In a successful attempt to have ASADA/SIA confirm in its own words that it had no evidence that the players were guilty of being administered Thymosin Beta-4, I made an FOI request (20-4) on 9 June 2020 for the following information:
A delivery note that indicates that Como Compounding Pharmacy received Thymosin Beta-4 on or about 28 or 29 December 2011. SIA claimed in writing on 21 August 2020 that such a delivery note didn’t exist.
An invoice that indicates which organisation supplied the substances delivered to Como Compounding Pharmacy on 18 February 2012. SIA claimed in writing on 21 August 2020 that such an invoice didn’t exist.
A record of payment for the substances delivered to Como Compounding Pharmacy on 18 February 2012. Incomprehensibly, SIA claimed it was exempt, which was a lie. Clearly, if there were no invoice for the substances (see point (ii) above), Como had no one to pay. According to Como records, there was no such payment.
A stock record from Como Compounding Pharmacy that indicates that it stocked Thymosin Beta-4 between January 2012 and June 2012 – SIA claimed it didn’t exist.
A dispatch record from Como Compounding that indicates that vials of Thymosin Beta-4 were delivered to Stephan Dank / Essendon FC between January 2012 and September 2012. SIA claimed it didn’t exist.
A record from a courier company that vials of Thymosin Beta-4 were delivered to Stephen Dank/Essendon FC between January 2012 and September 2012. SIA claimed no such document exists.
A record of payment by Stephen Dank or Essendon for vials of Thymosin Beta-4. SIA claimed no such document exists.
SIA has not established a fit-for-purpose governance arrangement to protect clean athletes from dirty officials.
ASADA’s case for charging the players was falsely based upon:
Thymosin Beta-4 was a prohibited WADA substance in 2011 and 2012
Thymosin was the same substance as Thymosin Beta-4;
TB-500 was the same substance as Thymosin Beta-4;
Either Essendon sports scientist Stephen Dank or Essendon Football Club took possession of Thymosin Beta-4;
Thymosin Beta-4 was administered by Stephen Dank to 34 Essendon players.
Thymosin Beta-4 was a prohibited WADA substance in 2011 and 2012
Thymosin was the same substance as Thymosin Beta-4;
TB-500 was the same substance as Thymosin Beta-4;
Either Essendon sports scientist Stephen Dank or Essendon Football Club took possession of Thymosin Beta-4;
Thymosin Beta-4 was administered by Stephen Dank to 34 Essendon players.
As the substances administered to the Essendon players were never analysed, it was impossible to ascertain what they were administered, and consequently, the matter should never have been pursued by ASADA after 4 March 2014.
As ASADA didn’t prove, or even attempt to prove, that Thymosin and TB-500 were the same substances as Thymosin Beta-4; and didn’t offer any evidence that either Stephen Dank or Essendon took possession of Thymosin Beta-4; and as it didn’t prosecute the case against each individual player; it had no case against the players and the whole saga should have ended on 4 March 2014 with the tabling of ASADA’s Final Investigation Report.
The 25 March 2014 edition of the Herald Sun newspaper included quotes from a speech AFL chief medical officer Dr Peter Harcourt gave in Switzerland. The Herald Sun stated: “Harcourt wrote that despite an enormous amount of evidence collected, there was insufficient detail to prove ‘the precise nature of, and doses of, substances that were given to each athlete’.”
Res ipsa loquitur, as peptide supplier Nima Alavi’s Como Compounding Pharmacy invoices and dispensing records proved that Thymosin Beta-4 was never dispensed to Dank or Essendon, the players could not have been administered it. Thus, all the information collected by ASADA from its 132 individual interviews, excepting Alavi’s, was virtually irrelevant. As there was no allegation bio-chemist Shane Charter gave Dank any substances, the content of his interviews, with the exception of his statement that Thymosin and Thymosin Beta-4 were different substances, was irrelevant. Similarly, as no player admitted to being administered Thymosin Beta-4, their comments were irrelevant. Furthermore, as Stephen Dank never took possession of a single substance that had been analysed, his views on what he told the players and what he administered were irrelevant. Reprehensibly, ASADA cherry-picked Dank’s media comments to suit its narrative.
Clause 39 of ASADA’s CEO Recommendation Show Cause Pack stated: “There are several types of Thymosin. The main two types of Thymosin are Thymosin Alpha and Thymosin Beta-4. ASADA has obtained advice from WADA that Thymosin Alpha is not a prohibited substance. Thymosin Beta-4 is a prohibited substance. It is critical in this case to demonstrate that players used Thymosin Beta-4.”Clearly, that involved not only analysing every substance labelled Thymosin, but also providing documentary proof that Nima Alavi dispensed the analysed substance to Dank or Essendon. Unconscionably, the only attempt by ASADA to prove the substance was analysed involved ASADA tabling forged documents – a fact acknowledged by both sides in the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) hearing. (See CAS hearing transcript day 2 forged documents, at pages 173-176).
In the Essendon case alone, ASADA/SIA did not achieve the governance standards and goals that ANAO has been asked to address. There is also in the public arena, the shortcomings in the Peter Bol case which the former CEO of the World Anti-Doping Agency, Mr David Howman, described as “a disaster”.
