Administrative Appeals Tribunal Final Submission

AAT:CONCLUDING SUBMISSION OF THE APPLICANT

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION DIVISION

BRISBANE DISTRICT REGISTRY

AAT 2020/2706 & 2020/6399

BRUCE FRANCIS

Applicant

AUSTRALIAN SPORTS ANTI-DOPING AUTHORITY

Respondent

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

SIA Act (2020) was irrelevant because it was gazetted after the proceedings commenced.
S38 of the FOI Act was irrelevant because it relied upon the SIA (2020) Act.
The ASADA Act was the relevant act and it made no distinction between lawfully gained information and how information appeared in the public domain.
Deputy President Sosso set a precedent in AAT 2017/6886 when he said if it [information] were in the public domain, it didn’t matter how it got there.
All the information I requested was in the public domain.
The Herald Sun published a link to the 18-day transcript of the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal hearing, which ensured all the information was in the public arena.
SIA did not attempt to substantiate that a single redaction met any of the five criteria that had to be met for s45 to apply.
SIA, as required, did not produce a single player or support person or third-party person or third-party organisation who objected to the information being released.
No person or organisation supplying information was told that it was confidential.
Essendon coach James Hird was told before his ASADA-AFL interview his information wouldn’t be confidential, which established the ground rules for everyone else.
AFL CEO Andrew Demetriou acknowledged that the process wasn’t conducted in a confidential way.
Neither the AFL nor ASADA/SIA produced any evidence that it suffered any detriment over the last eight years as a result of information appearing in the public domain.
Neither the AFL nor ASADA/SIA produced any evidence that it would suffer any detriment if the Deputy President ruled in my favour.
SIA didn’t produce any evidence that a single player or third-party officially complained in the past about information being in the public domain.

PREAMBLE

On numerous occasions since my FOI request on 22 June 2016, (see T37 documents and Attachment 1), ASADA/Sport Integrity Australia (SIA) requested extensions of time to consult third parties over their attitude to releasing the requested documents. Res ipsa loquitur, ASADA’s time extension requests were acknowledgements that it was the Respondent’s responsibility to produce third parties who opposed releasing the requested information. Furthermore, at page 8, lines 7 – 9, of the 6 December 2021 hearing, [ASADA barrister] Mr Davidson said; “So, this is all information about third parties.”
ASADA/SIA failed to produce a single person or organisation who objected to the information being released. Consequently, the Deputy President could immediately issue a ruling that SIA releases the requested documents without having to consider the rest of my final submission.
Although SIA produced a letter from the Essendon CEO Xavier Campbell claiming that some of his players objected to the release of the information, under cross examination, SIA could not name a single player who objected to the release of the information, nor could it substantiate any claims made in Mr Campbell’s letter.
As the requested information will not only prove that the players were innocent but will also prove that ASADA was corrupt, it is illogical that the players would oppose releasing the information.
The fact that SIA successfully opposed me cross-examining Mr Campbell should have ensured his letter was rejected.
Neither ASADA/SIA nor the AFL produced the name of a single witness who objected to the information being released.
My concluding submission is presented in four parts. In Part ‘A’, I respond to the ‘Respondent’s Submissions’ document of matters 2020/2706 and 2020/6399 that were tabled on 1 March 2022.
I believe that my response in Part ‘A’ should result in the Deputy President deciding that SIA should release all the requested documents with no redactions.
Part ‘B’ becomes significant if the Deputy President doesn’t respond positively to my request in Part ‘A’. Part ‘B’ sets out the case that Sport Integrity Australia has treated me with such contempt and ineptness that the Deputy President cannot rely upon any of the redactions made by SIA in the documents I address in Part ‘C’.
Part ‘C’ contains my severely limited dissections of SIA’s redactions in the requested documents. It is only relevant if the Deputy President doesn’t respond positively to my request in Part ‘A’.
Part ‘D’ contains important attachments that support my case.
My dissection of SIA’s redactions is severely restricted because I have not been granted access to SIA’s redactions and because SIA hasn’t attempted to justify any of the redactions. The Respondent has redacted hundreds of pages of information claiming they are exempt under sections 38 and 45 of the Freedom of Information Act.
It is impossible to believe SIA’s contention that every sentence in many pages should have been redacted. Incomprehensibly, I am not in a position to assess the vast number of claimed exemptions because I have been refused permission to see the content of the redactions.
Under Section 11 of the FOI Act (1982), I have a legally enforceable right in accordance with this Act to obtain a document of an agency, other than an exempt document; and my right of access is not affected by any reasons I have for seeking access.
I further contend that the Deputy President should not take into consideration the fact that since making my FOI requests, I have received hundreds of documents from other sources that prove that some of SIA’s claimed redactions have no foundation.
It is incomprehensible that the Respondent saw no need to produce evidence to support its claimed redactions. If a lawyer objects to a question in court or in the AAT jurisdiction, he/she is required to give a reason for the objection. Similarly, if a police officer issues a speeding ticket, he/she must record the specific speed on the ticket. Metaphorically speaking, in its Final Submission, the Respondent has basically based its redactions on “you are speeding”. The Respondent has not reported the speed. Clearly, the Respondent was required to substantiate its reasons for each exemption. It failed to substantiate a single objection.
Although I have often been extremely disappointed with the contempt shown towards me by the Respondent over the six-year process, I have nothing but admiration for the way I have been treated by the Respondent’s AGS solicitor Thomas Creedon. I accept that in all instances he has been acting at the behest of his client.

Part ‘A’: Applicant’s Response to the Respondent’s Final Submission
ASADA/SIA was responsible for ascertaining whether anyone objected to the requested information being released. Neither identified a single person nor single organisation who objected to the information being released. That begs the question, why are we here?

Section 38 FOI Act
Section 38 has no relevance in this matter.
S38 was intended to preserve the operation of specific secrecy provisions in other legislation, including in cases where no other exemption or conditional exemption is viable under the FOI Act. Section 38 and Schedule 3 of the FOI Act 1982 identify documents that are exempt from disclosure under the FOI Act because there are secrecy provisions in an Act. No provisions of the ASADA Act was listed in Schedule 3 of the FOI Act. Thus, at the time of my request for documents, there was no basis for refusing access on this ground. For the first four years of my application, prior to the introduction of the SIA Act on 1 July 2020, ASADA never mentioned s38 as reason for its redactions.
Incomprehensibly, and contemptibly, SIA has disingenuously attempted to introduce the SIA Act (2020) to justify relying upon s38.
The SIA Act (2020) is irrelevant because I made my FOI request before the SIA Act was gazetted and because the AAT processed the matter before the SIA Act was gazetted. Consequently, the ASADA Act is the applicable Act, not the SIA Act.
Clearly, SIA has contemptibly tried to rely on the SIA Act rather than the ASADA Act because the ASADA Act makes no distinction between information in the public domain that was supposedly “lawfully” obtained (with the authority of the information manager) and that which is not.
AAT Deputy President Sosso set a precedent in the matter between the same parties – AAT 2017/6886 – when he said: “It’s not really the point, from my perspective whether it was appropriately in the public domain or not, it’s simply the fact it is in the public domain.” (AAT 2017/6886 – Transcript 3 July 2018, page 45, lines 15, 16 and 17.
I contend that nothing in the 450+ pages I seek should have been redacted because all the information I seek has been in the public domain over the last eight years, and therefore, cannot be deemed to be confidential or secret or detrimental.
Evidence that all the information I seek has been in the public domain includes:

i. The Herald Sun newspaper published a link of the full transcript of the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal hearing. The hearing lasted 18 days and involved six QCs. Res ipsa loquitur, it is impossible to imagine that any information about the matter would have been withheld in those 18 days. Consequently, no information should be deemed confidential or secret, and therefore, no sentence in any of the documents I requested should be redacted.

