10. GUILTY: AFL OR STEPHEN DANK?

Introduction:

To make such an assessment of Dank’s role, one must only rely on the evidence that was accepted by ASADA and the AFL Tribunal as facts. What Dank said in his media comments or his discussion with players or what the players claimed he told them were rejected as evidence by the AFL Tribunal because neither ASADA nor the AFL nor Essendon had supporting facts.
For example, Dank claimed that he kept exact records in a spreadsheet of all substances administered to each player. As the tribunal didn’t have supporting facts, it rejected Dank’s claim, and not having such a spreadsheet is classified as a serious black mark in this analysis.
Similarly, Dank and Jobe Watson’s claim that Dank told Watson that he had been administered AOD-9604 was not accepted as fact by ASADA or the AFL Tribunal. Basically, anything Dank said to the media or players was rejected as evidence.
It would seem the only Dank comments to be accepted were those given under threat of a custodial sentence if he perjured himself to the Australian Crime Commission during his seven-hour interview on 9 May 2012.
Res ipsa loquitur, as the Australian Crime Commission (ACC) hasn’t charged Dank with anything, it is reasonable to assume that he told the ACC the truth that he hadn’t administered Thymosin Beta-4 at Essendon.

Stephen Dank Failures:

He was employed by the AFL-owned Gold Coast Suns when he should have known that the WADA Code prohibited him from such employment because he was treating (legally) the public with a WADA banned substance.
He was contracted by Essendon when he should have known that the WADA Code prohibited him from such work.
He was fired from the AFL-owned Gold Coast Suns. The damage to Dank from being fired was mitigated by the Gold Coast Suns refusing to explain its reason.
He failed to keep complete records of every substance he administered to the players at Essendon.
On six occasions, he organised an interstate pathologist to conduct blood tests for each player.
The costs for the blood tests were unlawfully charged to Medicare. Essendon had to refund Medicare.
The prescriptions for the blood tests were issued by a doctor who hadn’t seen the players.
Essendon’s sports science team allegedly bypassed the club’s AFL-accredited medical staff and used at least one external doctor to assist in a supplements programme at the centre of an anti-doping inquiry. Source The Age 20 February 2013
On a few occasions, he forgot that he had administered a weekly substance to a player the day before.
He administered substances at Essendon without obtaining permission from the football manager Paul Hamilton and doctor Bruce Reid.
He administered Cerebrolysin to most of the players without obtaining permission from the football manager or Dr Reid.
The substance bought in El Paso was never tested and consequently he didn’t know what it was.
He kept a substance for his own business in his Essendon office fridge.
He spent over $60,00 at the HyperMed without obtaining permission from football manager Paul Hamilton.
He didn’t lock his office.

Mitigating circumstances for Dank

After an 18-day hearing, the AFL Tribunal, which included two judges and a barrister, found the 34 players NOT GUILTY.
Stephen Dank was found NOT GUILTY of administering or attempting to administer Thymosin Beta-4 to the players and NOT GUILTY of assisting, encouraging, aiding, abetting or covering up administration of Thymosin Beta-4.
ASADA chose not to appeal the decision against the players and Dank.
Incomprehensibly, WADA, urged on by a senior Australian sports official named redacted, and assisted by Coalition Sports Minister Sussan Ley, appealed the NOT GUILTY decision to the players. However, they ACCEPTED the NOT GUILTY decision against Dank. One suspects that ASADA was told by the Australian Crime Commission that Dank was not guilty.

AFL: Demetriou, McLachlan and Dillion failures:

Possible criminal charges

The AFL conspired with ASADA, Essendon and the Federal government on 9 February 2013 to fix the result of their investigation before the first witness was interviewed.

(A POSSIBLE CRIMINAL CONSPIRACY)

The action of AFL Chief Executive Andrew Demetriou continually implying in the media that Essendon and James Hird were guilty.

(A POSSIBLE BREACH OF THEIR RIGHT TO PROCEDURAL FAIRNESS)

The AFL briefed the proposed jury (the AFL Commissioners) on the evidence before the investigation was completed.

(A POSSIBLE SUBORNING OF DECISION MAKERS AND INTERFERING WITH THE PROCESS OF JUSTICE)

The AFL informed the ‘jury’ before the investigation was completed that the Essendon Football Club, James Hird, Danny Corcoran and Mark Thompson were guilty.

(A POSSIBLE SUBORNING OF DECISION MAKERS, INTERFERING WITH THE PROCESS OF JUSTICE AND PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE)

The AFL informed the ‘jury’ before the investigation was completed what some of the penalties would be.

(A POSSIBLE PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE)

The AFL bullied and blackmailed the Essendon Football Club, James Hird, Danny Corcoran and Mark Thompson to accept the penalties before charges were laid.