Clearly, ASADA/SIA have countless issues of governance and integrity that have greatly diminished the trust in it of the most important stakeholders – the athletes.
While they are greatly constrained in what they are prepared to say publicly for fear of being singled out by ASADA/SIA, the athletes – and the officials whose sports are forced to sign up to ASADA/SIA for fear of Government retribution – are patently aware verballing is no substitute for the truth and convicting the innocent with falsified evidence falls well short of ASADA/SIA obligations.
Irrefutable proof that Thymosin was not the same substance as Thymosin Beta-4 came through a quote for the cost of substances to Shane Charter from Chinese substance supplier Mr Vincent Xu on 16 December 2011. Mr Xu’s table included both Thymosin and Thymosin Beta-4 among the peptides it (GL Biochem) could supply. The two substances are listed with distinct prices – 11,350 renminbi per gram of Thymosin and 9470 RMB per gram of Thymosin Beta-4. Consequently, it was unconscionable for ASADA and WADA to claim that Thymosin and Thymosin Beta-4 were the same substance.
Shane Charter was an ASADA witness, considered by them an expert in the peptide field and with perceived knowledge of Dank’s enquiries regarding, and acquisitions of, peptides. At 10:31:36 AM on Wednesday 15 May 2013, ASADA investigator Sharon Kerrison sent Shane Charter an email as follows: “Can you tell me what difference ingredients/effect between Thymosin Beta-4 and Thymosin is?” Clearly, Kerrison’s question implied that she and Charter both knew they were different substances.
Stephen Dank claimed that he had always used the term Thymosin as the generic name for Thymosin Alpha-1 or Thymomodulin. He, and other bio-chemists such as Shane Charter and Maged Sedrak, who were interviewed by ASADA, also claimed that they were unaware of anyone in the pharmaceutical industry ever using the term Thymosin as a synonym for Thymosin Beta-4. Clause 34 of Annexure A of the 34-page charges and grounds for the charges document created by AFL Senior Counsel Andrew Dillon also acknowledged that Thymosin was a different substance from Thymosin Beta-4. Inter alia, Dillon said: “There is no record of Como Pharmacy having supplied ‘Thymomodulin (Thymosin).’ The only invoice relates to ‘Peptide Thymosin’ – but Como Compounding Pharmacy subsequently reversed that transaction (debit to credit) before removing from the invoice altogether. To date, no other supplier of Thymosin to Essendon Football Club has been identified.”
On 7 November 2014, the Australian newspaper’s Chip Le Grand published an article in which he said: “Mr Charter produced documents showing he discussed two forms of Thymosin with Shanghai-based company GL Biochem. Mr Charter has provided ASADA investigators with email correspondence between himself and GL Biochem global sales manager Vincent Xu.”
Incomprehensively, ASADA made a disingenuous response to my FOI request (16-15) for “documents tabled by [ASADA lawyers] Perdikogiannis/Fitton, that prove Thymosin was Thymosin Beta-4.” At 4.47pm on 15 July 2016, ASADA lawyer Pat Dale said: “’Proved’ is a subjective term. Documents that prove something to one person may not necessarily do so for another.” In this instance, Dale was talking nonsense. The substances contained either the same number of amino acids or they didn’t. There was no room for a subjective view.
All 16+ varieties of ‘Thymosin’ contain a specific number of amino acids. Thymosin Beta-4 has 43 amino acids in a particular sequence. None of the other 15 Thymosin varieties has 43 amino acids in the same particular sequence. As the vials labelled Thymosin were never tested, it was fraudulent for ASADA to claim it was the same substance as Thymosin Beta-4 or TB-500.
It is irrefutable that TB-500 contains seven amino acids and therefore it is not the same substance as Thymosin Beta-4 because it contains 43 amino acids in a specific sequence. During the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) hearing, WADA’s key witness Professor Handelsman testified that TB-500 and Thymosin Beta-4 were different products. (Source: CAS transcript, day 2, page 189, line 38). Another expert witness, Dr Vine, supported Professor Handelsman’s view when he told the CAS panel (page 293 of transcript) that “they’re different molecules, one is 43 amino acids, the other is many fewer… This is a popular misconception in the advertising literature, that the two things are synonymous and they are simply different chemicals entirely”. (my emphasis). Clearly, it was wrong and sinister for ASADA or anyone else to attribute the protocols for TB-500 to Thymosin Beta-4.
As the ‘policeman’ and guardian of the rules, ASADA kept the content of each substance in its database and therefore was aware that TB-500 and Thymosin Beta-4 contained a different number of amino acids, and consequently, were not the same substances.
It is irrefutable that ASADA breached Section 317 of the Crimes Act on over 50 occasions by unlawfully replacing the word Thymosin with the word Thymosin Beta-4 in the evidence. (see clauses 165 to 223). My dictionary defines corruption as “the process by which a word or expression is changed from its original state to one regarded as erroneous or debased”.