ii. Comments by journalists Chip Le Grand and Michael Warner in their respective books (‘The Straight Dope’ and ‘The Boys Club’) that virtually everything in ASADA’s interim Report subsequently appeared in the media.

iii. AFL General Counsel Andrew Dillon released a 34-page charge sheet against James Hird, Danny Corcoran, Mark Thompson and Dr Bruce Reid. Dillon top and tailed the charges using information about the players and Stephen Dank, Dean Robinson, Shane Charter, Nima Alavi et al from the Interim Report. (See attachment 22 of the Applicant’s first affidavit dated 23 November 2020).

iv.Initially, sixty-seven people received official access to the Interim Report. Journalists quoted from the Interim Report before the vast majority of the recipients received their copies of the interim Report, which begs the question: How senior were the ASADA and AFL officials who gave the journalists the report?

v. On 7 August 2013, The Age journalists Nick McKenzie and Richard Baker’s column contained comments that proved that they had been given a copy of the Interim Report. Inter alia, they said: “WADA-banned substances AOD-9604 and Thymosin Beta-4 were given to some Essendon players under the direction of sports scientist Stephen Dank, according to circumstantial evidence detailed in the confidential ASADA [Interim] report.”

vi. At a sports conference in May 2014, AFL CEO Andrew Demetriou acknowledged that the process wasn’t conducted in a confidential way. He said: “In the normal course of events, ASADA would have conducted the investigation under the power and rules that they operate under and they would have interviewed players and other people involved, they would have done it on a confidential basis.” Res ipsa loquitur, confidentiality wasn’t an issue. It is still not an issue and the requested documents should be released.

vii. I have about 30,000 pages on the matter in my files and have written and distributed two million words. So, an estimate of the media writing over 100 million words for public consumption would be a conservative guess. Thus, it would be almost impossible to name an issue that wasn’t in the public domain.

viii. The 34 players’ responses to every substance they were administered have appeared in the public domain.

ix. As the 34 players were found guilty by the Court of Arbitration for Sport of being administered a prohibited substance, nothing in the requested documents could further damage their reputations.

x. On 14 May 2014, a senior member of Sport Minister Peter Dutton’s staff opined in an 8pm telephone call to me that I must have been the only journalist who didn’t have a copy of the Interim Report. He tacitly approved me obtaining a copy. Hence the minister didn’t believe the information was confidential.

xi. The Age journalists Caroline Wilson and Nick McKenzie wrote at least 50 columns in which they conceded that they were recipients of information from very senior AFL and ASADA people.

xii. On 24 December 2020, the Respondent tabled a document titled ‘Respondent’s Statement of Facts, issues and Contentions in Reply’. Inter alia, on page 1, it said: “The respondent accepts that there is information in the public domain and that there was significant media reporting (my emphasis) of the underlying matters to which the Documents relate.”

No one was told their information was confidential
The Respondent’s claim that the information I seek was obtained in confidence from the 34 players, officials and third parties was untrue. Incomprehensively, SIA witness Emma Johnson didn’t know whether any player was told that the information that they provided would be treated confidentially.
Each of the 34 players or their representative received two letters (12 June 2014 & 17 October 2014) explaining the rules and requirements from each at their interviews. I have seen the letters sent to 20 players. Neither letter indicated that the information obtained at the interview would be treated confidentially. At page 26, lines 3, 4 and 5 of the 6 December AAT hearing, Ms Johnson said: “I don’t have the information about what the players were told – what every player was told at the interview.”
This was an extraordinary admission. A key element of the case involves SIA’s claim that the information I requested was confidential. And Ms Johnson didn’t bother to ascertain whether the players were told the information was confidential.
Each ASADA interview began with the ASADA investigator explaining the interviewee’s responsibilities. Inter alia, every player, every support person and every third-party person were told that if they withheld information or if they didn’t tell the truth they could face a custodial sentence. I have seen the full transcript of 20 players’ interviews and none was told that the information that they provided would be treated as confidential.
Clearly, if it were necessary for ASADA to inform every person about the consequences of not telling the truth, it was necessary, if true, to inform the interviewees that the information was confidential.
I have seen the full transcripts of ASADA interviews with Essendon support staff; and Shane Charter; Nima Alavi and dozens of other third parties; and none mentioned that the information was confidential.
In fact, to the contrary, according to Chip Le Grand (Page 160 of his book ‘The Straight Dope’) the AFL refused to give James Hird a “confidential undertaking ahead of his ASADA-AFL interview” [on 16 April 2013].
On 1 August 2013, which was one day before ASADA tabled the Interim Report with the AFL, sports physician and media commentor Dr Peter Brukner correctly wrote in The Age that according to the Interim Report the Essendon players had escaped sanction. At that time, less than a handful of ASADA and AFL senior officials would have known that. Clearly, Dr Brukner was the recipient of information that those senior officials didn’t believe was confidential.
Given the foregoing, it is incomprehensible that the Respondent’s two witnesses claimed that the interviewees were told their information was confidential.

Section 45 of the FOI
I concede that it is possible that a few of the thousands of sentences in the documents I seek may be exempt under Section 45. For example, I accept that a player may not want anyone to know that he had a pre-existing heart problem. Clearly, it was incumbent on the Respondent to make its case that each sentence met the s45 exemption requirements. It failed to do so, which negates the exemption.
To found an action for breach of confidence the following five criteria must be satisfied:

i. the information can be identified with specificity

ii. the information is inherently confidential

iii. the information is held under a mutually understood obligation of confidence

iv. there is threatened misuse of the information

v. unauthorised disclosure of the information has or will cause detriment.
As stated in clause 34, it was incumbent upon the Respondent to make its case that every sentence it redacted met all five criteria.
Incomprehensively, the Respondent made no such attempt to make its case that every sentence that was redacted met all five criteria. Clearly, although there were hundreds of pages of redactions, the Respondent contemptuously believed that the Deputy President should accept its word that all redactions met the criteria.
Even if SIA had attempted to make its case that s45 applied to each redaction, it would have failed because of criteria 5 (unauthorised disclosure of the information has or will cause detriment). Neither SIA nor the AFL could substantiate that disclosure of any information over the 8-year period had caused damage.
ASADA/SIA created what I call Versions 1 and 2 of the ‘CEO Recommendation Show Cause Pack’. ASADA sent me a very heavily redacted copy of the document on 2 November 2018. As a result of my complaints about the non-sensical redactions, SIA sent me their second version of the document on 25 August 2021. There were 114 sections in which SIA un-redacted information in Version 2. As some sections contained multiple un-redactions (eg the Contents Page) there were over 150 un-redactions in Version 2. (See Attachment 2).
The contemptuousness of the Respondent’s approach is proved by referring to just three of hundreds of examples of ridiculous redactions in other requested documents.

i. I made an FOI request (FOI 20-04) “to include the words to the effect that Thymosin Beta-4 contains 43 amino acids in a specific sequence.” SIA acknowledged that the document existed but claimed that the document was exempted. The document was sourced from the internet. It didn’t meet any of the five criteria, let alone the entire five criteria, required by Section 45 to be exempt.

ii. On countless occasions, SIA redacted the time named people tweeted messages. For example, in a document labelled ‘FOI 18-27; DOCUMENT A – NATHAN LOVETT-MURRAY’, page 2, clause 15 contains an SMS from [Stephen] Dank to [Dean] Robinson. Neither the message nor the date has been redacted. However, the time Dank sent the SMS has been redacted. Clearly, the time a named person sent an SMS didn’t meet any of the five criteria, let alone the entire five criteria. Obviously, this was a ridiculous redaction that should be remedied.

iii. At page 8 clause 27 of the document labelled ‘FOI 18-27; DOCUMENT ‘A’ – NATHAN LOVETT-MURRAY’, said: “Concerns were formally, raised by players during a ‘Leadership Group Meeting’ on 16 January 2012, According, to the minutes, the meeting was attended by Mr Hird, REDACTED, and several senior players: REDACTED, REDACTED, REDACTED, MARK McVeigh, REDACTED and Mr Watson.” Newspapers and the Item Report published the names of the REDACTED people. They were Mr Jonah Oliver, Heath Hocking, Michael Hurley, Brent Stanton and David Zaharakis. This begs the questions, why were their names redacted? How can the Deputy President or me trust any of SIA’s redactions being correct?

