20 April 2015

Dear Gerard

RE: Offsiders 19 April 2015 Alan Jones attack - your contribution

Over the years my respect for you and your form of journalism and commentary has been of
the highest order. You stood out like the lighthouse at Alexandria among the tawdry bunch
of schemers and self-aggrandisers to seem to make up the vast majority of the media. To me
you were the Mother Teresa of the media, a doer of not just good works, but often great ones.

Yesterday, I had the dreadful misfortune to watch you on Offsiders alongside Richard Hinds
and Francis Leach, and my world, not to mention my opinion of you, came crashing
down. Your comments about the Jones / Beattie / Dank interview so wrong, so, so wrong,
have brought me to a place in which I never thought I would find myself having to do a
dissection of these tawdry, awful, inexplicable words that seem to come from a place so alien
to you. I could say, I feel like I am shooting Bambi, but really it is a case of Bambi
committing suicide in the most grotesque of ways.

Item (Gerard Whateley) 1: Away from the field on Friday afternoon, the AFLs AntiDoping Tribunal released its findings on Steven Dank, 10 guilty counts of trafficking and
supply of banned substances and a swag of not guilty verdicts on charges on administering
banned substances to athletes. So the penalty hearing is in May and what weve seen it
should be enough for Ben McDevitts ambition that here was that stated on the show that
Dank should never be allowed near any sporting venue or athlete anywhere in the world ever
again, never, that should be enough to see that happen.

My Comment:

Dank was found guilty of giving substances to four support staff mates, who were entitled to
receive them. No players were involved. I have no idea whether the AFL can justify having a
rule that a consultant to a club, who the AFL was too apathetic to register, cant give a pill or
an injection to a baseball coach, let alone know what the penalty should be. I do suspect that
1

stopping Dank going near any sporting venue such as Flemington on Melbourne Cup Day
or the MCG on Boxing Day for life, seems a trifle harsh, particularly as the AFL employed
him without checking references.

Item (Gerard Whateley) 2: There has been. Look the most laughable note of the week did
revolve around Dank and there was nothing funny about it. And that was the interview, and I
use that term particularly loosely with Alan Jones.

My Comment:

1. Although I suspect this comment was made as part of a quid pro quo for you having
been illegally leaked a copy of Judge David Joness judgment, it is impossible to
substantiate or justify.

2. To my knowledge, although tens of millions of words have been written and spoken
about the saga, this is the first time you have denigrated a fellow member of the
media. Please tell me this was the ABCs decision, not yours!

3. Your ridicule of the interview was unconscionable. The vast majority of the questions
had never been asked before. I suspect no media person in the country could have
done a better interview because none knew enough about the saga to ask more than
half a dozen questions. It would be of great interest for you to identify the questions
that should, and should not, have been asked. Jones and Beattie asked Dank 71
questions, some of which contained sub questions. I have paraphrased or summarised
the questions for simplicity. Some were straight questions and others were statements
requiring a yes or no, or correct or incorrect answer:

i.

Did you administer the Essendon players Thymosin Beta-4 or

Thymomodulin?

ii.

Why did you administer Thymomodulin?

iii.

Are you suggesting that on 1 April 2014 when McDevitt said the players were
administered Thymosin Beta-4 that he had no proof?
2

iv.

Did you administer Thymomodulin?

v.

Is Thymomodulin approved?

vi.

It has been alleged that Shane Charter went to China at your behest to but
Thymosin Beta-4. Is that correct?

vii.

What was the purpose of the numerous emails between you and Charter?

viii.

What is a peptide?

ix.

What do peptides do?

x.

Do peptides help oxygen get to the muscles?

xi.

You were you hired by Essendon as a consultant

xii.

Did you start in November 2011?

xiii.

Were your two main functions handling the GPS monitoring and
recommending a supplement programme to Robinson?

xiv.

Dank was asked about the reporting structure in the football department

xv.

Did Hamilton insist after the blow-up in January 2012 that everything to do
with the supplement program had to come across his desk?

xvi.

Did you know what happened at the first blow up in October before you joined
Essendon?

xvii.

When did you hear about the first blow-up?

xviii.

