Drugs/doping in AFL

[ike2112]

Also there's no anti-doping rule that says the club/employer needs to know asap, this may however be in the players contract.
For example in my old job if I lost my driving licence that's not really any of my employers business as I don't drive for a living, but my contract said I have to tell them of any legal infraction, and if I don't and they later find out, it'd be a fireable offence.

 

[goodie23]

What're the odds Crowley will be sentenced before Essendope?

 

[CursingFijian]

What're the odds Crowley will be sentenced before Essendope?

Or that he serves 12 months suspension and returns before they have their appeal decision handed down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Nutsngum]

For example in my old job if I lost my driving licence that's not really any of my employers business as I don't drive for a living, but my contract said I have to tell them of any legal infraction, and if I don't and they later find out, it'd be a fireable offence.

I'd love to see that contract attempt to be held up in wrongful dismissal case.

 

[ike2112]

So a quick bit of research suggests ASADA do the tests, but then disclose the result to the AFL General Manager, who then in turn informs the player. However the wording used by both authorities suggests "as soon as possible". This from the AFL anti-doping code (which doesn't seem to have been updated since June 2013):

13.1 As soon as possible after the AFL General Manager - Football Operations has received notification from ASADA of an Adverse Analytical Finding or he believes on other grounds that there may have been committed an Anti Doping Rule Violation or a breach of this Code (other than as described in Clauses 13.4 and 13.5), he will give to the Person an infraction notice, together with a copy of this Code, and refer the matter to the Tribunal for hearing and determination.
13.2 The infraction notice given pursuant to this Clause must:
(a) be in writing and be delivered to the Person’s address as last known to the AFL;
(b) set out the nature and particulars of the alleged Anti Doping Rule Violation; and
(c) state the date, time and place at which the Tribunal will conduct its hearing into the Anti Doping Rule Violation.
13.3 In the event that a Player advises ASADA and the AFL General Manager - Football Operations that he does not require the B Sample to be tested and admits the Anti Doping Rule Violation, the Tribunal’s hearing will be conducted solely as to the applicable sanction to be imposed.
http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/Schedule 6 - National Anti-Doping Code.pdf

That means ASADA would have known as soon as the test was completed by the National Measurement Institute (http://www.measurement.gov.au/Services/Pages/Drugsinsport.aspx) and informed to them. They in turn should inform AFL GM, who then in turn informs the player.
However slightly confusingly, the AIS policy stipulates that "ASADA will issue an infraction notice". Therefore the initial notification comes from AFL, but then ASADA have the legal responsibility to issue the notice, requiring close co-operation between those two bodies. Bit of a mess to be honest - looks like three different organisations writing their policies in isolation. There is a real danger of them contradicting each other and providing someone with a loophole.
For example its usual for Olympic sports (e.g. Australian cycling) to keep their noses out of it and leave it up to ASADA (see section 15 - http://www.cycling.org.au/Portals/10/Rules and Policies/100101 CA Anti Doping Policy.pdf). AFL are just sticking their noses in and I feel overcomplicating the issue of anti-doping, leaving themselves open to criticism in the process. They should keep out of it, in my view. The NSO only need to put in place the actual ban, following the investigation of the anti-doping authority.

When it comes to provisional sanctions, the AIS stipulate:
"Article 16 Provisional Suspensions
16.1 Mandatory Provisional Suspension after an A Sample Adverse Analytical Finding
Where an A Sample Adverse Analytical Finding is received for a Prohibited Substance other than a Specified Substance, the ASC, in consultation with ASADA, will promptly impose a Provisional Suspension on the Athlete.
16.2 Optional Provisional Suspension based on an A Sample Adverse Analytical Finding for Specified Substances or other potential anti-doping rule violations
Where an A Sample Adverse Analytical Finding is received for a Specified Substance or the ASC receives initial notification or information about another potential anti-doping rule violation, the ASC, in consultation with ASADA, may impose a Provisional Suspension on the Athlete, Athlete Support Personnel or other Person at any time prior to the final hearing as described in Article 17."

