Hi Patrick

I keep trying to help you but you keep ignoring me. Hopefully, the penny will eventually
drop.

Bruce Francis

18 April 2015
Dear Patrick
RE: Villain of the Essendon drug scandal pulls the wool over our eyes 18 April 2015
I am told Patrick, you are very dear, costing The Australian a lot of money each year. But I
reckon your sports editor Wally Mason and editor Clive Mathieson must be hiding with Peter
Brady, a.k.a Mike Fitzpatrick and Lord Lucan, to have allowed your article to be published
today. You wrote a whole column about a bloke who was, according to you, supposed to be
irrelevant Alan Jones AO.
You produced the greatest oxymoron in Australian journalism history. This bloke is
irrelevant, but I am going to write a whole column about him anyway, and a Saturday
column. I thought journalists at The Australian saved their best for The Weekend Australian,
when the number of readers jumps considerably from the Monday to Friday set. Of course
you didnt explain to your readers (I think were safe using the plural on the weekend) that
Alan Jones still has, yes still, Patrick, one of the highest rating radio shows in the land, a lot,
lot more listeners than you have readers of The Australian, and sad to say Patrick, even The
Weekend Australian.
I know this is a cheap shot, but you being an old fast bowler and me being an old opening
batsman, well we both know that sometimes when you get a half-volley on leg stump, you
just cant resist whacking it out of the park. Whack! Alan Jones ratings far exceed those of
that little radio station sponsored by the AFL that you work for, SEN. And of course, youd
be aware that Jones not only is one of the Macquarie Networks superstars, but he owns a
good share of the company, the same company which has just bought into 3AW, another
radio station which by the length of the Flemington straight, out rates SEN. So, on that count
alone, I should suggest that Alan Jones is pretty relevant in the Australian media landscape,
and certainly more relevant than you..
Patrick, I dont like having to dissect your writings. The migraines and the loss of faith in the
human race can be quite debilitating at times, but while your relevance is problematic, I am a
great believer that allowing great calumnies to sit on the public record unchallenged in the cut
and paste world of the modern journalist (your newspaper even has a section by that name) is
fraught. The next lazy journalist who writes a column about Jones, or the ASADA saga, or
James Hird, might think what you wrote was remotely close to the facts. So get ready Patrick,
the umpire is about to raise both his hands above his head, because that short-pitched tripe
you dish out is about to go over the fence at deep fine leg.

Item (Smith) 1: Alan Jones has never sounded so irrelevant as he did this week when he
appeared to champion Stephen Dank, the discredited sport something or other who was
yesterday found guilty of 10 serious breaches of the countrys anti-doping code.
My Comment:
1. Your comment Stephen Dank, the discredited sport something, was demeaning and
has set the boundaries for the tone of my response.
2. Your comment 10 serious breaches received more laughter than the first three acts
at the Melbourne Comedy Festival. My dictionary suggests the comments by Minister
Jason Clare and Minister Kate Lundy on the so-called blackest day in Australian
sporting history were serious. To paraphrase, they said many players had taken
banned substances and Australian sport had been infiltrated by organised crime and
matches were being thrown at the behest of big gambling companies.
3. Yesterday, Dank was cleared of giving any player in Australia a banned substance. He
was found guilty of giving four support staff .mates a substance they were entitled to
have. The tribunal found he wasnt allowed to give his mates those substances. His
conviction for giving his baseball mate a substance is already the favourite for joke of
the year. Dank was deemed to be an AFL official, and accordingly, cant give anyone
a banned substance, no matter how distant from the AFL. In my view, Eddie
McGuires comment about Adam Goodes was far more serious than giving a nonplayer from another sport a banned substance. Incidentally, the AFL breached the
anti-doping code by not registering Dank.
4. If Jones is irrelevant why did you devote a column to him? Why set out to denigrate
Jones if he is irrelevant? Why impose an irrelevant story on your readers?
5. It was dishonest of you to say Jones championed Dank. The fact that Jones shared
Danks belief that ASADA and the AFL had run a corrupt investigation doesnt mean
Jones championed Dank. Are you that stupid that you believe Jones had to disagree
with Dank on everything.
6. Jones started by claiming the allegations against Dank were horrendous and serious.
That was not a soft comment and created a negative view of Dank in the viewers mind
from the get-go. Jones asked Dank questions on key issues on which he had not been
asked previously:

Did you administer Thymosin Beta-4 or Thymomodulin.