Part ‘B’: Applicant’s Response to the Respondent’s Final Submission
To compound the problem of being unable to rely upon the Respondent’s assessment of exemptions, ASADA/SIA has treated me with unprecedented contempt, and it is therefore impossible for the Deputy President or me to trust any of the Respondent’s claims.
ASADA implied or stated on four occasions that the ‘CEO Recommendation Show Cause Pack’ that I sought didn’t exist:

i. On 2 September 2016, ASADA informed me that 13 documents fitted the scope of my FOI request. Incomprehensibly, ASADA did not include the ‘CEO Recommendation Show Cause Pack’ in the scope. (T37 documents lodged by the applicant – T19 pages 40-44)

ii. On 22 May 2017, ASADA lawyer Susan Taylor said: “[ASADA CEO} Mr McDevitt was out of the country before, during and after the 3 November 2014 meeting on business. He did not correspond in any way with the ADRVP members.” Clearly, this was a disingenuous response designed to imply there was no such document.

iii. On 23 May 2017, OAIC’s Brandon Chen – Additional Section 37 documents lodged by the applicant (page 85): “I have received ASADA’s submissions to your revised scope. Point ii ‘no further documents found for request for letters, memos, texts, emails that [ASADA CEO] McDevitt sent to the ADRVP members before and after the 3 November 2014 meeting. [Point] iii ‘pages from each player’s file that ASADA spoke to. No such documents.’”

iv. At 2:36 PM, on 4 August 2017, Brandon Chen (OAIC) Section 37 documents Part 1 – page 86, informed me that ASADA informed him: “Noting this document [CEO Recommendation Show Cause Pack’] was not provided to the ADRVP. The ASADA CEO does not make recommendations to the ADRVP).”
On 17 September 2017, ASADA eventually acknowledged that the document existed but incomprehensibly claimed that it would be in contempt of court to release the document.
On 2 November 2018, 863 days after the original FOI request, ASADA gave me a severely redacted copy of the ‘CEO Recommendation Show Cause Pack’ that proved that it not only existed but also proved that it wasn’t in contempt of court to release it. About 80 of the 97 pages were redacted, including 13 items in the Contents Page.
I complained about the number of redactions. As a result of my complaints, on 25 August 2021, ASADA issued what I term Version 2 of the ‘CEO Recommendation Show Cause Pack’. Unbelievably, 150+ redactions in Version 1 were unredacted in Version 2. (See Attachment 2).
The unprecedented changes (redacted to un-redacted), begs the questions:

– Was ASADA withholding damaging information to them that would prove it changed evidence and fabricated evidence at the 3 November 2014 ADRVP meeting?

– Was the ASADA ‘redaction accessor’ the most incompetent accessor in history?

– Given ASADA’s incompetence and corruption, how can the Deputy President rely on the veracity of the redactions in the other documents.? Clearly, he can’t.
On 22 June 2016, my FOI request, inter alia, included: “Documents, notes, emails, letters and diary entries by Elen Perdikogiannis and Emily Fitton pertaining to their 3 November 2014 meeting with the ADRVP.
On 2 September 2016, ASADA refused me access to the requested document in clause 47.
Allan Hird made a FOI request (FOI 21-4) for the same document I had requested on 22 June 2016 (see clause 49). He received the document on 18 October 2021, which begs the question: Why was I refused access to the document in 2016?

Part ‘C’: Applicant’s Response to the Respondent’s Final Submission
The Respondent provided me with a table labelled ‘Attachment 1 – Updated Schedule of Documents’ [required by the Applicant]. The document lists the documents required for FOI 17-31; FOI 18-27; FOI 18-28; FOI 19-01; and FOI 20-04. (See Attachment 3).
As I haven’t seen some of the information in those documents, I can’t make specific comments on the validity of all redactions. However, I can make some comments:

i. S38 is irrelevant because it relied upon the SIA (2020) Act being relevant. As demonstrated in Part ‘A’, the ASADA Act is the relevant Act.

ii. The vast majority of the pages containing redactions include sentences that should not be exempted.

iii. I am entitled to have the 450+ pages assessed sentence by sentence. Sincere apologies to the Deputy President in advance.

iv. The Respondent has made no attempt to make its case on a single redaction that all five criteria in s45 have been met. Consequently, the Deputy President should order the complete release of every page of the requested documents.

v. The Respondent provided me with a ridiculous lack of detail in its tables. See document FOI 18-27 – Document 2, titled Attachments to Document A. For example, refer to document No. 6 which says “Email dated”

FOI 17-31
S38 is irrelevant in the CEO Recommendation document.
The Respondent has made no attempt in the CEO Recommendation document to make its case on a single redaction that all five criteria in s45 have been met. Consequently, it doesn’t apply and the whole document should be released redaction free.
S38 is irrelevant in the interview transcript of Nathan Lovett-Murray (Doc 2).
The Respondent has made no attempt in the interview transcript of Nathan Lovett-Murray to make its case on a single redaction that all five criteria in s45 have been met. Thus, s45 doesn’t apply and the whole document should be released redaction free.

Unjustified redactions in Nathan Lovett-Murray’s interview transcript
The following have been included for consideration If the Deputy President does not concur with clauses 56 and 57.

i. Page 5, line 38: On the basis of the previous sentences, it’s hard to image that the redacted three lines includes information that makes s45 applicable. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions met the s45 criteria.

ii. Page 5, line 38: The redacted word contains three or four letters. No player’s full name only contains three or four letters, which begs the question, why has one word been redacted?

iii. Page 7, line 43: Mr Walker is clearly talking to Mr Lovett-Murray. It’s incomprehensible that Mr Lovett-Murray’s name has been redacted.

iv. Page 7, line 43: At line 39, Mr Walker clearly asked Mr Lovett-Murray: “How did he come to know that Dean Robinson had been employed at Essendon.” Obviously, Mr Lovett-Murray was either told by an Essendon player or official or read about it or saw it on television or heard about it on the radio. It is incomprehensible that the redacted unnamed player’s response was redacted. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions met the s45 criteria.

v. Page 8, line 1, 2 & 4: In the previous sentences, Mr Walker asked Mr Lovett-Murray: “Can you remember when that occurred and Mr Lovett-Murray said: ‘Not exactly. I don’t remember the details.’ Mr Walker clearly responded in lines 1 & 2 of page 8. It is impossible to imagine that Mr Walker’s comment breached s38 or s45 of the Act.

vi. Page 8, line 4 has been redacted. Mr Walker’s following comment at line 6 makes it difficult to understand how the content would be covered by s38 or s45.