So it depends on the substance found (and not written here is also the matter of a B-sample request) as to whether a provisional suspention applies and when. 16.2 uses the word "may", so it would be up to the ASC to determine if they wanted him not participating in anything. Suspect the AFL offered him a provisional sentence allowing him to still train, given it's the offseason and given the AFL wouldn't want to have to hold a tribunal in the offseason just for this reason.

As for how long it has taken, I had originally only read a couple brief media reports and not the Freo statement which provides the dates. That looks to me like delays in actually testing. Maybe its the case that all Australian tests being done in the one place results in a longer turnaround, but results from Olympics for example show a turnaround of about a week - Nadzeya Astapchuk was tested on 5 and 6 August, won Gold on the 6th, and was banned by the 13th August having already gone through the full notification process. Tour de France testing is now about 8-10 days turnaround. It really depends on the labs you're using and probably how much you're paying for the process.
For Crowley, 29 days for the first test result, and 24 days for the B-sample test, is where the majority of the delay seems to sit. If it was a turnaround similar to that used during the Olympics he'd have been banned earlier. Say 45 days earlier, that would have been 11th August. Overall I still say it's a disgrace this took so long.
There's difficulties in comparing this to other cases - as I mentioned before, different countries have different rules for notifying periods, and they'll use different labs for testing. I have the Barbados policy for something I worked on recently and it stipulates 10 days between test completing and athlete notification, so it's fairly clear, but they also send their stuff to the US for testing so that probably also involves a delay. This is one of the areas in which WADA get a lot of criticism - whilst the policy is universal, parts of how it is applied differ from country to country and even from sport to sport.

 

[ike2112]

I'd love to see that contract attempt to be held up in wrongful dismissal case.

Maybe, but things aren't always as black and white as that.
An ex-colleague of mine got into bother selling counterfeit records, ended up in court, didn't tell work. He just got a fine, as he wasn't copying the records himself and didn't realise they were fake, he thought he was getting a bulk-buy discount and being clever by then selling on eBay. Would have probably gotten away with a slap on the wrist but the day he was in his regional court, there was a peadophile being sentenced so there was media folk there who wouldn't normally be there. His situation therefore made the local paper, and he got put on gardening leave from work. They were going to put him on either the last stage of disciplinary process, or potentially fire him, or he could just resign before reaching the hearing. He did the latter, as I suspect just about anyone would.
This was in a sector related to financial services, where the background checks they do prior to hiring staff involve criminal checks, and they are highly unlikely to hire anyone who flags up a criminal background, especially one relating to fraud. So his career was screwed. He's now a taxi driver and loves it, and earns pretty much the same coin as before with a job he doesn't hate, so worked out not bad for him. But the fine was pretty high, and his marriage nearly shot, as a result.
It's all fine and well saying that you may have legal ground to appeal a case, but when your career, marriage and basically entire life is on the line, and you're not as rich or arrogant as James Hird, you're probably going to do what you're told and take the easiest out.

 

[Nutsngum]

Maybe, but things aren't always as black and white as that.
An ex-colleague of mine got into bother selling counterfeit records, ended up in court, didn't tell work. He just got a fine, as he wasn't copying the records himself and didn't realise they were fake, he thought he was getting a bulk-buy discount and being clever by then selling on eBay. Would have probably gotten away with a slap on the wrist but the day he was in his regional court, there was a peadophile being sentenced so there was media folk there who wouldn't normally be there. His situation therefore made the local paper, and he got put on gardening leave from work. They were going to put him on either the last stage of disciplinary process, or potentially fire him, or he could just resign before reaching the hearing. He did the latter, as I suspect just about anyone would.
This was in a sector related to financial services, where the background checks they do prior to hiring staff involve criminal checks, and they are highly unlikely to hire anyone who flags up a criminal background, especially one relating to fraud. So his career was screwed. He's now a taxi driver and loves it, and earns pretty much the same coin as before with a job he doesn't hate, so worked out not bad for him. But the fine was pretty high, and his marriage nearly shot, as a result.
It's all fine and well saying that you may have legal ground to appeal a case, but when your career, marriage and basically entire life is on the line, and you're not as rich or arrogant as James Hird, you're probably going to do what you're told and take the easiest out.