When Dank said Thymomodulin, Jones asked him why.

Jones asked Dank to confirm his role at Essendon something the viewers needed
to know.

Jones asked Dank about the first blow up at Essendon which caused Essendons
Dr Reid to self-report the club for possibly using banned substances. Despite my
begging the media on numerous occasions to write about that blow up, no one has
3

written about it. The media has deliberately protected the AFL by refusing to
expose the AFLs negligence and governance failures. Jones and Beattie did the
world a favour by asking that question.

Jones and Peter Beattie asked Dank a series of questions about the lack of records.
I dont think anyone in Australia believed Danks response. As Jones and Beattie
dont pull Danks strings like the AFL pulls many journo strings, there was
nowhere further to push the matter short of saying you are a liar.

Jones asked Dank why he ordered seven private separate blood tests for his
players and asked why he sent the blood to a clinic in Sydney. Jones also asked
why the tests were conducted outside the formal structures of the club.
Furthermore, Jones also asked why Dr Reid did not sign the pathology form
referrals and asked why the results were sent to a Melbourne doctor and not Dr
Reid. Jones then asked Dank to look down the lens of the camera and answer
whether he was testing for Thymosin Beta-4. To my knowledge Dank had never
been previously been asked about the blood tests.

Jones and Beattie returned to the lack of paper trail. Unfortunately, no one knew
about Danks claim that he transferred his hand-written notes to a spreadsheet on
22 January 2012 and Jones was caught off guard. He, like the rest of the media,
didnt know enough to pursue the alleged two spreadsheets claim and that issue
died.

Jones then quoted Caroline Wilson comments on 5AA. I am sure Wilsons words
witch doctor; gutless coward for not giving evidence resonated with the
audience and made Dank squirm in his seat. Dank used Wilsons comments to
explain why he refused to appear at the tribunal. Dank explaining why he didnt
appear is one of the main things the football public has wanted to know.

Item (Smith) 2: Peter Beattie, former Queensland premier, has never been more irrelevant
as he sat beside Jones through this conversation. To call it an interview would be to give it a
gravitas the farce hardly deserved.
My Comment:
This is one of many comments by you which was in breach of the press councils code with
respect to balance. In a technique synonymous with your writing, you have thrown mud
without substantiation. Jones approached the interview from a position of considerable
knowledge about the saga whereas Beattie spoke for the football followers who have been
treated like mushrooms for two years. Beattie demanded answers to questions the public
wanted answers to. He pushed for answers on the lack of records; he pushed for answers on
Dr Reid self-reporting on 19 October 2011; and he pushed for answers on compliance with
clause 7.4 of the AFLs Anti-Doping Code. All three issues have been ignored by the print
media to its utter shame. Clause 7.4 is such a taboo subject my understanding is all major
newspapers omit page 74 for fear of upsetting the AFL in a similar way some hotels omit
floor 13 and airlines omit row 13 for fear of upsetting superstitious customers. To cap off a
superb contribution to the interview, Beattie quoted County Court Judge David Jones saying