vii. Page 11: Nothing on page 10 was redacted. The first four lines on page 11 were also not redacted. The rest of the page was redacted. Line 4 of page 11 indicates that Mr Walker asked Mr Lovett-Murray what would he do with the pillbox given to him by Mr Dank (see page 10). The pillbox and its contents were openly discussed in the media and there were never any suggestions of wrong-doing. As the rest of the page was redacted, we have no idea whether Mr Walker and Mr Lovett-Murray discussed other players. If other players were not mentioned by name, there was no reason to redact the page because Mr Lovett-Murray gave me unrestricted access to his information. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions met the s45 criteria.

viii. Page 12: The first 11 lines were about multivitamins. At line 10, Mr Walker asked Mr Lovett-Murray: “And who told you that?” Mr Lovett-Murray’s response was redacted. As we were talking about Mr Dank previously, it is reasonable to assume the redacted name was Mr Dank. As Mr Dank had twice given me unrestricted access to any document with his name on it, it was an absurd redaction. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions met the s45 criteria.

ix. Page 13: Virtually every line on page 13 is redacted. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions met the s45 criteria.

x. Page 14: All but the last two lines haven’t been redacted. It’s pretty easy to guess that Mr Walker’s name was redacted. However, it’s impossible to determine whether the last two lines of page 14 should have been redacted. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions met the s45 criteria.

xi. Page 15: All of page 15 is redacted. As was pointed out in Part ‘A’, s38 is irrelevant. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions met the s45 criteria.

xii. Page 16: All of page 16 is redacted. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions met the s45 criteria.

xiii. Page 17: Only just over two lines were redacted. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions meet the s45 criteria.

xiv. Page 17: At line 27 and 28, Mr Lovett-Murray said he was injected in the redacted. He could only have been injected in the arm, thigh, stomach or buttocks. It is hard to reconcile that where he was injected met s45’s criteria. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions met the s45 criteria.

xv. Page 18: Every word on page 18 was redacted. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions met the s45 criteria.

xvi. Page 19: Every word on page 19 was redacted. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions met the s45 criteria.

xvii. Page 20: Every word on page 20 was redacted. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions met the s45 criteria.

xviii. Page 21: Nine lines on page 21 have been redacted. The remaining lines appear to involve a harmless discussion between Mr Walker and Mr Dank about signatures on a number of documents. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions met the s45 criteria.

xix. Page 22. Fourteen lines on page 22 have been redacted. The remaining lines appear to involve a similar discussion to the previous page between Mr Walker and Mr Dank about signatures on a number of documents. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions met the s45 criteria.

xx. Page 24: Only two lines of page 24 have been redacted. The first redacted line follows a question from Mr Walker to a redacted person about “whereabouts on the body did you get that injection?” The redacted person’s response to Mr Walker’s question was redacted. As the interview was between Mr Walker and Mr Lovett-Murray I am guessing the redacted person’s name was Mr Lovett-Murray. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions met the s45 criteria.

xxi. Page 25: About two-thirds of page 25 have been redacted. The unredacted passages appear to be about an injury sustained by Mr Lovett-Murray. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions met the s45 criteria.

xxii. Page 26: Only five lines have been redacted. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions meet the S45 criteria.

xxiii. Page 27: There were a small number of redactions. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions met the s45 criteria.

xxiv. Page 28: Only three words were redacted. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions met the s45 criteria.

xxv. Page 29: Only three words were redacted. Clearly, those words could not have contained the names of the players or confidential information of those players. That said, page 29 is extremely important because it highlights the chicanery of ASADA. From line 18, Mr Walker describes an horrific story that a substance was bought in Mexico and used on the players with possible drastic life-threatening consequences. The fake story had an incredibly negative effect on Mr Lovett-Murray. Presumably it had a similarly negative effect with other players, and as such, their information should be made public. It is a classic case as to why the remainder of the requested documents should be released.

xxvi. Page 30: The entire page was redacted which makes it impossible to assess SIA’s application of s38 and s45. However, the non-redacted last three lines of page 29 viz “Mr Walker: Yep. If you were told at the time, Nathan, that the substance that they wanted to inject into you was from Mexico, would you have had that treatment? Would you have allowed them to inject that into you?” indicates that page 30 was a continuation of only the Nathan Lovett-Murray narration and didn’t involve another player. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions met the s45 criteria.

xxvii. Page 31: The entire page was redacted. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions met the s45 criteria.

xxviii. Page 32: The entire page was redacted. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions met the s45 criteria.

xxix. Page 33: The entire page (minus the last two lines) was redacted. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions met the s45 criteria.

xxx. Page 35: Only two words were redacted from page 35. Those two words were redacted in response to Mr Lovett-Murray being asked by Mr Walker: “Can you remember who was telling you that information?” SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions met the s45 criteria.

xxxi. Page 36: Fourteen lines of the page were redacted. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions met the s45 criteria.

xxxii. Page 37: The entire page was redacted. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions meet the s45 criteria.

xxxiii. Page 39: The entire page was redacted. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions met the s45 criteria.

xxxiv. Page 40: The entire page was redacted. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions met the s45 criteria.

xxxv. Page 41: The entire page was redacted. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions met the s45 criteria.

xxxvi. Page 42: The entire page was redacted. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions met the s45 criteria.

xxxvii. Page 43: Only one and a half lines were redacted. As the previous line was about Mr Lovett-Murray being in Alice Springs, it is hard to imagine the redacted words concerned the confidential information of other players. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions met the s45 criteria.

xxxviii. Page 44: All but the first four lines of page 44 were redacted. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions met the s45 criteria.

xxxix. Page 45: The entire page was redacted which makes it impossible to assess without seeing the page whether s38 and s45 were correctly applied.

xl. Page 46: The entire page (minus the first seven lines) was redacted. The first seven lines indicates that there is a discussion about Mr Lovett-Murray’s well-publicised trip with two other players David Myers and Tom Bellchambers), and support staff Dean Robinson, Dr Reid and Mr Dank to the Gold Coast hinterland to see a doctor for treatment. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions met the s45 criteria.

xli. Page 47: The entire page was redacted. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions met the s45 criteria.

xlii. Page 48: Only eight lines were redacted. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions met the s45 criteria.

xliii. Page 49: All but two lines are unredacted. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions met the s45 criteria.

xliv. Page 50: The entire page was redacted. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions met the s45 criteria.

xlv. Page 51: Thirteen of the first 14 Lines have been redacted and the last five lines were redacted. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions met the s45 criteria.

xlvi. Page 52: The entire page was redacted. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions met the s45 criteria.

xlvii. Page 53: The vast majority of the page was redacted. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions met the s45 criteria

xlviii. Page 54: All but the first four lines of the page were unredacted. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions met the s45 criteria.

xlix. Page 55: All but the first nine lines of the page were redacted. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions met the s45 criteria.

l. Page 56: All but the last six lines were redacted. SIA hasn’t attempted to substantiate that the redactions met the s45 criteria.

