a banned substance.

2. All players testified that they werent administered a banned substance.

3. To put the kindest spin on it, McDevitt was suggesting if the players renounced all their
previous statements and testimony he would be able to reward them. A harsh critic, of
whom I am not one, may have even suggested that it could have been interpreted as a
bribe for the players to perjure themselves and to help create a case against Dank.
4. In January 2015, Stewart Crameri and Brent Prismall were pressured to accept a twogame ban and a NAB cup ban to plead guilty to having taken a banned substance. To their
credit they both refused to lie in order to accept the bribe.
5. The irony is if any of the players had played ball with McDevitt and pleaded guilty to
taking a banned substance, Dank would have sued the players for defamation. The onus
11

PART 2 BRUCE FRANCISS DISSECTION OF BEN MCDEVITTS SENATE ESTIMATES COMMENTS

would then have been on the players to prove that they were administered Thymosin
Beta-4. The players had no evidence to support such a claim. The only thing the players
would have won was a few laughs when they explained that the reason that they changed
their minds about what they were administered was because they liked the incentive
floated by McDevitt.
Item (McDevitt) 19: They said that they were injected with Thymosin.
My Comment:
This is a disingenuous comment by McDevitt. Thirty-four players were found guilty of being
administered Thymosin. Only eight players admitted to being administered Thymosin. I
suspect that all senators believed that McDevitt was implying that all 34 players said that
they were injected with Thymosin.
Item (McDevitt) 20: Why didn't they go to a doctor? Why wouldnt you ask the doctor?
You said they do not know about pharmacology, so if they do not know about
pharmacology Sorry, why didnt they go to the doctor?
My Comment:
1. This issue was addressed in item 11.

2. McDevitt was once again being too smart by half. He knew that the players were aware of
Dank and Robinsons qualifications. He knew that the players believed that Dr Reid had
approved every aspect of the supplement program. He knew that not a single player
believed that Dank didnt have Dr Reids permission to do what he was doing.
3. On 24 April 2012, the AFLs operations manager Adrian Anderson sent the results of an
AFL survey to each of the clubs. Inter alia, the memo stated that 7/14 said non-medically
qualified personnel had exerted undue influence on medical decision making on one or
more occasions in the previous 12 months; 6/14 said this had adversely affected medical
decisions on one or more occasions; non-evidence based medical practices are growing
which presents potential medical and injury risk ie, IV vitamins/supplements, specialist
referrals without doctor input, radiation exposure and unhygienic facilities [my
emphasis]; the possible consequences were potential risk to player welfare (emergency
12

PART 2 BRUCE FRANCISS DISSECTION OF BEN MCDEVITTS SENATE ESTIMATES COMMENTS

cover, mistreatment, etc; exposes club, club staff & coaches, and AFL to potential
litigation; issue with MO recruitment and retention; potential MO insurance issues).
4. The results of this survey flagged potentially catastrophic problems for the AFL, the clubs
and the players, yet Demetriou, Anderson, McLachlan, Clothier and the Essendon board,
inexplicably, failed to do anything, despite their obligation under Clause 4.6 of the AFLs
anti-doping code to report it to ASADA. The AFL trusted the clubs to address the issues
just as the players trusted that the sports scientists had Dr Reids approval to implement
their supplement program.
Item (McDevitt) 21: Senator, would you let someone come up and give you multiple
injections and say, 'Don't worry; it's all good'?
My Comment:
McDevitt has moved from being too smart by half to being a smart arse. In so doing,
McDevitt has once again misled Parliament. He knows that the players testified that Dank
explained what he was giving them and why he was giving it to them. No player testified that
Dank came up and gave him multiple injections and used the words Dont worry; its all
good.
Item (McDevitt) 22: No. The standard of evidence was the same for the tribunal and for
CAS and is the same for all sporting tribunals. The standard is comfortable satisfaction. As I
said, the comfortable satisfaction bar can move from - the same standard, yes, but it is up to
the panel adjudicating to apply that bar correctly and appropriately in the case. What has
happened here is that they have started with the same standard of proof, but WADA and I
both felt that it had not been applied correctly by the AFL tribunal, and the Court of
Arbitration for Sport also believed it had been My Comment:
McDevitt has once again misled Parliament but this time I think it was an accident. McDevitt
said it is up to the panel adjudicating to apply that bar correctly and appropriately in the
case. This implies that the AFL tribunal panel didnt apply the bar correctly. That is untrue.
Placement of the bar is a subjective judgement and would vary from panel to panel.

