Dear M/s Panahi

RE: Your column in today’s Herald Sun

You could not have picked a worse day to recycle your nonsense and bile. I am afraid if you can’t respect your profession, I can’t respect you. This has gone on too long for me to be polite to someone still wearing their training bra.

I know it is beyond your intelligence to understand but surely there has to be one person at the Herald Sun who is bright enough to comprehend that your readers would prefer to see someone articulate ASADA’s case and the players’ defence rather than canvass what will happen when the plane crashes. 

Your paper gives a form guide before the Melbourne Cup. You don’t publish articles about which horses will be sent to the knackery if they don’t win. Why do it with football? The doom-and-gloom story has had more re-runs than ‘I Love Lucy’. 

Item (Panahi) 1: The reality is that the ugly controversy sparked by the Bombers’ supplements program will in all probability hijack at least another season of the AFL.

My Comment:

1. I hate to repeat myself but you and your colleagues are arsonists running around in firemen’s uniforms. “The ugly controversy’ has been sparked by:
   
   – an incompetent, lazy and arrogant AFL; 
   
   – a corrupt ASADA investigation;
   
   – the most devious and shameful media coverage in our sporting history, which poured petrol on a little spark. I am sure if the government conducted a census this year no one in Melbourne would admit to being a journalist
   
   
2. As we speak, ASADA alleges that the players were administered Thymosin Beta-4. That’s hardly an ugly controversy, particularly given there is no evidence to support ASADA’s claim. The only way the players won’t be cleared is if Fine Cotton has been saddled up for another run. 

Item (Panahi) 2: Given the complexity of the case and the volume of evidence the tribunal will hear, it is estimated it will take the panel four weeks to hand down its decision. That would take us to early February and at that time there’s an opportunity, however remote, that the saga will be finalised if the players or ASADA accept the tribunal’s decision.

My Comment:

It is a disgrace that an incompetent ASADA has been able to waste so much time and so much taxpayer’s money. It is irrelevant whether ASADA tabled lies from the Age or untrue statements from Charter and ASADA, or even corrupt evidence from the Interim Report. There is only one issue:

Is there any proof Alavi supplied Dank / Essendon with Thymosin Beta-4? The answer is NO. 

For your edification I shall highlight the key points:

1. Shane Charter ordered Thymosin Beta-4 from Mr Xu in China on 8 December 2011.
   
   
2. There is no evidence Dank asked / requested Charter to order Thymosin Beta-4. There is no text, email, diary note or letter from Dank to Charter to that effect.
   
   
3. Mr Xu, who told Charter on 1 December 2011, that he could supply both Thymosin and Thymosin Beta-4, sent a package direct to compounding pharmacist Nima Alavi. The package arrived at 3.30pm by courier on 28 December 2011.
   
   
4. Inter alia, inside the package was a raw material labelled Thymosin.
   
   
5. Charter didn’t see the parcel, so, he is about as relevant to the matter as you are to good journalism.
   
   
6. As Mr Xu told Charter that he could supply both Thymosin and Thymosin Beta-4, it is more probable that when Xu labelled the raw material Thymosin that it was Thymosin and not Thymosin Beta-4. But let’s not get hung up on circumstantial evidence so we’ll drop this point at this stage.   

Item (Panahi) 3: However, both sides have indicated that they will continue to fight; the players and ASADA are expected to appeal if the decision goes against them.

My Comment:

I am sure the players feel they could lose if Fine Cotton gets a run. Consequently, the players will appeal if they lose. However, there is no way ASADA will appeal. ASADA’s incompetence has only been matched in degree by the corrupt investigation. It is impossible to accept that the Federal Government would allow the Keystone Cops to operate for one more day after a defeat at the tribunal. 

Item (Panahi):4 In the case of ASADA, it will appeal even if it achieves a guilty verdict but the players are not banned for a period that is to the anti-doping body’s satisfaction.