What did the AFL do? Did they do an audit? Did they check the paper work at
Essendon?

xix.

What happened to the paper work?

xx.

Jones asked a series of questions about the paper work

xxi.

Were the injecting records from the HyperMED and Skinovate handed to
ASADA? Were the consent forms signed by the players handed to ASADA?

xxii.

Dank was asked where his records were

xxiii.

Dank was asked whether he kept a personal copy after he left Essendon

xxiv.

Dank was asked whether he left his records in his office

xxv.

Dank was asked why his records may have been binned when his office was
cleaned if nothing were illegal

xxvi.

Dank was asked if any of his records still existed.

xxvii.

Dank was asked about the seven private blood tests which were sent to a
Sydney laboratory.

xxviii.

Dank was asked why he went outside the formal structures of the club for
those blood tests

xxix.

Why was the blood sent to Sydney which was outside the formal structures of
the club?

xxx.

Who chose the Lab?

xxxi.

Why didnt Reid ever sign the referrals for the blood tests?

xxxii.

Why did you use doctors who were associated with the club?

xxxiii.

Why did the results get sent to a Melbourne doctor and not to Dr Reid?

xxxiv.

Was Dr Reid happy with the process? Was he supportive of this?

xxxv.

So Dr Reid never objected to the tests?

xxxvi.

Can you assure us you werent submitting players to blood tests for the
presence of Thymosin Beta-4?

xxxvii.

When did you administer your first substance to an Essendon player?

xxxviii.

Did you record the information anywhere?

xxxix.

When was the information about administering substances first recorded on a

computer?

xl.

Where are those spreadsheets now?

xli.

Did you take the spreadsheets with you when you left Essendon?

xlii.

Are you a witch doctor as claimed by Caroline Wilson?

xliii.

Are you a gutless coward for not giving evidence at the tribunal hearing?

xliv.

Did you give evidence under oath to the Crime Commission?

xlv.

Are you waiting for the AFL tribunal verdict on you before determining what
court action youll take?

xlvi.

Will your court action proceed?

xlvii.

Did you feel there was no point going to the AFL tribunal? How do you feel
about them?

xlviii.
xlix.

Did you think you would get a fair go from the AFL tribunal?
Are you saying the AFL fabricated a structure around the process to seek the
result that they argued existed in February 2013?

l.

Did you say in August 2014 you would support the players. Is that still your
position?

li.

Will you be seeking legal redress for Caroline Wilson saying you are a gutless
wonder?

lii.

Did you say the AFL, ASADA, Ziggy Switkowski and the media should be in
the dock instead of you?

liii.

They are saying you gave the players banned substances

liv.

ASADA alleged you gave the players one banned substance, Thymosin Beta4, but at no stage did they attempt to prove that?

lv.

How can you prove guilt if you dont produce evidence?

lvi.

Did Demetriou accuse you of administering 10,000 plus injections; Fahey

4000+; McLachlan thousands; McDevitt hundreds and maybe thousands (plus
being used as a pin cushion) and Nolan was concerned the figure wasnt high
enough so he suggested adding IV treatments.

lvii.

Did you testify under oath to the Crime Commission in May and November
2012?

lviii.
lix.

Did you tell the Crime Commission everything you know?

What are your thoughts on McLachlans instructions to the CEO of ASADA
on 26 June 2013?

lx.

How do you respond to Judge David Joness claim that your evidence was
unreliable and dishonest?

lxi.

Have you ever spoken to Judge David Jones?

lxii.

What did Judge David Jones base his comments on?

lxiii.

Are you aware of any club complying with Clause 7.4 of the AFLs AntiDoping Code?

lxiv.

Has the AFL ever checked with compliance with Clause 7.4?

lxv.

When did you start at Essendon?

lxvi.

A series of questions wwas asked about Brett Clothiers claim on 5 August

2011 that all peptides were banned.

lxvii.

Dank was asked whether there were any caveats with respect to the
supplement program.

lxviii.

Dank was asked about the first blow up on 19 October 2011 when Dr Reid
reported a possible breach of clause 4.6 by the AFL.

lxix.