(A POSSIBLE CRIMINAL DURESS TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE)

ASADA changed evidence; omitted evidence; and, fabricated evidence to help the AFL create a case against Essendon, Hird, Corcoran and Thompson.

(A POSSIBLE PERVERTING THE COURSE OF JUSTICE AND PERJURY)

The AFL denied Hird procedural fairness by wanting him stood aside as coach before he was even interviewed.

(A POSSIBLE INTERFERING IN THE COURSE OF JUSTICE)

At the AFL’s behest, on 25 June 2013, David Evans asked James Hird if he would agree to be suspended and Essendon be banned from playing in the finals-series.

(A POSSIBLE INTERFERING IN THE COURSE OF JUSTICE)

On separate occasions, deputy AFL chief executive Gillon McLachlan (26 June 2013) and Andrew Demetriou (24 July 2013) asked ASADA chief executive Ms Aurora Andruska to omit information from the interim report. Those omissions may have contributed to the AFL being able to defraud Essendon of $2 million.

(A POSSIBLE INTERFERING IN THE COURSE OF JUSTICE AND CONSPIRACY TO PERVERT THE COURSE OF JUSTICE)

The AFL asked ASADA to include things in the interim report in order to prove guilt. This contributed to the AFL defrauding Essendon of $2 million.

(A POSSIBLE CONSPIRACY AND PERJURY)

Grounds for charging Demetriou, McLachlan, Dillon and Clothier with bringing the AFL into disrepute

The AFL ignored its conflict of interest. It too, should have been investigated
The AFL accepted incorrect claims that Thymosin Beta-4 was a prohibited WADA substance. At 10:34:17am on 4 February 2013, Thymosin Beta-4 was not listed by name as a prohibited substance by WADA or any of its 208-country affiliated anti-doping agencies. At 12:59:17pm ASADA listed Thymosin Beta-4 by name on its ‘Check your substances’ website as a prohibited substance. Someone at ASADA criminally changed its status. As it transpired, WADA listed Thymosin Beta-4 as a prohibited substance on 1 January 2018.
The AFL didn’t fulfill its OH&S responsibilities and therefore failed to provide a safe workplace for the Essendon players
The AFL failed to protect the integrity of the competition
The AFL breached its confidentiality responsibilities
The AFL was complicit in breaching the ASADA Act. It should have prevented Prime Minister Gillard’s staffers participating in the investigation.
The AFL disregarded standard practices involving James Hird’s right to procedural fairness (natural justice)
Demetriou made many statements to the media before the investigation had been completed, which implied Hird was guilty:
Despite implying Hird was guilty, Demetriou unconscionably insisted on being on the jury to decide guilt or innocence. It’s incomprehensible that Andrew Dillon didn’t publicly declare that Demetriou couldn’t sit on the jury.
Hird’s interview with the AFL/ASADA investigators contradicted Demetriou’s version of a key event and consequently, it was human nature for Demetriou to be prejudiced against Hird
The AFL insisted upon being investigators; laying the charges; prosecuting the case; deciding on innocence or guilt and deciding on the penalties
Demetriou acknowledged that he pressured ASADA to deliver its report early
The AFL used the Switkowski report against Essendon and Hird – despite it having little credibility
The initial charges against Essendon contained many vexatious charges. These charges caused Hird severe damage. Those charges were dropped without explanation or an apology
The AFL coerced the support of the other 17 clubs before a hearing was conducted. To do this it must have informed the 17 clubs, Essendon and its officials were guilty
AFL integrity manager Brett Clothier was an investigator and inexplicably was allowed to submit a witness statement. His statement was never tested but was used against Hird. It’s incomprehensible that Dillon didn’t stop such action.
Constant confidentiality breaches and leaks from the investigation caused severe damage to Hird
The AFL called head of the Australian Sports Commission (ASC) to secure Essendon’s compliance with a guilty plea and acceptance of an outrageous $2 million penalty and draft picks.
The AFL arguably blackmailed Essendon into accepting penalties prior to a hearing.
The process was poisoned by ASADA not including all the evidence in its interim report
Changed direction by the ASADA investigators to unlawfully investigate governance issues at Essendon
Demetriou and McLachlan were untruthful about David Evans allegedly self-reporting on Tuesday 5 February 2013.
Breached the anti-doping code by not taking action when he learnt the Essendon doctor had become marginalised
Failed to ensure that the AFL integrity unit did everything possible to protect the integrity of the competition and the health of the Essendon players
Failed to devise or implement any adequate system or process to ensure that Essendon fulfilled its occupational health and safety obligations and that substances provided to and used by the players were safe and were compliant with the AFL anti-doping code and the World Anti-Doping Code