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’. About 80 of the 97 pages were redacted, including 14 items in the Contents Page.

Complaints by me to the Commonwealth Information Commissioner, which involved an exchange of 73 emails in a 12-months period, resulted in ASADA releasing what I call Version 2 of the document on 25 August 2021. That was 1,859 days after the original request. ASADA admitted that it made over 150 mistakes when it released Version 1. This was irrefutable proof that ASADA was involved in a corrupt cover-up of an unprecedented magnitude.

CEO Recommendation Show Cause Pack: Redactions in Version 1 that were unredacted in Version 2:

Page 3: Contents Page – 14 redactions have been unredacted

Page 7: clause 3 – one and a quarter-lines have been unredacted.

Page 8: clause 4 – three lines that were redacted in Version 1 were unredacted in Version 2 as follows. “Part of ASADA’s evidence is based on text messages from xxxx’s phone, which were forwarded to ASADA by the ACC. The ACC’s letter of authority to ASADA (and other relevant correspondence) regarding the use of text messages is at Document 1.”

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 fridge 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 redactedPage 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 45: 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 145 – 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 145 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 are 114 sections of un-redactions, significantly more redactions were unredacted in Version 2 of the ‘CEO Recommendation Show Cause Pack’. For example, 14 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 no one can trust the redactions.