Danks evidence was unreliable and dishonest. Once again this would have created a negative
view of Dank in the viewers minds.
Item (Smith) 3: Stephen Dank never looked so smug as he chanted correct to a series of
offerings from Jones.
My Comment:
1. You comment about smugness proves you are way past your usefulness as a journo.
You are too biased against Dank to make such an assessment. No one on social media
I had access to shared your view. Many criticised Dank for continually looking to his
left. Apparently, the body language gurus say looking to the left is a sign of
uneasiness. It didnt seem to worry those judges that Peter Beattie was sitting on
Danks left.
2. Are you suggesting Jones should not have asked Dank whether he administered
Thymosin Beta-4 or asked him to confirm his role at Essendon, or are you suggesting
Dank should have lied when he answered correct? I know you have covered up for
the AFL and ASADA but are you suggesting Jones should not have asked Dank about
the number of injections Demetriou, Fahey, McLachlan, McDevitt and Nolan claimed
the players were administered or are you suggesting Dank should have lied?
3. I was amazed Danks legal team allowed him to appear on the show. It was stupid. All
the Essendon and Hird haters such as you were never going to believe a word he said.
Dank had nothing to gain and a lot to lose. I imagine Danks legal team advised him
to say as little as possible.
4. I was also amazed Jones wanted to interview Dank. He had nothing to gain. Jones
knew the Essendon haters would not believe a word Dank said. And he knew the
Essendon haters and Jones haters would try and denigrate him for being soft.
5. Your hypocrisy knows no bounds. You have never mentioned clause 7.4 of the AFLs
anti-doping code and have never mentioned the AFLs failure to check compliance
with it.
6. You have never mentioned that Dr Reid informed the AFL on 19 October 2011 that
he had been marginalised and that Dean Robinson had given the players peptides,
which Brett Clothier allegedly told James Hird were banned. You have never
mentioned that the AFL did nothing.
7. You have never mentioned that although the AFL believed that the Essendon players
were taking dangerous, banned substances in 2011 and 2012, it sat back and did
nothing until 1 February 2013.
8. You have never mentioned the Essendon organisation structure or Hirds job
description.

9. You have never mentioned the Victorian Occupational Health and Safety Act nor
have you mentioned the AFL commissioners and the Essendon boards
responsibilities under that Act.
10. You have never mentioned that as a party to the AFL / Essendon / Player tripartite
agreement, the AFL is deemed to be an employer of the Essendon players, which
carries onus responsibilities. For your edification, I have another 49 stories I have
given your newspaper which you have chosen to ignore.
Item (Smith) 4: The records of the drugs administered? Disintegrated, said Dank. And to
think Jones said this stuff tonight is going to be tough. Laughable was actually the word
required.
My Comment:
1. Contrary to what the media and judge David Jones claimed, we learned from the
interview that the injecting records from Dr Hooper at the HyperMed and the records
from Skinovate were given to ASADA. We also learned that the player consent forms
were also given to ASADA.
2. I also believe that despite Danks comments to the contrary, we learned that he didnt
keep adequate records of the administration of the supplements. To put it in words
you may understand, I think the vast majority of viewers would think that Dank didnt
tell the truth about his record keeping.
3. Danks use of the word disintegrated was stupid and did enormous damage to his
credibility. If he had used the term thrown out some viewers may have believed
him. When I was sacked from A C Nielsen I was told to leave immediately. I wasnt
allowed to return to my office. I was also managing Tony Greigs affairs at the time
and kept some of Tonys files at Nielsen. When they cleaned out my office they threw
everything out, including Greigs files.
4. There was no handing over by Dank with Essendon. Id imagine he left half eaten
sandwiches and thousands of documents on peptides in his office when he left. His
office would have been cleaned by a junior staffer or a cleaner days or weeks after he
left and it is plausible everything was turfed. They found vials of substances including
Thymomodulin in his fridge. This scenario doesnt imply I believe Dank kept a
spreadsheet from 22 January 2012. Thats illogical because ASADA had access to the
hard drive. It just means some of his papers could have been innocently thrown out.
5. No one apart from Evans and Robson believed the players were administered banned
substances so it was illogical they would deliberately destroy documents. And as
Evans and Robson carried on like pupils knocking each other out of the way to clean
the blackboard for the teacher, to ingratiate themselves with Demetriou, Id put my
life on it that they didnt destroy evidence.