FOI 18-27

Document 1 – Document A – Nathan Lovett-Murray
S38 is irrelevant in all documents in FOI 18-27
The Respondent has made no attempt in any of the documents in FOI 18-27 to make its case on a single redaction that all five criteria in s45 have been met. Consequently, it doesn’t apply and the whole document should be released redaction free.
I am happy for the interviewee’s name (player’s name) to be redacted if the Deputy President deems s45 ever applies.
The format of the redactions on the pages makes it clear which are interviews and which are narrations.
It is vital to note that every player’s response to what substances they did or didn’t receive was published in the interim report at pages 423-433. Consequently, any question to, or answer from, a player or official about substances is not confidential information of a player or official and should not be redacted.
Many pages are fully redacted. Every line is important to me. As stated earlier in this Final Submission, I don’t believe section 38 is relevant.
Furthermore, as the Respondent has made no attempt to substantiate that even one redaction met the five criteria required to substantiate the application of section 45, it is also not relevant. Res ipsa loquitur, the whole document should be released without redactions.
The foregoing, means there is no need to attempt to dissect other reasons for rejecting every redaction. However, to emphasise SIA’s ignorance and cavalier attitude to redactions, I shall dissect a few:

i. Page 2, clause 13: only four lines – as the previous two clauses (11 and 12) – introduced Stephen Dank for the first time, clause 13 is more than probably about Stephen Dank. The majority of the unreacted information was cut and pasted from the Interim report (eg the first unredacted SMS in clause 15 is straight out of the interim report from page 17. Clearly, it should not have been redacted.

ii. Page 2, clause 14: two lines – as clauses (11 and 12) introduced Stephen Dank for the first time, clause 14 is more than probably about Stephen Dank. The majority of the unreacted information was cut and pasted from the Interim report (eg the first unredacted SMS in clause 15 is straight out of the interim report from page 17.

iii. Page 2, clause 15: One and a bit-lines – as clauses (11 and 12) introduced Stephen Dank for the first time, clause 15 is more than probably about Stephen Dank.

a)The time the texts were sent is not relevant to either SIA or the AFL or a player. It should not have been redacted.

b) The majority of the unreacted information in document 1 was cut and pasted from the Interim report (eg the first unredacted SMS in clause 15 is straight out of the interim report from page 86.

iv. Page 2, clause 15, bottom of page box: As the second box is a SMS from Dank to Robinson, it is most likely that it is part of a chain of SMSs that appeared in the interim report on pages 86, 87 and 88.

v. Page 3: Entire page is redacted. As the bottom box on page 4 is part of the chain of SMSs between Dank and Robinson, it is highly probable that page 3 is part of the chain of SMSs that appear on pages 86, 87 and 88 of the interim report and should be released.

vi. Page 4: All but the bottom box is redacted. The bottom box was part of a chain of SMSs between Dank and Robinson and is found on page 88 of the interim report and should be released. The time the text was sent should be unredacted.

vii. Page 5: The first two boxes are not redacted and are found at page 88 of the interim report. The fourth box is not redacted and is found at page 88 of the interim report. By reduction, the third box on page 5 must be part of the chain of SMSs on page 88 and should be released.

viii. Page 8: Clause 25 is not redacted. It is found at page 134 of the interim report. As clauses 23, 24 and 25 are about new protocols, there is a good chance the redacted clause 26 is about protocols and shouldn’t have been redacted.

ix. Page 8, clause 27: At page 130 of the interim report, there is a sub-heading “Players’ Leadership Group”. The names of the members of the group appear on page 130 of the interim report.

x. Page 16: The entire page is redacted. The type of redactions indicate that it is an interview. Every line (question and answer) is important to me.

xi. Page 31, Clause 61: The redactions are non-sensical. First, SIA is aware that Mr Lovett-Murray gave me unrestricted access to everything in his file. Second, people are only injected in the arm, bottom, stomach or thigh. Knowing where Mr Lovett-Murray was injected will not cause him any detriment.

xii. Page 31, Clause 62: Redacting the time these text messages were sent is bizarre. The information in the Time column should be unredacted.

xiii. Page 32: Redacting the time these text messages were sent is bizarre. The information in the Time column should be unredacted.

FOI 18-27 Document 2 – Index of Attachments to Document A – Lovett-Murray Nathan
This document is basically a Contents Page of the attachments included by ASADA. Incomprehensively, it includes many redactions that can’t possibly involve s38 and s45.
The Respondent provided me with a ridiculous lack of detail in its tables. See document ‘FOI 18-27 – Document 2, titled Attachments to Document A’. For example, refer to document No. 6 which says “Email dated”. See Attachment 3 (Email from Applicant to Respondent complaining about lack of detail in table.

FOI 19-01
On 1 January 2019, I made a FOI request for: “Sentences/paragraphs from the ‘CEO Recommendation Show Cause Pack’ that contained the word Thymomodulin”.
ASADA identified eight documents as being within the scope of my request
ASADA refused me access to all eight documents in full, citing the following sections of the FOI Act:

i. Section 45; Section 47C; and Section 47E(d).

ii. Subsequently, I prepared my response to ASADA’s assessment based upon Section 45; Section 47C; and Section 47E(d).

iii. Incomprehensively, on 25 August 2021, SIA informed that now the refusal was based on section 38 and section 45 of the FOI.

My case that SIA’s exemptions have no validity

a) I contend that SIA should not have changed the reason for refusing access to the documents.

b) SIA should not be allowed to change its reasons for refusing the access. Consequently, s38 is irrelevant.

c)The previous clause notwithstanding, SIA has not attempted to make a case that s38 applies to any of the eight fully redacted documents.

d)Section 45 states that: “To found an action for breach of confidence five criteria must be satisfied (met). SIA has not made a case that any of the five criteria apply, let alone all five, to any of the eight documents.”

e) Thymomodulin is a permitted substance. Newspapers published the fact that Thymomodulin was compounded by Nima Alavi at his Como Compounding Pharmacy.

f) The Como Compounding Pharmaceutical website promotes Thymomodulin

g)ASADA claimed that neither Stephen Dank nor Essendon ever took possession of Thymomodulin, which means the substance is not confidential information of any player.

h)ASADA created a file labelled ‘Player Summaries’. It contained a summary of the key comments made by each of the 34 players. The document contained 194 pages. Thymomodulin wasn’t mentioned once.

i) It is incomprehensible that ASADA-SIA not only fully redacted all eight documents, but is non-sensical that under cross-examination, SIA witness defended the decision on the grounds Thymomodulin was provided in confidence.

j) SIA witness Ms Johnson didn’t even attempt to identify who supplied the word Thymomodulin in confidence let alone why the name of a permitted substance was confidential.

k) At page 29, line 5, of the 6 December 2021 AAT hearing transcript, Ms Johnson astonishingly said “We believe it’s [the word “yes” or the word “no”] exempted under the provisions of the FOI Act that that section is.”

l) When asked whether she was comfortable with all the redactions [in every requested document, at page 29, lines 27 and 28, Ms Johnson said “yes I am.”

m) All eight documents should be released.