The taking the easiest way out if unfortunately what lets a lot of employers get away with a lot of s**t as fighting things can be worst then just moving on.

Its a pretty bad precedence as well, personal lives should be just that, personal.

 

[ike2112]

The taking the easiest way out if unfortunately what lets a lot of employers get away with a lot of s**t as fighting things can be worst then just moving on.

Its a pretty bad precedence as well, personal lives should be just that, personal.

Depends on the circumstances. A big chief at an investment bank in London lost his job recently, as a result of him dodging his train fare for years. It's fraudulent, and a criminal offence, so he's not suitable to hold a senior position in a bank according to the regulator - he's not just lost his job, but his entire career.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...ter-card-loophole-banned-working-finance.html

To be honest on the whole I agree with you. Unfortunately that's not the direction the world is heading.

 

[Nutsngum]

Depends on the circumstances. A big chief at an investment bank in London lost his job recently, as a result of him dodging his train fare for years. It's fraudulent, and a criminal offence, so he's not suitable to hold a senior position in a bank according to the regulator - he's not just lost his job, but his entire career.
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/...ter-card-loophole-banned-working-finance.html

To be honest on the whole I agree with you. Unfortunately that's not the direction the world is heading.

The greatest crime there is "required ticket for £21.50 each way on his commute." Thats basically 50 bucks either way. Cant blame him really.

 

[ike2112]

That's nothing, at least he lived in London and was a fund manager - on the assumption he must have been decent to do it for so long, he probably earned around £180,000 a year. So that's roughly 350,000 dollars. So he was pretty stupid to dodge a fare he could easily afford.

In comparison travel between Edinburgh and Glasgow, two not-so-significant cities and it's over £17. And that's not "London city" workers who'll be on serious salary, that's everyone, with the avg salary much lower too. I can get paid more than double what I get, to do the same job in Canary Wharf. But I fear I'd lose all perspective of the world and the real value of a pint! (or schooner)!

 

[Nutsngum]

In comparison travel between Edinburgh and Glasgow, two not-so-significant cities and it's over £17. And that's not "London city" workers who'll be on serious salary, that's everyone, with the avg salary much lower too. I can get paid more than double what I get, to do the same job in Canary Wharf. But I fear I'd lose all perspective of the world and the real value of a pint! (or schooner)!

You would have to buy a Range Rover and become a Melbourne member at that point.

 

[Simple Jack]

What does "two words: salary cap: mean? Why does the public need to know where the salary cap goes? I still fail to see why you should be required to be told what an 18yo rookie is making in his inaugural year.

Don't want to drag the thread too far off topic but I'll just answer quickly: because we have a salary cap, the player salaries are a vital part of the rules of the competition. In a competition as devoid of integrity as the AFL, any little bit of accountability is an overwhelming positive. This is the organisation that fined Melbourne for definitely not tanking and banned Sydney from trading in players for being above the salary cap, which they were fine to be as long as they kept winning but didn't steal big name signings from the poor cousin out west.

If you want to get paid insane money to kick a ball around then you have to accept some unusual public intrusions into your life. The media report on your health, relationships, holidays and any minor speeding fines or anything else gets blown up massively. Salaries being public only has positives all round. It's reported approximately what the players get anyway so it's not like narrowing down from $350ish to $335,240 or whatever is a huge issue and it then means, importantly, that the AFL have one less dodgy thing they can do.

 

[CursingFijian]

It's interesting how Ross Lyon seems to be in his bubble world again, fending off the prying public eye and making it about the resilience of his players! I wonder if a Matt Finnis style open approach to marketing the club could ever work with Ross personality?