My Comment:

1. ASADA can’t prove Alavi supplied Dank Thymosin Beta-4 so there is no way ASADA can prove Dank administered Thymosin Beta-4. Consequently, ASADA won’t secure a ‘guilty’ verdict at the AFL Tribunal.
   
   
2. For your edification, it is my understanding, ‘guilty’ is only used in criminal courts, and to my knowledge, as much as the media wishes this was a criminal court, it is not.

Item (Panahi) 5: Those close to the investigation have made it abundantly clear that they believe Essendon’s supplement program was far more sophisticated and in place for longer than the one implemented by the Cronulla Sharks.

My Comment: 

1. This is an unconscionable statement and you should be sacked for making it. And while you are on your way out take the editor with you. I wonder which organisations and people are close to the investigation. Is it ASADA? Is it the AFL? Is it the players or is it Dank or Robinson? Have I missed someone? Of course, Lundy and that clown Jason Clare.
   
    
2. Your comment has no purpose other than to scare Essendon supporters. And why didn’t you have the guts to name the people who leaked. They wouldn’t be in trouble. Although the ACC caught ASADA officials on film standing at the urinal at the MCG, they still couldn’t prove leaking.
   
   
3. Obviously, the reason you didn’t define “sophisticated’ is because you have no idea what it means. Every club has a supplements programme. One of the AFL’s major sponsors flogs supplements. The Australian cricket team has a supplements program and has done so for a long time.
   
   
4. As we speak, there is a question mark about Essendon and one substance. Cronulla players pleaded guilty to taking two banned substances. And you are suggesting Essendon is worse than Cronulla. While you are eating humble pie would you please explain what the length of time has to do with anything. To have made this statement you must know how long each player took each substance. Don’t bother to read on. With that knowledge, ASADA needs you at the court house. Just look for Smith and Wesson, sorry, I meant Wilson, they know everything and I am certain they are ASADA’s key witnesses.

Item (Panahi) 6: The Sharks players received 12-month bans but the backdating of the penalty effectively reduced the sanction to three weeks. It’s hard to see ASADA being happy with the Bomber boys walking away with three-week bans.

My Comment:

I don’t think you are capable of seeing anything through your bias. Your whole article is about if my aunty had, she would be my uncle.

Item (Panahi) 7: Former ASADA CEO Richard Ings doesn’t expect the body to back down. He said: “Once the AFL tribunal hands down its judgment, one must expect, particularly given the precedent of Ahmed Saad, that ASADA will likely appeal any judgment that doesn’t involve some sort of ban.”

My Comment:

You may win a Walkley with this quote. I can’t recall anyone from your paper or the Age quoting anyone. It’s a shame this quote is useless. Richard Ings has been of immense help to many people who didn’t understand the process. But he has often stated he hasn’t seen the evidence. He therefore is not in a position to know whether ASADA will be smashed or not. Presumably, he also doesn’t know the attitude of the government to a smashing. Consequently, he is not in a position to know what ASADA will do. 

Item (Panahi) 8: Essendon chairman Paul Little’s statements at the club’s annual general meeting earlier this month don’t give the impression that his primary concern is uncovering what exactly happened at a club that allowed players to be used as guinea pigs, a club whose own internal report into the supplements saga labelled the catastrophic failure of governance a “rapid diversification into exotic supplements” and a “disturbing picture of a pharmacologically experimental environment never adequately controlled or challenged or documented”.

My Comment:

Dank, Robinson, Dr Reid, Hird, Thompson, Hamilton et al have told Paul Little the players were not given banned substances.

ASADA and the AFL ran a corrupt investigation and after nearly two years ASADA has been able to allege only one banned substance was taken by the players. Please explain what more Paul Little can do to satisfy you.

“Allowed players’ to be used as guinea pigs”. You can’t be serious. Switkowski’s report should have been thrown in the bin. He interviewed only three players. The standard error and standard deviation on this sample would have been off the chart.