Item (Smith) 5: Dank has never been believable throughout the Essendon inquiry and
judicial process. That he sat back when the Essendon players and their families were put
through a traumatic two-year experience condemns him. It is his greatest sin.
My Comment:
1. You cant have it both ways. On the one hand you claim Dank has never told the
truth, and on the other hand you are implying Dank should have testified on behalf of
the players. On your reasoning that would not have helped the players because you
claim Dank never tells the truth.
2. Dank testified under oath to the Australian Crime Commission that he administered
Thymomodulin and not Thymosin Beta-4. Perjury carries a two-year-gaol sentence.
Surely the plyers should have been reassured by that testimony. Subsequently, Dank
said on numerous occasions that he didnt give the players any banned substance. My
understanding is the tribunal cleared Dank of administering banned substances.
3. To my knowledge, everyone at Essendon except David Evans and Ian Robson
believed that the players werent given banned substances.
4. Unethical behaviour by a number of AFL officials, the media and ASADA caused the
players far more trauma. Inter alia, before the investigation was completed, on over a
dozen occasions Demetriou said the players were guilty of taking dangerous banned
substances. Virtually, every column you wrote over the last two years said, or
implied, that the players had been administered dangerous, banned substances. I
suspect that if the players had a choice of reading that a tram had knocked you or
Dank over they would all choose you. You should read the blogs occasionally, even
the Essendon haters, detest you.
Item (Smith) 6: He said he knew everything but he told ASADA investigators and the AFL
tribunal nothing. Nonetheless he told Jones he was always ready to support the players. He
never did once.
My Comment:
1. Dank didnt know everything. G L Biochem (China) sent a parcel to Alavi labelled
Thymosin. Alavi didnt have it tested so he had no idea whether it was Thymosin
Alpha 1; Thymomodulin; Thymosin Beta-4; or an unknown substance. Alavi gave it
to Dank in clear vials without labels. Dank didnt have it tested so he had no idea
what it was.
2. The ASADA / AFL investigation was corrupted. Inter alia:

ASADA changed evidence; ASADA fabricated evidence; ASADA omitted

evidence; ASADA gave untrue evidence in its own investigation. ASADA
manipulated the interim report at the behest of the AFL. The AFLs integrity
manager didnt tell the truth when he testified on 17 July 2013. Why would
anyone be so stupid to give evidence to the AFL or ASADA?

Dank testified to the ACC that he didnt give the players banned substances and
made numerous comments to the media to that effect. Its just possible that
Danks message may have been lost on the players because of the medias and the
AFLs unethical behaviour in repeatedly claiming the players were given
dangerous substances.

Most people who are not brain-dead or didnt hate James Hird knew that legally
that the Essendon board, Robson, Hamilton, Robinson, the AFL commissioners,
Demetriou, McLachlan, Anderson, Clothier and Dillon all were legally more
responsible for the players safety than Hird. Yet Hird was hanged by a Kangaroo
Court comprising the AFL, media and ASADA. Why would Dank want to put
himself at the mercy of the same people when he had told the players they had
nothing to worry about?