FOI 20-4
At SIA’s request, on 15 July 2020, I revised the scope of my FOI 20-4 request to:

i. Parts of thedocuments that were presentedat the3 November 2014 ASADA/ADRVP meeting that Included words to theeffect thatThymosin Beta-4 contains 43aminoacids ina specificsequence

a) SIA’s Emma Johnson refused me access citing sections 45, 47E(d) and 47C of the FOI Act

b) Thirteen months later, on 25 August 2021, SIA claimed that the exemption was based on s38 not s45, 47E(d) or 47C.

c) If such a document exists, which I doubt, it is nonsensical to exempt it because that information is displayed prominently on the internet. It is a scientific fact that Thymosin Beta-4 has 43 amino acids in a specific sequence. The content has nothing to do with a player and obviously should not have been exempted.

ii. Include the words to theeffect thatThymosincontained43aminoacids in thesame sequenceas those for Thymosin Beta-4.

a) Incomprehensively, Emma Johnson refused me access to the non-existing document citing sections 45, 47E(d) and 47C of the FOI Act

b) Thirteen months later, on 25 August 2021, SIA claimed that the exemption was based on s38 not s45, 47E(d) or 47C.

c) Emma Johnson has made a false claim, and I request her to produce a copy. No other substance has 43 amino acids in the same sequence as Thymosin Beta-4. Thymosin is not Thymosin Beta-4 as claimed by ASADA.

iii. A delivery note that indicates that Como Compounding Pharmaceuticals received Thymosin Beta-4onor about 28 or 29 December 2011.

a) This is one of many examples that indicates that neither Stephen Dank nor Essendon ever took possession of Thymosin Beta-4. Incomprehensibly, in other forums, ASADA claimed it was Thymosin Beta-4 that was delivered from China on 28 December 2011.

b) Thirteen months later, on 25 August 2021, SIA claimed that the exemption was based on s38 not s45, 47E(d) or 47C.

iv. A delivery note that indicates that Como Compounding Pharmaceuticals received Thymosin Beta-4onor about 18 February 2012.

a) Incomprehensively, Emma Johnson cited sections 45, 47E(d) and 47C of the FOI Act for exempting the document.

b) Thirteen months later, on 25 August 2021, SIA claimed that the exemption was based on s38 not s45, 47E(d) or 47C.

c) Emma Johnson was not telling the truth. On 16 October 2019, the Herald Sun published a copy of the delivery note received by Como Compounding Pharmaceuticals on 18 February 2012. The delivery note stated that 1 gram of Thymosin was received. In its evidence, SIA corruptly changed Thymosin to Thymosin Beta-4.

v. An invoice that indicates which organisation supplied the substances deliveredt o Como Compounding Pharmaceuticals on 18 February 2012

a) Emma Johnson correctly stated that no such invoice existed.

vi. A record of payment for thes ubstances delivered to Como Compounding Pharmaceuticals on 18 February 2012.

a) I believe SIA is not telling the truth. I don’t believe such a document exists and request that Deputy President McDermott and I be shown a copy.

vii. A stock record from Como Compounding Pharmaceuticals that indicates that it stocked Thymosin Beta-4 between January 2012 and June 2012.

a) Emma Johnson correctly claims that no such document exists. This is another example that indicates that neither Stephen Dank nor Essendon ever took possession of Thymosin Beta-4

viii. A stock record from Como Compounding that indicates that vials of Thymosin Beta-4 were delivered to Stephen Dank / Essendon Football Club between January 2012 and September 2012.

a) SIA correctly claims that this document doesn’t exist. This is another example that indicates that neither Stephen Dank nor Essendon ever took possession of Thymosin Beta-4

ix. A record from a courier company that vials of Thymosin Beta-4 were delivered to Stephen Dank / Essendon Football Club between January 2012 and September 2012.

a) Emma Johnson correctly claims that no such document exists. This is another example that indicates that neither Stephen Dank nor Essendon ever took possession of Thymosin Beta-4

x. Includes an invoice from Como Compounding Pharmaceutical company to Stephen Dank / Essendon Football Club for vials of Thymosin Beta-4.

a) Emma Johnson incorrectly claims that such a document exists.

xi. A record of payment by Stephen Dank / Essendon Football Club for vials of Thymosin Beta-4.

a) SIA correctly claims that no such document exists. This is another example that indicates that neither Stephen Dank nor Essendon ever took possession of Thymosin Beta-4.

xii. Include words from each player that he admitted to being administered Thymosin Beta-4 between January 2012 and September 2012.

a) Emma Johnson refused me access on the basis that processing the request would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the respondent.

b) Every player denied being administered Thymosin Beta-4. Consequently, it was outrageous for SIA to claim that it would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of SIA. A simple word research of each player’s interview would have established that no player admitted to being administered Thymosin Beta-4. On 16 October 2019, the Herald Sun quoted from Nathan Lovett-Murray’s 56-page interview as follows: “The transcript of his [Lovett-Murray] totaled 56 pages. The question and his response about Thymosin totaled 20 words.”

xiii. Include words from each player that he admitted to being administeredT hymosin between January 2012 and September 2012.

a) Emma Johnson refused access on the basis that processing the request would substantially and unreasonably divert the resources of the respondent [SIA].

b) Eight players out of 34 admitted that they may have been administered Thymosin. ASADA took only 12 pages in its Interim Report (2 August 2013) to publish responses from 34 players to the substances they may have been administered. Consequently, SIA could have produced the information in ten seconds.

FOI 21-04
The inclusion of this document is subject to permission from the Respondent and a ruling from the AAT.
SIA claims that the redactions are based upon sections 38. 42 and 45 of the FOI Act.
As discussed previously, section 38 is irrelevant.
SIA has not attempted to make the case that the redactions are based on Section 42.
SIA has not attempted to make the case that the five criteria necessary for s45 to apply exist.

CONCLUSION: (To be read in conjunction with ‘Executive Summary”).
In the interests of justice and procedural fairness, and the right of the public to know what evidence ASADA relied on to make a case against all 34 Essendon players, I have sought the release of the Show Cause Pack in full and other documents so that this evidence could be evaluated.
Following an FOI request on 22 June 2016, a copy (Version 1) of the document was sent to me on 2 November 2018, but it was almost entirely redacted, and was of little use. I subsequently received a second version (Version 2) of in which over 150 redactions were unredacted.
This, of course, casts doubt upon the veracity of the original redactions, and the cavalier attitude that seemed to have been adopted by ASADA towards a legitimate request for information from a statutory body, in accordance with the FOI legislation.
The un-redacted clauses in Version 2 of the Show Cause Pack show that the original redactions were quite arbitrary, and showed no justification in relation to Section 38 and Section 45 of the FOI Act.
ASADA appeared to rely entirely on circumstantial evidence, and the extent to which this relies on misrepresentations and other seemingly deceptive or manipulative behaviours by whatever party, can only be ascertained by an examination of the fully redacted documents.
I therefore seek to have the CEO Recommendation Show Cause Pack completely un-redacted.
As my many other FOI requests referred to in clause 2 of this affidavit relate to the same matter of ASADA’s investigation into the supplements program at Essendon Football Club, I ask that those requested, but denied to this point as exempt under FOI legislation, also be released to me.
This is not a trivial matter. As former ASADA CEO, Ben McDevitt said to Age journalist, Fiona Harari, and quoted in her article of 15 August 2015, “Cheating is one of the worse things you can accuse an athlete of. I think sometimes they would rather be branded a criminal.”
Mr McDevitt is right, and for those considering themselves innocent, the wounds don’t heal. Brendon Goddard, former Essendon club captain (2016) told journalist Simeon Thomas-Wilson of the Adelaide Advertiser (23 November 2020) that a number of the players were ‘destroyed’ and ‘scarred for life’. Wilson quotes Goddard as saying: ‘We know about Hirdy (James Hird) and his struggles, but there’s some guys out there that were fighting at the time and it probably had a long-term effect on them mentally that we probably didn’t know about. Because they were hiding it and didn’t want to talk about it. It had a huge impact. Don’t worry about the footy club, the footy will bounce back because of the supporters and its rich history of success, but a lot of the individuals that were involved have been scarred for life.’

ATTACHMENT 1 OF APPLICANT’S FINAL SUBMISSION: THIRD PARTY REQUESTS

Letter from Patrick Dale (ASADA lawyer) to Bruce Francis (Applicant) 27 June 2016

“The period of 30 days may be extended if we need to consult third parties.”