Was it a breach of the AFLs duty of care not to worn the players after Dr
Reid reported the matter to the AFL?

lxx.

Where do we go from here?

lxxi.

Would it make sense if there were an independent judicial body with judicial
processes as in New Zealand?

Item (Exert from Alan Jones on Sky):

My Comment:

This was gutter journalism at its worst. The video had no context and was too short to be
relevant. It was obviously included to ridicule Jones and give the two male clowns on the
panel, Richard Hinds and Francis Leach, a reason to laugh. Sadly, this is a familiar tactic for
the ABC when Jones is the subject. When 4 Corners broadcast Chris Masterss Jonestown
in 2002, it fraudulently edited an answer by Nick Farr-Jones to question seven as an answer
to question four. The chicanery caused Jones great angst.

Item (Gerard Whateley) 3: It is a source of great ridicule, but there a couple of things, I
think fair-minded people must say and must say repeatedly, to champion Danks character
against Ben McDevitt, it is an outrage to fair-minded people. McDevitt has devoted his life to
various roles in law enforcement including in the Bali Bombings investigation, hes been a
finalist in Australian of the Year.

My Comment:

1. I find it an incredible coincidence that both you and Patrick Smith would both use,
and misuse, the expression champion Dank within 24 hours of each other. Is there
any chance you were both singing off Sarah Lukins song sheet?

2. Sam Lane QC won the most reprehensible comment award during the saga by a
bigger margin than Hawthorn beat my Swans. However, this comment would have
secured you a place in the finals. It is unconscionable; it is incomprehensible; it is
factually wrong:

i.

In their interview with Dank, neither Jones nor Beattie compared or contrasted
Dank with McDevitt.

ii.

McDevitts name was mentioned twice in the 40 minute interview. The first time
Jones quoted what McDevitt said about Thymosin at his 1 April press conference.

The second time Jones mentioned McDevitt was when he said McDevitt said the
players were given hundreds, maybe thousands of injections.

iii.

Neither Jones nor Beattie made a negative comment in the interview about
McDevitts character.

iv.

Neither Jones nor Beattie made a favourable comment about Danks character.
Jones did mention Danks qualifications in his introduction but that has nothing to
do with his character.

v.

I know Jones didnt believe Danks comment that Essendon players complied
with clause 7.4, and I suspect both he and Beattie didnt believe Danks comments
about the blood tests; his relationship with Dr Reid; and that he kept adequate
records that were inserted into a spreadsheet on 22 January 2012. As a former
teacher, Jones also didnt believe the dog named Disintegrated, ate Danks
records.

vi.

At the very best I suspect Jones thought establishing markers with the first blood
test was okay. He doesnt accept it should have been done without Dr Reids
approval. Jones agreed with Danks assessment that ASADA and the AFL had
corrupted the investigation. That is definitely not championing Danks character
and as McDevitt wasnt involved in the joint investigation it wasnt saying
anything about his character.

vii.

Ben McDevitt may be the greatest person who ever lived. However, his
background is irrelevant to whether he did a good job during the Essendon saga..
The interested parties are entitled to look solely at how he performed his job now.
What he did in Bali has nothing to do with whether he should have charged five
players, 34 players or no one.

Item (Gerard Whateley) 4: Dank in the finding released by David Jones, his complete lack
of credibility was that his evidence was not only unreliable but was dishonest. To hold one up
against the other here must not be allowed to happen.

My Comment:

1. This comment proves that both you and David Jones have lost the plot. Dank has
never appeared before David Jones. Dank has never spoken to David Jones. Dank has
never written anything to David Jones. Dank has never provided David Jones with a
skerrick of evidence. Thus, David Jones was out of order to say Danks evidence was
unreliable and dishonest. Surely, you were bright enough to remember that Dank
refused to give evidence! As an aside, did David Jones defame Dank?