Item (Smith) 7: He let those players suffer inexcusably and Jones, through his all-but
sycophantic conversation with Dank, became his chief public supporter. Dank is one of
Australian sports greatest villains, who put his own skin ahead of the Essendon footballers
he had an obligation to look after and who trusted him.
My Comment:
1. You appear to be incapable of telling the truth. Jones didnt support what Dank did.
He didnt believe what Dank said about Essendon complying with clause 7.4 of the
AFLs Anti-Doping Code. Id be staggered if Jones or anyone else believed what
Dank said about the seven private blood tests and his record keeping. Jones obviously
agreed with Dank that the AFL and ASADA ran a corrupt investigation. If you dont
believe that I suggest you have a concussion test. You have obviously bashed your
head against the wall too many times in your despair at having been so wrong, so
often.
2. Only a fool would say Dank is one of Australian sports greatest villains. As we speak,
Dank has been found guilty of giving four support staff substances they were entitled
to take. In my view, the AFL commissioners, key AFL executives and Ben McDevitt
were bigger villains than Dank. The AFL was told on 19 October 2011 that Essendon
may have been administered dangerous, banned substances. This was three weeks
before Dank even joined Essendon. The AFL did nothing. If it had responded as it
should have, the whole saga would not have occurred.
3. It is outrageous to suggest Jones participated in a sycophantic conversation with
Dank. Jones and Beattie exposed Dank about the private blood tests; they exposed
him for living in fairy land over his record keeping; they exposed him for not telling
the truth about clause 7.4; and they told all their viewers that Caroline Wilson said he
was a gutless coward. Given I have sent your newspaper 59 plus stories about the saga
that the paper didnt have the guts to run, you are hardly in a position to call anyone
sycophantic.
Item (Smith) 8: Dank will soon enough find out his fate when the AFL Tribunal meets to
decide his penalty. If Dank is not banned for life then an injustice has been done. He must be
kept away from our athletes. He cannot be trusted. And yesterday it was made patently clear
that he must keep away from coaches, too.
8

My Comment:
I have no idea what penalty Dank should receive but Id be surprised if he is banned for life
for giving four support staff substances they were entitled to receive. At least you are
consistent. You campaigned for nearly two years to have Hird banned for life.

Item (Smith) 9: How foolish Jones looks and must feel now. He believed a man who
arrogantly busted the ASADA code while always promising that he diligently honoured the
anti-doping policy.
My Comment:
1. I can assure you Jones doesnt feel foolish. I cant recall Jones saying he believed
Danks comments about the seven private blood tests; nor believed Danks account of
his record keeping; nor Danks account of his relationship with Dr Reid; nor Danks
claim that Essendon complied with clause 7.4 of the AFLs Anti- Doping Code. To
my knowledge, the only thing Jones agreed with Dank was that the investigation was
corrupted. Given Joness rugby background I suspect he believed that it was
appropriate that Dank established markers with his first blood test. I know he didnt
approve of Dank going outside the formal structures.
2. Your comment Dank arrogantly busted the ASADA code while always promising
that he diligently honoured the anti-doping policy is shameful. You have written for
two years that the players were administered banned substances. If that werent the
height of arrogance I dont know what is. Having proved you were a hateful fool you
have now jumped ship and are attacking Dank for giving four support staff substances
they were entitled to receive. In interviews, Dank freely acknowledged that he had
given support staff substances which were banned for players.
Item (Smith) 10: How Beattie must wish he had never agreed to sit in on that Sky News
interview. And to think at the end of it Dank called for a senate inquiry. Dear God.
My Comment:
Your arrogance knows no limit. First you spoke for Jones without ascertaining how he felt
and now you are speaking for Beattie. I assume you didnt speak to either. Come closer, I
want to whisper something. You have stuffed up everything when you are thinking or writing
for yourself. It is therefore probably not a good idea to think or speak for Jones and Beattie.
Item (Smith) 11: To many who now finally see how recklessly and dangerously Dank carried
out his duties as a support staffer at Essendon, a powerful club in the AFL, it might appear
just good fortune that no players were found in breach of ASADAs code.
My Comment:
1. As Dank was cleared of giving any player a banned substance it is outrageous to
suggest he acted dangerously. He acted inappropriately by not keeping detailed
records and by by-passing Dr Reid on a number of occasions.
2. Your hypocrisy is beyond belief. You hammered Hird for not accepting Justice
Middletons decision but here you are implying the tribunal was wrong and wont
accept its decision.