Switkowski reportedly didn’t interview Dank or Robinson. How would he know whether the players were used as guinea pigs? I actually interviewed Dank for a total of about 40 hours, which puts me a long way ahead of Switkowski and ASADA. Dank claimed he knew exactly what he was doing and knew what results he would get.

“Catastrophic failure of governance”. I didn’t even have to refer to the Switkowski Report to know that Switkowski didn’t use the word “catastrophic”. Why would you insert such a word? Many people would say you were dishonest to have made such a claim. We know the truth is not relevant in the courts but in my naivety, I thought some journalists still aimed for it! If your case is so overwhelming there shouldn’t be any need to resort to this grubby tactic.

‘A “rapid diversification into exotic supplements”’. If I had a dollar for every time a blogger like you used this expression, I could buy the Herald Sun. Switkowski prefaced his comments by saying he knew nothing about drugs and he said he wouldn’t comment about drugs. And then he allegedly made this unsubstantiated comment. I am pretty sure I know who wrote it. But that can wait for another day. If you are disappointed, I won’t reveal the author, ring Eddie and tell him you are Sarah and he will listen to you.

Item (Panahi) 9: Little told supporters at the AGM that: “A circumstantial case is a lot harder for them to prove.

My Comment:

I am not sure I understand the reason for you quoting this comment. I suspect Little was telling the members that he expected the players to be cleared. I don’t understand why you think this was a sin or a criminal offence?

Item (Panahi) 10: “Our legal team is working tirelessly to undermine, disprove the circumstantial evidence.”

My Comment:

You can’t trust lawyers. They haven’t come on board with the AFL, ASADA and the media. Much to your apparent disgust the lawyers are actually trying to have the players exonerated. When Essendon is paying them a reported $15,000 a day, I suspect most members would think it was natural the lawyers would try and clear the players. What sort of world do you live in that you find such behaviour objectionable? 

Item (Panahi) 11: It’s little wonder that the AFL and the 17 other clubs are thoroughly fed up with the antics of the Essendon camp. In less than three years, they have gone from being one of the shining lights of the competition to a pariah club. The chaotic, combative and inconsistent approach to handling this issue has amplified the pain for all concerned.

My Comment: 

Although in great pain, I re-read this bile again. The only reference I could find to ‘Essendon antics’ is their lawyers were actually going to try and win the case. The bastards. They should have rolled over like the media and allowed the AFL to tickle their tummies the same way Robbo allowed Demetriou to tickle his tummy in his infamous kiss and make up interview.

I have over 9000 pages on file. I couldn’t find one article written by you which offered advice to Essendon how it should have approached the whole saga. Are you suggesting that you and the 17 clubs believe the players should have perjured themselves and admitted to taking banned substances? 

Speaking of the 17 clubs, you should have identified the people you spoke to at each club to obtain their views. This is not quite a Sam Lane QC moment but it probably gets you in the grand-final.

Item (Panahi) 12: We’ve already had two seasons overshadowed by the supplements story and chances are at least another year will bear the ugly stain of doping allegations, prosecutions and possible penalties.

My Comment:

1. You have not offered one bit of evidence to substantiate your claim that ASADA will win. 
2. The two ruined seasons have been caused by:
   
   i. The AFL’s failure to do anything when it became aware of possible drug issues at Essendon
   
   ii. The dishonest and sycophantic approach by the media
   
   iii. A corrupt investigation
   
   iv. Essendon’s decision to capitulate to AFL bullying in August 2013
   
   v. Hird trying to satisfy the members by withdrawing his Supreme Court case.
   
   vi. The players’ refusal to perjure themselves and admit they took banned substances.

M/s Panahi, the media has inflamed this saga for nearly two years and now you have the audacity to put on a fireman’s uniform. Peeing on Essendon from your lofty tower will not extinguish the flames. Only a verdict in favour of the players will do that. 

Bruce Francis