2. The evidence David Jones and you foolishly referred to was an indictment on Ben
McDevitt. Unbelievably, McDevitt claimed conversations Dank had with certain
media people were evidence. ASADA even claimed a comment Dank allegedly made
to an ABC journalist on the phone was evidence LOL. Strangely, when a newspaper
reported that Dank testified under oath to the Australian Crime Commission that he
gave the players Thymomodulin and not Thymosin Beta-4, McDevitt didnt count that
as evidence. Perhaps you may care to ask an ABC lawyer whether McDevitt was
guilty of withholding evidence. While you are speaking to him you may also ask him
whether McDevitt also should have provided in discovery a document sent on 3 July
2012 from ASADAs Dr Stephen Watt to WADA that stated Thymosin was
Thymomodulin. I uncovered the document through a FOI request. Surely, it is
possible that McDevitt would have known that in July 2012 ASADA believed
Thymosin was a generic name for Thymomodulin.
3. One of the most critical comments about Ben McDevitt since March 31 has been
made by David Jones, not Alan Jones. Its the one you yourself read out on AFL 360.
In the interests of being fair-minded, you should have quoted what David Jones,
David Jones, I repeat, not Alan Jones, said about McDevitt: Many of the reasons
provided by the ASADA CEO were contentious and lacked any proper evidentiary
basis. Gerard, thats not a big wrap for the bloke, though David Jones decided to
coat it with a bit more sugar than he did the comments about Dank. Essentially, David
Jones is saying that McDevitt simply made it up.

Item (Gerard Whateley) 5: There was one other element that stands unchallenged and it
shouldnt and thats Danks statement that he used Thymosin Alpha on the Essendon players
is the finding itself whilst they werent comfortably satisfied that it was Thymosin Beta 4 it
unequivocally rejected any suggestion it was Thymosin Alpha. So it was either TB4 or God
knows what.

My Comment:

During the interview between Dank, Jones and Beattie that you ridiculed and thought was
laughable, Dank never used the word Thymosin Alpha. Dank said he administered
Thymomodulin. You either need a hearing aid or you are unaware Thymosin Alpha and
Thymomodulin are different substances.

Item (Gerard Whateley) 6: The deadline for ASADAs final decision on appeal is Tuesday
afternoon, as of last night it was undecided as to which way it would go. It is weighing legal
advice that states that the tribunal placed the bar too high, on the level of comfortably
satisfaction as it was applied in this case, the view of ASADA is that Lance Armstrong would
not have been found guilty, the agency is of the belief that the evidence produced by Biochem,
and this related to the identity of the TB$ and the testing that was limited should have been
routinely accepted under comfortable satisfaction rather than rejected and that will be the
key plank as to whether they go ahead with an appeal or not.

My Comment:

1. Its time McDevitt stopped playing pocket billiards. It doesnt matter how high or low
the bar was placed. McDevitt said no one knew what the players were administered. It
is beyond my comprehension that if McDevitt didnt know what the players were
administered how he could charge them with being administered Thymosin Beta-4.

2. To gain a conviction McDevitt had to:

i.

Prove Thymosin Beta-4 was supplied from BL Biochem (China) to Nima

Alavi. He couldnt even do that. On 2 December 2011, Biochem quoted
Charter on two products, Thymosin and Thymosin Beta-4. When the raw
10

material arrived in Australia on 28 December 2011, the parcel said

Thymosin. As Alavi didnt have it tested he didnt know whether it was
Thymosin Alpha; Thymomodulin; Thymosin Beta-4; or an unknown
substance.

ii.

Prove Alavi supplied Dank with Thymosin Beta-4. As Alavi supplied the
substance to Dank in clear, unlabelled vials, Dank had no idea what it was. As
Dank didnt have it tested he had still had no idea what it was.

iii.

Prove Dank administered Thymosin Beta-4 to each of the 34 players. As Dank

didnt have the substance tested he didnt know what he administered the
players, which means McDevitt did not know what the players were
administered. To complete the farce, McDevitt didnt even try and prove
player 1 was administered Thymosin Beta-4 or players 2, or 3 to 34.

iv.

The aforementioned comments were made on the basis of the information

gleaned from the investigation. No one has identified that there is a gaping
hole in ASADAs research. You will have to buy the book!

Gerard, I am quite prepared to accept that your comments were made in an aberrated
moment. Please dont let it happen again. The sporting world cant afford to lose Bambi.

Regards

Bruce

11