10

Item (Smith) 11: Jones was not the only commentator hoodwinked by Dank. You can start
with the officials at Essendon who hired him. What were they thinking? What were they
checking? The irresponsibility, the abandonment of good governance is still staggering two
years on.
My Comment:
1. Typical of your gutter type journalism, you havent once attempted to substantiate
your claims against Jones. My understanding of News Limited and the press councils
codes suggest you should have given examples of how Jones had been hood-winked
by Dank.
2. When Dean Robinson was hired as the high performance coach, he demanded that he
brought his team with him. Five of his Gold Coast Suns support team including Dank
came with him.
3. You asked what were the Essendon officials thinking when they hired Dank. My
understanding is the Essendon officials thought Dank must have wonderful
credentials because he had been employed previously by the AFL owned Gold Coast
Suns. Essendon also thought Dank must have impeccable references because they
believed the AFL would have put him through a rigorous checking program. As it
transpires, Essendons faith in the AFL / Suns governance was horribly misplaced
because the AFL / Suns did no checking. Interestingly, the governance failures that
occurred at Essendon with respect to Dank also occurred at the Suns.
4. The AFLs Anti-Doping Code requires every support staffer to be registered by the
AFL. It seems the Gold Coast Suns and Essendon didnt get around to that. Even
more surprisingly, the AFL never checked with its compliance rule and consequently
never registered Dank. Talk about bad governance.
Item (Smith) 12: This enervating drama that has surrounded Essendon for two years and
more has made fools of many people. Driven by blind team loyalty or unrelenting angst
against the Gillard government, they have discarded facts to wallow in emotion. Even to
them, however, Dank was uncovered yesterday.
My Comment:
1. Once again, you have made unsubstantiated allegations. A decent journo would have
listed some of the people Dank made fools of and explained how. Dank had been
slammed by ASADA, the AFL and just about everyone in the media on the grounds
that the aforementioned knew Dank had administered banned substances to the
players. As it transpires, everyone including you were wrong. And here you are
gloating over the fact Dank was found guilty of giving four support staff substances.
2. Your comment about the Gillard government implies Clare and Lundy were correct.
If this is so, I suggest you ring the night bell and let the nurse know that you have
returned from day release.

11

3. Prior to yesterday, I believed those who followed the saga thought Dank was one of
one of Australian sports greatest villains. After yesterdays decision, I believe
everyone bar you would have retreated from their previous position.
Item (Smith) 13: The tribunal findings strongly support the decision by ASADA chief
executive Ben McDevitt to launch the charges against the players and Dank, never mind that
Jones called McDevitt a thug when interviewing Prime Minister Tony Abbott on April 2.
My Comment:
1. This comment is the most bizarre made in two years by the media. Yesterdays
decision was proof that McDevitt should be sacked for the most willful waste of
taxpayers money. In an Oscar winning sour grapes response to the tribunals decision
on 31 March, McDevitt said no one knew what the players had been administered.
But in an act of sheer bastardry McDevitt charged the players with being administered
Thymosin Beta-4. Ill repeat myself slowly so even you may understand Paddy. If
McDevitt didnt know what they were administered, how could he keep a straight face
and charge them with being administered a specific substance, Thymosin Beta-4? If
that werent bad enough, McDevitt made no attempt to prove each of the 34 players
was administered Thymosin Beta-4. It was unconscionable to charge someone and
then not try to prove their guilt.
2. If McDevitt were able to prove Thymosin was Thymosin Beta-4 only five players
should have been charged because five players admitted to be being administered
Thymosin. Those five would still not have been found guilty but McDevitt could have
argued a case. However, it was unconscionable of McDevitt to have dragged the other
29 players through the mud.
Item (Smith) 14: Whether yesterdays findings persuade McDevitt that he should appeal last
months tribunal decision, which found it could not be comfortably satisfied that 34 past
and present Essendon players had been administered the banned Thymosin Beta-4, will be
known soon enough.
My Comment:
You must be the only person in Australia who thinks that appealing is an option. If McDevitt
appeals both he and Minister Ley should be given the cab fare to Centrelink. With a bit of
luck, youll be driving the cab that picks them up.
I