13

PART 2 BRUCE FRANCISS DISSECTION OF BEN MCDEVITTS SENATE ESTIMATES COMMENTS

Depending on the verdict both the prosecutor and defendant would no doubt argue that the
panel applied the bar either too harshly too softly.
Item (McDevitt) 23: You have brought in a couple of different issues. One is the standard of
proof to be appliedthe lens that the adjudicator should look through, almost. That is the
comfortable satisfaction lens, which was applied by both panels but set differently. This is
where it is slightly complicated. Let me try to explain it a little bit. If you were to say, for
example, that something is adjudicated beyond a reasonable doubt, it means that you are
saying with 95 to 98 per cent certainty that this is probably what happened. If you are saying
'on the balance of probabilities', you are saying that there is about a 60 per cent possibility
that this happened. The difficult thing with comfortable satisfaction is it actually moves in
between those, depending on several factors, including likely penalties, severity of the offence
and so on. That was the level of accountability that both panels were expected to apply in this
case.
My Comment:
1. I agree with McDevitt that comfortable satisfaction rests somewhere between the 60 per
cent possibility required for the balance of probability and the 95 per cent required for
beyond reasonable doubt.

2. I think that McDevitt is talking nonsense when he states that the percentage moves
between 60% and 95% depending on the likely penalties, severity of the offence and so
on. As it is a subjective judgement it would change from panel to panel depending upon
the panellists definition of comfortably satisfied. McDevitt may be correct that the two
judges on the AFL tribunal who work in the criminal field may have defined comfortably
satisfied closer to 95% than to 60%. That didnt mean they applied the bar incorrectly.
3. In contrast, to the two AFL tribunal panellists, Michael Beloff, who chaired the CAS
panel at the Essendon players hearing, arguably would have defined comfortably satisfied
close to 60%. Beloff comes from Mother Teresas side of the fence and no doubt expects
the same standards as Mother Teresa. Beloff chaired the Ethics Committee of the
International Association of Athletes Federation. He chaired the International Cricket
Councils Ethics Committee. He was the number one man with respect to doping at the

14

PART 2 BRUCE FRANCISS DISSECTION OF BEN MCDEVITTS SENATE ESTIMATES COMMENTS

London 2012 Olympic Games. Beloff has appeared at CAS hearings 168 times and I am
told he has a better success rate than the judges in the Chinese courts.
Item (McDevitt) 24: I would not assume that, Senator. There are two issues: was there a
possible violation and does it warrant action? There was an evidence-gathering exercise
which included multiple elements, including player's interviews and also other paths. We
proceeded against the 34 where we felt that we had sufficient evidence to proceed.
Subsequently, that decision has been confirmed and validated by the Court of Arbitration for
Sport.
My Comment:
McDevitt treated the senators with contempt when he said that there were other evidencegathering paths which enabled ASADA and WADA to charge, and secure a conviction, of the
26 players who denied being administered Thymosin. McDevitt should be required to explain
what the paths were and what evidence they uncovered.
Item (McDevitt) 25: Well, they were told not to tell anybody. When you were an athlete,
were you ever told, 'Hey, you know these injections you are going to get; just don't tell
anybody about that'? Were you ever told anything like that?
My Comment:
This is a disingenuous response. Senator Periss doctor was in a very different position from
the sports scientists at each of the AFL clubs. The doctor did not believe that he had
intellectual property that needed to be protected. Consequently, there was no need to ask
Senator Peris not to tell the Russians what supplements she was being given. However, Dank
believed he had intellectual property to protect and requested the players not to reveal what
substance they were being administered to people outside the club. McDevitt is implying the
players were required to keep Dr Reid in the dark. That is nonsense.
Item (McDevitt) 26: James Hird, as you know, initiated action against ASADA to the
Federal Court asserting that the investigation was flawed and illegal. The investigation was
held by Justice Middleton to be entirely legal, lawful and appropriate. Mr Hird then
exercised another appeal opportunity, or right, to go to the full bench of the Federal Court.

15

PART 2 BRUCE FRANCISS DISSECTION OF BEN MCDEVITTS SENATE ESTIMATES COMMENTS

We then had a unanimous finding by the full bench confirming the earlier finding, so he has
exercised a number of appeal rights in this matter already.
My Comment:
1. McDevitt has once again misled Parliament. Hird basically argued that the ASADA Act
didnt provide for ASADA running a joint investigation with a sporting body. Justice
Middleton and the full bench of the Federal court ruled against Hird.

2. Middleton and the full bench of the Federal court were never asked to determine whether
ASADA ran a corrupt investigation. They were never asked to rule on whether ASADA
changed evidence; fabricated evidence; omitted evidence; and whether it testified falsely
in its own investigation. Interestingly, as a result of my complaint to the ombudsman, on
11 November 2015, ASADA was asked by the ombudsman to respond to my allegations
that ASADA changed evidence; fabricated evidence; omitted evidence; and testified
falsely in own investigation. Over four months have elapsed since my complaint and
ASADA has not refuted a single allegation.

I believe the CAS decision was dreadfully flawed and was reached because WADA tabled
changed evidence; omitted evidence; fabricated evidence; and because it tabled evidence it
knew to be untrue. It appears ASADA may have been to blame.

Bruce Francis
Thursday 17 March 2016

16