Letter from Ben McDevitt (ASADA CEO) to Applicant 13 July 2016

“The processing of this request would require extensive consultation with all those third parties.”

Letter from Ben McDevitt (ASADA CEO) to Bruce Francis (Applicant): 13 July 2016 4:45PM

APPLICANT’S ADDITIONAL SECTION 37 DOCUMENTS – T1 PAGE 2

Point (e): “The documents that fall within the scope of your request contain substantial amounts of personal (including sensitive medical) information about third parties as well as business information relating to sporting bodies and other businesses. The processing of this request would require extensive consultation with all of those third parties which would increase the amount of time required to comply with the terms of your request.

Email from Bruce Francis to Patrick Dale: 20 July 2016: 3:43PM

APPLICANT’S ADDITIONAL SECTION 37 DOCUMENTS T7 PAGES 1 & 2

“May I be bold enough to suggest that you could save time and money if you contacted each player and asked him if he gave you permission to give his file to me.”

Email from Patrick Dale (ASADA lawyer) to Applicant 28 July 2016

“Please see the attached correspondence in relation to this FOI request which notifies you of an automatic 30-day extension of time to allow for consultation in respect of the personal information which has been identified in the documents you are seeking access to. I note that although the new date for a decision to be provided is Monday 29 August 2016, I do not anticipate a decision taking that long.”

Email Susan Taylor (ASADA lawyer) to Applicant 22 August 2017

“You should expect a decision from ASADA by Friday 15 September 2017. The period of 30 days may be extended if we need to consult third parties.”

Email from Patrick Dale (ASADA lawyer) to Bruce Francis (Applicant): 28 July 2016:

APPLICANT’S ADDITIONAL SECTION 37 DOCUMENTS T10 PAGE 19

“Please see attached correspondence in relation to this FOI request which notifies you of an automatic 30-day extension of time to allow for consultation in respect of the personal information which has been identified in the documents you are seeking to access. I note that although the new date for a decision to be provided is Monday 29 August 2016, I do not anticipate a decision taking that long. I remain hopeful that, provided the consultation is as prompt as I anticipate, a decision can still be provided to you at some point next week.”

Margaret Sui (OAIC) to Bruce Francis (Applicant): 27 August 2018 4:18PM

“ASADA has requested a further extension of time to provide the revised decision until close of business Friday 14 September 2018.”

Email from Margaret Sui (OAIC) to BCF 2 August 2018 5:26PM

“ASADA has requested an extension of time … for reasons of:

Extensive third-party consultation in relation to the above material is required in the process. The decision will be made by no later than 31 August 2018.”

Letter from Ben McDevitt to Bruce Francis: 2 September 2016 4:42PM

APPLICANT’S ADDITIONAL SECTION 37 DOCUMENTS T19 PAGE 40-44

ATTACHMENT 2

Applicant’s comments on the extraordinary redaction mistakes made by ASADA in Version 1 of the ‘CEO Recommendation Show Cause Pack’.