Section 317 of the Crimes Act concerns ‘Tampering with Evidence’. It states:
A person who, with intent to mislead any judicial tribunal in any judicial proceedings
Suppresses, conceals, destroys, alters or falsifies anything knowing that it is or maybe required as evidence in any judicial proceeding or
Fabricates false evidence
Knowingly makes use of fabricated false evidence, Is liable to imprisonment for 10 years.
Clearly, it is part of ANAO’s role in its investigation to not only ascertain whether ASADA/SIA tampered with the evidence but to recommend governance changes to ensure tampering never happens again.
It is irrefutable that Thymosin Beta-4 was not listed by name by WADA or by any of its 208 affiliated anti-doping agencies as a prohibited substance before 10:34:17 AM on 4 February 2013. Shortly after 10:34:17 AM on 4 February 2013, ASADA unlawfully changed Thymosin Beta-4’s status and listed it as a prohibited substance by name on its ‘Check Your Substances’ website.
On 6 October 2020, I made an FOI request (FOI 20:10) for the “Communication (letter and/or email) from WADA to ASADA notifying ASADA that Thymosin Beta-4 had been placed on the prohibited list and that ‘Check Your Substances’ should be updated to reflect the change in status.”
On 5 November 2020, SIA’s Director, Legal Services Regina Weiss, informed me that “I have decided to refuse your request pursuant to section 24A of the FOI Act as the documents cannot be found, do not exist or have not been received.” (my emphasis).SIA’s response begs the question: Should the ASADA employee who unlawfully changed the status of Thymosin Beta-4 on 4 February 2013 that destroyed the lives of 34 players and support staff, been charged with a criminal offence?
Ben McDevitt’s successor as CEO, David Sharpe, in response to Senate Estimates questions on notice in October 2019, admitted that the change to the status of Thymosin Beta-4 on the ‘Check Your Substances’ database was made on 4 February 2013. Surely, governance protocols required Sharpe to inform WADA that the players were unjustly found guilty of allegedly taking a prohibited substance that in fact was not prohibited by name in 2011 or 2012.
WADA and the other 207 national anti-doping agencies listed Thymosin Beta-4 by name as a prohibited substance on 1 January 2018. WADA is the only organisation that can change the status of a substance. It claims it does so, after a rigorous process in which all 208 national anti-doping agencies are asked to participate.
Res ipsa loquitur, if no one in the world, including Stephen Dank, could go to the ‘Check Your Substances’ websites anywhere in the world and ascertain that Thymosin Beta-4 by name was a prohibited substance prior to 4 February 2013, there was no reason for Dank, as alleged by ASADA, to fraudulently use the name Thymosin instead of Thymosin Beta-4.
After obtaining all Como Compounding Pharmacy’s invoices and dispatch records, ASADA admitted that there was no evidence that Essendon sports scientist Stephen Dank or Essendon Football Club ever took possession of Thymosin Beta-4. There were no orders; no delivery records; no invoices; no payments; and, no dispensing records. (Source: page 47, line 25 Staffer 7’s Final Investigation Report).
At page 47, line 25, of Staffer 7’s Final Investigation Report, he said: “Similarly, in the invoices obtained from Mr Alavi [Como Compounding Pharmacy] which pertain to Mr Dank (personally) there is no reference to any [type of] Thymosin being supplied to him as a customer in the 2011 and 2012 calendar years.”
Furthermore, in clause 93 of his 11 January 2015 affidavit, Staffer 7 said: “The key question is what was the source of the Thymosin; and when (if at all) (my emphasis) it was delivered – and in what coloured vial?” Clearly, Staffer 7’s comment “if at all” (my emphasis) implies ASADA had no evidence that Thymosin of any variety was ever delivered to Dank or Essendon.
Res ipsa loquitur, if there were no evidence that either Stephen Dank or Essendon took possession of Thymosin Beta-4, the saga should have ended when Staffer 7 delivered the ASADA/AFL Final Investigation Report to his ASADA director Paul Simonsson on 4 March 2014.
Although further proof was not required to clear Stephen Dank of administering a prohibited substance at Essendon, it came after an 18-day hearing of the AFL Anti-Doping Tribunal. The tribunal found Dank:
‘Not guilty of administering or attempting to administer Thymosin β4to various Essendon players, and ruled that he had not assisted, nor encouraged, nor abetted, nor covered up administration of the peptide.’
The verdict was not appealed by WADA, so Dank remains not guilty of the charges.
It therefore follows that if there were no evidence that either Stephen Dank or Essendon took possession of Thymosin Beta-4, ASADA and WADA’s cases against the players must have been based on tampering with the evidence, misrepresentations, lies, fabrication, omissions and corruption.
Consequently, ASADA officials are to be condemned for creating a false case to convict the players and SIA officials are to be condemned for condoning ASADA’s corrupt behaviour. Furthermore, SIA officials are to be denounced for withholding documents that would have proved the corruption. By doing nothing, SIA condoned ASADA’s corruption.
Res ipsa loquitur, the public would demand that ANAO examine the governance failures to ensure the tragedy never happens again; that the injustice to the Essendon players is corrected; and most importantly; that a government statutory body must be beyond reproach. As we speak, ANAO staff are the only people who can achieve those vital outcomes.
Essendon AFL Drug Saga 