12

Item (Smith) 15: But while the players are free to play on, yesterdays findings shine a light
on a perilous, uncontrolled and indulgent culture that pervaded Essendon in 2012.
My Comment:
1. This is another bizarre comment. Yesterdays findings threw no light on what
happened at Essendon. Unfortunately, because of the hopelessly flawed Switkowski
Report and the corrupted AFL / ASADA investigation, we will only know what went
on at Essendon if there is a judicial inquiry.
2. Switkowski only interviewed three Essendon players and didnt interview Dank or
Robinson. In those circumstances he had more front than Dolly Parton to have put his
name on such a report.
Item (Smith) 16: The penalties the club received from the AFL Commission in August 2013
for appalling governance including expulsion from the finals, a $2m fine, a 12-month ban
for coach James Hird were more than justified.
My Comment:
1. This is the greatest load of kak I have ever read. The AFL commissioners had the
same responsibilities to provide a safe work place as the Essendon board. Both failed.
Governance at both the AFL and Essendon was appalling. Essendon should have been
penalised exactly the same as the AFL was penalised.
2. Hirds penalty was one of the greatest injustices in Australian sporting history. I
begged you on numerous occasions to discuss the Essendon organisation structure and
Hirds job description. You failed to do so because you would have been forced to
admit that legally about 28 people the eight AFL commissioners; Demetriou;
McLachlan; Clothier; Anderson; Dillion; the AFLs human resource director; eight
members of the Essendon board; Robson; Hamilton; Robinson; the two doctors; and
the human resource manager had more responsibility than Hird.

13

Item (Smith) 17: This is not the end of it. ASADA might appeal the findings on the players.
WADA might appeal to the Court of Arbitration for Sport. Dank has said endlessly that he
will march straight to court after he faced the tribunal. He might be less confident today
though.
My Comment:
1. You are correct in saying This is not the end of it. But your reasons are wrong.
ASADA cant possibly appeal, nor will WADA.
2. As I understand it, we can look forward to the following:

The Victorian WorkSafe Authority will find against the AFL commissioners and
the Essendon board.

A former Essendon player will sue the AFL commissioners and key AFL officials.

When the commissioners settle the matter out-of-court a class action against the
AFL commissioners will be lodged in the Supreme Court.

The Commonwealth Ombudsman will rule in my favour in my claim that the AFL
and ASADA ran a corrupt investigation.

Mr Abbott will see the light and order a judicial inquiry

The Australian Sports Commission will rule that the AFL breached its obligations
as a NSO and will withdraw funding from the AFL.

Dank will commence action against ASADA and will probably win because he
will prove that the tribunal decision against him was made on the basis of a
corrupted AFL / ASADA investigation.

14

Item (Smith) 18 : When then-federal sports minister Kate Lundy warned of the dangers of
drugs and criminals infiltrating Australian sport back in February 2013 it was a warning
that came just in time. It helped rip the top off the precarious mess at Essendon. Boards have
been replaced. Support staff suspended and sacked. Coaches suspended. NRL players
banned. Presidents resigned. Friendships torn apart. Australian athletes average two positive
tests with ASADA every month. We are hardly a clean sporting nation.
My Comment:
1. Please diarise 26 June, which is Red nose day. With a bit of luck you will be able to
buy a big enough red nose to cover your brown nose. As I have said previously it is
time you got your head out of Lundys backside, its not a hat.
2. Lundy and Clare did immeasurable damage to Australian sport and Australias
sportsmen and women.
3. If the AFL had checked just once in the last five years at one club with compliance
with clause 7.4 of the AFLs Anti-Doping Code the Essendon mess would not have
occurred. If Clothier had conducted an audit of Essendon on or just after 5 August
2011, the Essendon mess would not have occurred. If the AFL had done something
after Dr Reid self-reported on 19 October 2011, the whole saga would not have
occurred.
Item (Smith) 19: The Essendon club and the Essendon players have suffered well beyond
what they deserved if the tribunal findings are not successfully challenged. The Bombers can
start afresh.
Comment:
I have just received an email from the Russian judge. He has awarded you ten out of ten for
your backflip. Prior to 31st March you stated unambiguously that the Essendon players had
been administered banned substances and they were getting what they deserved. Now you are
sucking up to them.

Bruce Francis

15