STEPHEN Dank's appeal against a lifetime ban has been thrown out by the AFL Appeals Board because of the disgraced sports scientist's "lack of cooperation and communication".

The decision was immediately welcomed by the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority, with CEO Ben McDevitt declaring Dank "should not be allowed near any athlete, anywhere in the world, ever".

Dank was found guilty of 10 breaches of the AFL's anti-doping code in April last year and subsequently banned for life from working in any sport in Australia or overseas.

The architect of the Bomber's supplements program was scheduled to front the appeals board on November 21, but said he could not attend because a relative was in hospital with a life-threatening condition.

Dank was given until 5pm AEDT on Friday to provide supporting documentation to explain his absence but failed to do so, with the Appeals Board describing his behavior as a "flagrant flouting of the board's directions".

McDevitt said Dank had treated the appeals board with "contempt from the very beginning" and his appeal process has been a "farce" and "a total waste of time and money."

"From the start, Mr Dank has failed to comply with directions from the board, failed to ever produce a witness list or evidence, and failed to ever outline his case for the appeal, despite requests from the board," McDevitt said.

"Mr Dank’s life-long ban from involvement in sport is entirely appropriate.

"This man should not be allowed near any athlete, anywhere in the world, ever."

The appeals board, led by chairman Peter O'Callaghan QC, released a timeline of its proceedings and said Dank had "significantly contributed" to the troubled history of his own appeal.

On multiple occasions he failed to comply with the directions of the appeals board, forcing it to stretch more than 18 months after he first lodged his notice of appeal on April 20.

Dank on one occasion cited "ongoing litigation in NSW and limited financial capacity" for his inability to proceed with the appeal.

By July this year, Dank was no longer represented by legal counsel.

"In the light of the history of this matter and in particular the flagrant flouting of the board's directions … the board of its own motion would have dismissed the appeal," the appeals board wrote on Monday.

"In the board's view in all of the circumstances of this appeal and in particular the intentional and contumelious disregard of the board's ruling of November 21, 2016 the applications of the AFL and ASADA for the dismissal of the appeal for want of prosecution should be granted."