MICHAEL BELOFF QC

Court of Arbitration for Sport Tribunal Member

Dear Sir

My dictionary defines Corruption, Bias and Inept/Incompetence as follows:

Corruption: “the process by which a word or expression is changed from its original state to one regarded as erroneous or debased”. 

Biased: “unfairly prejudiced for or against someone or something”. 

Inept/incompetence: “showing a lack of skill or ability: not done well”. 

On that basis, during your involvement in WADA v Essendon Football Club, many people believe you were arguably corrupt, biased and incompetent.

The attached documents indicate that you had a major aberrated moment during the WADA v Essendon hearing and during the writing (signing off) of the Arbitral Award document. My consulting QC eschews the word corrupt being used when discussing fellow QCs, but supports my conclusions using a euphemism. 

As you will see, an ASADA staffer was guilty of corruption, as were the WADA lawyers. It was incomprehensible that they perjured themselves in the Appeal document.

If, as claimed by ASADA and WADA, Thymosin were the same substance as Thymosin Beta-4, surely it was suicidal to change the word Thymosin to Thymosin Beta-4 on 51 occasions in the evidence?

Why did the WADA lawyers perjure themselves by changing the word Thymosin to Thymosin Beta-4 in their Appeal Document?

And why did three so-called honest QCs (Arbi-trators) merge two texts into one text by deleting the word Thymosin and replacing it with a comma. This duplicitous action enabled you to claim that Dank was requesting Thymosin Beta-4.

I have no interest in burying you. I just hope that you can see a way to discuss the matter with your fellow panel members, WADA and CAS officials and revoke your unjust ‘guilty’ findings.

Bruce Francis