Page 3: Contents Page –13 redactions have been un-redacted
Page 7: clause 3 – one and a quarter-lines have been unredacted.
Page 8: clause 4 – 3 lines have been unredacted. Dank’s name is still redacted (phone confiscated)
Page 8: clause 7 – one line has been unredacted
Page 8: clause 9 – one line has been unredacted
Page 9: clause 10 – two lines have been unredacted
Pages 9, 10 & 11 – clause 14 (Date executed by player and Date accepted by AFL remain redacted. That is 68 ridiculous redactions.
Page 11: clause 17 – a ridiculous redaction has been unredacted.
Page 12: Nothing redacted in either version.
Page 13: (the entire page): clauses 22, 23, 24 and 25 have been unredacted
Page 14: (the entire page): clauses 25 and 26 have been unredacted
Page 15: (the entire page): clauses 27, 28 and 29 have been unredacted.
Page 16: 10 lines of clauses 30 and 31 have been unredacted.
Page 16: 8 lines of clauses 34 and 35 have been unredacted.
Page 17: Clause 38 – the time Dank’s email was sent has inexcusably been redacted.
Page 18: remains completely redacted
Page 19: remains completely redacted.
Page 20: The time of all the exchanges on this page have all been inexcusably been redacted.
Page 20: clause 29 – the words (“see Professor Handelsman’s report”) have been unredacted, which begs the question why were redacted in the version 1 of the CEO Recommendation Show Cause Pack.
Page 21: clause 42 – the inexcusable redaction has been unredacted.
Page 22: clause 46 – all but two or three words have been unredacted.
Page 22: clauses 47 and 48 – the ridiculous redactions in these clauses have been unredacted.
Page 23: clause 51 – Two lines and three names have been unredacted, which begs the question, why weren’t the other players’ names who participated in the meeting also weren’t unredacted.
Page 24: remains completely redacted. Why?
Page 25: clause 58 – two and a half lines have been unredacted. Why weren’t the other three or four words unredacted.
Page 25: clauses 59 and 60 have been unredacted.
Page 25: clause 63 – the words “Mr Dank and Mr Robinson addressed the meeting” were unredacted – which begs the question: why were they redacted in version 1?
Page 26: clause 63 – dot point 1 – three innocuous lines have been unredacted.
Page 26: clause 65 – Three lines have been unredacted viz the players consented to the administration of four substances: Tribulus, Colostrum, AOD 9604 and Thymosin. The AOD-9604 and Thymosin were expressed to be administered by injection. NB Surely, referring to the players and referring to the four substances sets a precedent about what words should not be exempted.
Page 26: clause 66 – This clause has been unredacted, which begs the question why did ASADA redacted it in version 1 of the CEO Recommendation Show Cause Pack?
Page 27: clause 67 – As ASADA acknowledged on the previous page that the players had consented to being administered the four substances, it is impossible to understand why that information has been redacted on page 27.
Page 28: clause 67: As ASADA acknowledged on page 26 that the players had consented to being administered the four substances, it is impossible to understand why that information has been redacted on page 28.
Page 29: clause 68 – It’s difficult to accept that the redactions contain confidential information of anyone.
Page 30: clause 71 – This clause has been unredacted. It is impossible to understand why it was redacted in Version 1 of the CEO Recommendation Show Cause Pack.
Page 31: clause 75 – Surely, the time of the email should not have been redacted?
Page 31: Clause 76 – The first two lines have been unredacted, which begs the question why were such innocuous words redacted in Version 1.
Page 31: clause 77 – the second half of line two has been unredacted, which begs the question why was it redacted in Version 1. Surely, a player seeing vials in a frige is not confidential information of anyone.
Page 32: completely redacted
Page 33: clause 79 – As 34 players’ names appeared on the front page of most Australian newspapers it is incomprehensible that the content of this clause is deemed to be confidential by ASADA.
Page 34: entire page redacted.
Page 35: entire page redacted.
Page 36: entire page redacted.
Page 37: clause 82 – It is incomprehensible that the time has been redacted.
Page 38: clause 82 – It is incomprehensible that the time has been redacted
Page 39: clause 84 – the page has been completely redacted.
Page 40: clause 85 has been unredacted, which begs the question, why was it redacted in Version 1. It does not contain confidential information.
Page 40: clause 86 has been unredacted. Surely, the type of information in the first four dot points set a precedent for the information that should be released. It’s impossible to imagine why dot point five remains redacted.
Page 41: continuation of clause 86 – it is impossible to imagine why any of the dot points in clause 86 were redacted. The only possible reason for the redactions was to hide the fact that every dot point was untrue.
Page 41: clause 87 – two innocuous lines have been unredacted, which begs the question as to why they were redacted in version 1.
Page 41: clause 88 – two innocuous lines have been unredacted, which begs the question as to why they were redacted in version 1.
Page 41: the sub-heading between clause 88 and 89 has been unredacted. This is one of countless examples that ASADA/SIA has no idea how to apply sections 38 and 45 of the FOI Act.
Page 42: the sub-heading between clause 91 and 92 has been unredacted. This is another example that proves that ASADA/SIA has no idea how to apply sections 38 and 45 of the FOI Act.
Page 43: the entire page is redacted
Page 44: the sub-heading between clause 96 and 97 has been unredacted. This is another example that proves that ASADA/SIA has no idea how to apply sections 38 and 45 of the FOI Act.
Page 45: the sub-heading between clause 104 and 105 has been unredacted. This is another example that proves that ASADA/SIA has no idea how to apply sections 38 and 45 of the FOI Act.
Page 46: clause 109 – three lines have been unredacted from version 1. This is another example that proves that ASADA/SIA has no idea how to apply sections 38 and 45 of the FOI Act.
Page 47: clause 116 – the word Mr was not redacted in version 1 but it has been redacted in version 2. Clearly, the word is not confidential.
Page 48: the entire page has been redacted in both versions.
Page 49: clause 120 – An exchange between Charter and Dank has been unredacted. Of interest, is the fact that the time of the exchange hasn’t been redacted. Clearly, the times should not have been redacted in the earlier text exchanges.
Page 50: clause 120 – innocuous text exchanges between Charter, Alavi and Dank, with the exception of one word, have been unredacted. The redacted word could not contain confidential information.
Page 50: clause 121 – innocuous text exchanges between Charter and Alavi have been unredacted. It is incomprehensible that the words “On 15 January 2012 , Mr Charter enquires from Mr Alavi when Mr Dank’s order will be ready” were redacted in version 1.
Page 51: clause 122 has been unredacted.
Page 51: clause 123 has been unredacted
Page 51: the sub-heading Nima Alavi-Moghadam has been unredacted.
Page 51: clause 124 – the first line “Mr Alavi is the owner of the Como Compounding Pharmacy” has been unredacted. It is incomprehensible that it was redacted in version 1.
Page 52: clause 125 – the first line “An issue for ASADA will be the question of where Mr dank sourced the product” has been unredacted. It is incomprehensible that it was redacted in version 1.
Page 53: the entire page remains redacted.
Page 54: the entire page remains redacted.
Page 55: the entire page remains redacted.
Page 56: the entire page remains redacted. The sub-heading “The testing of products and Essendon Invoice credits” suggests that clause 129 doesn’t contain any confidential information.
Page 57; the entire page remains redacted.
Page 58: the entire page remains redacted.
Page 59: The last line “However, on a subsequent invoice dated 29 February 2012, both (p 60) the Hexarelin and ‘Peptide Thymosin’ costs were re-credited to the club” was unredacted. It is incomprehensible that it was redacted in version 1.
Page 60: the entire page remains redacted.
Page 61: the entire page remains redacted.
Page 62: the innocuous clause 143 has been unredacted. The rest of the page remains redacted.
Page 63: clause 147 – the innocuous words “In addition to the document above, Mr Alavi provided ASADA with an email exchange between himself and Eagle Analytical Services that occurred between 20 January 2012 and 17 February 2012” have been unredacted, which begs the question: why were they redacted in version 1. Inexplicably, the date of the email and the addressee was redacted.
|
Page 64: clause 147 continued – one line “would you be able to enlighten us on what Hexarelin, CJC-1295 and Thymosin Beta-4 are?” has been unredacted, which begs the question, why was it redacted in version 1?
Page 65: clause 149 – three innocuous lines have been unredacted, which begs the question: why were they redacted in version 1?
Page 65: clause 150 – the innocuous words “ASADA is also in possession of a ‘Peptide Manual that has seemingly been produced by Mr Alavi and outlines the peptide substances that he manufactures” have been unredacted, which begs the question: why was it redacted in version 1? It should be noted that the author has lied. Mr Alavi told his interviewer that he didn’t manufacture some of the peptides portrayed in the manual.
Page 66: clause 152 – all but about four words have been unredacted. It is incomprehensible that the four words would be exempt under sections 38 and 45 of the FOI Act.
Page 66: clause 157 contains innocuous information, which begs the question: why was it redacted in version 1?
Page 67: the entire page remains redacted.
Page 68: the entire page remains redacted.
Page 69: the entire page remains redacted.
Page 70: the entire page remains redacted.
Page 71: the entire page remains redacted
Page 72: the entire page remains redacted.
Page 73: the entire page remains redacted.
Page 74: the entire page remains redacted.
Page 75: the entire page remains redacted.
Page 76: clause 162 has been unredacted, which begs the question: why was it redacted in version 1? It is incomprehensible that it was exempt under sections 38 and 45 of the FOI Act. It should also be noted that the content of clause 162 was untrue.
Page 77: clause 165 has been unredacted, which begs the question: why was it redacted in version 1? Furthermore, the claim by ASADA that TB-500 was Thymosin Beta-4 was a lie.
Page 78: remains redacted.
Page 79: remains redacted
Page 80: clause 170 has been unredacted, which begs the question why was it redacted in version 1? As it transpires, the content is irrelevant. Mr Dank left Essendon on 4 September 2012. Clearly, what he sold in 2013 had nothing to do with his work at Essendon.
Page 81: the entire page remains redacted.
Page 82: the entire page remains redacted.
Page 83: the entire page remains redacted.
Page 84: the entire page remains redacted.
Page 85: the entire page remains redacted.
Page 86: the entire page remains redacted.
Page 87: the entire page remains redacted.
Page 88: the innocuous and gobbledegook comment in clause 178 has been unredacted, which begs the question: why was it redacted in version 1?
Page 89: clause 184 has been unredacted, which begs the question: why was it redacted in version 1?
Page 90: the entire page remains redacted.
Page 91: the entire page remains redacted.
Page 92: all but one word in clause 197 has been unredacted, which begs the question: why was it redacted in version 1. Furthermore, it is incomprehensible that the name of the person who injected players remains redacted. The whole world knows that both Dank and Dean Robinson administered injections.
Page 93: clause 201 has been unredacted
Page 93: the innocuous words “This evidence does not appear to relate to Thymosin Beta-4 but has been included for completeness” have been unredacted, which begs the question, why were they redacted in version 1?
Page 94: The vast majority of the page has been unredacted. However, there are examples of one or two words remaining redacted. It’s impossible to imagine how one or two words can be exempt under sections 38 and 45 of the FOI Act.
Page 95: The vast majority of the page has been unredacted.
Page 96: Half of the full-page redactions have been unredacted.
Page 97: Virtually all of the entire page redactions have been unredacted.

Although there were 114 sections of un-redactions from Version 1 to Version 2, there were multiple redactions in some of the 114 sections in Version 2 of the ‘CEO Recommendation Show Cause Pack’. For example, 13 separate items were un-redacted in the Contents Page.

Res ipsa loquitur, the un-redactions in Version 2 prove there were an extraordinary number of mistakes made by ASADA when redacting Version 1.

Surely, incompetence and uncertainty only account for a handful of those mistakes.

Attempts to cover-up corruption is clearly the logical conclusion. The bottom line is, the Deputy President cannot trust any of SIA’s current redactions. Sadly, this will necessitate the Deputy President assessing the redactions in the 450+ pages of documents.