 

[sammm]

If ross was still coach at our club. We would have kess then 25k members and no communication.

 

[By a Point]

I understand Ross Lyon was not told. Also, according to the Age, Crowley requested the delay to prepare his defence. On my understanding from the Essendon case, this should affect his punishment. It would seem extraordinary that he he could be pinged for a banned substance, probably a high end opiate type pain killer, rightly banned to protect players, play on in the finals and not miss any or much of 2015. Saad had a steroid, but the reason for intake was fairly innocent. This was knowingly taking a high end painkiller which was not supplied through the club. He should get 18 months. Pity as I like his work ethic.

 

[SaintLex]

I'd delay it if I was Crowley. Play out the season, hopefully win a premiership, get done for doping and then retire. I can't see him bouncing back from an 18 month+ ban. Might as well play footy when you can.

 

[ike2112]

I understand Ross Lyon was not told. Also, according to the Age, Crowley requested the delay to prepare his defence. On my understanding from the Essendon case, this should affect his punishment. It would seem extraordinary that he he could be pinged for a banned substance, probably a high end opiate type pain killer, rightly banned to protect players, play on in the finals and not miss any or much of 2015. Saad had a steroid, but the reason for intake was fairly innocent. This was knowingly taking a high end painkiller which was not supplied through the club. He should get 18 months. Pity as I like his work ethic.

The timeline shown proves that the delay to September wasn't due to Crowley, it was a delay in the actual testing process. The athlete can't ask for their testing to be delayed, that would be in direct contradiction of WADA and ASC guidelines and regulations.
However the delay from September to now is (presumably) at his request - until the hearing he has a right to keep the matter out of the public domain, within the boundaries of the AFL and ASC rules (i.e. as long as no other rules contradict it, for example if he was providing doping products to others and their investigation was underway). The AFL needs to know, but unless it is a higher-class offense (and it's not) the AFL doesn't have to inform the club. Neither does Crowley unless his employment contract states otherwise. So there's a chance Freo only found out in recent weeks. More likely, he informed a welfare officer or HR area back in Sept/Oct, who would have provided him with support and guidance but not informed other Freo staff until recently.

25 September is when he accepted a provisional sentence. However he is being accused of a specified substance, and failed a test, so his punishment should be backdated to the date of the test. Also he shouldn't get 18 months, he should get 2 years.
Saad had a (slightly) mitigating circumstance. 18 months actually made no sense for Saad - he should have gotten either 2 years as per the letter of the rule, or 3-6 months as athletes in other sports and other nations have for similar accidental doping through recovery drinks etc. But ASADA were determined to be strict, they wanted the 2 years, so would never have let 6 months sit. Hence the punishment ended up being a botched mix version of the two suitable outcomes.

Also worth noting that the 'old' 2 year ban handed out as standard, has been increased to 4 years by many sports, pretty much all IOC sports, for in-competition failed tests. That means, if you fail a test in-competition, its assumed you're directly cheating in order to try and win something (as opposed to the less direct method of cheating to enhance preseason efforts, for example), so the punishment is greater. AFL haven't updated their policy however so doubt this can be applied.

All of the above taken into consideration, Crowley should be banned from 13 July 2014 until 14 July 2016, with any results or achievements gained during that period annulled. Let history show that Freo didn't make the finals last year...

 

[Big Mart]

2 years I hope for Crowley

Essendon will get away with absolute blue murder... It's a joke

Us, kangas or dogs that did this.... We'd be playing in the VFL whilst all our players were suspended

 

[Nutsngum]

Until we know what the painkillers were and exactly what for I wont form an opinion on him. Chronic back pain, particularly after required surgery, can be absolute misery and if the code stops you from having the only painkillers that will have an effect... then well what is your real option there?

 

[ike2112]

The option is to not play. It's a specified substance, which means if he wanted to take it to relieve excruciating pain he could do so and just not play. He would not have been banned for taking it in October, especially if declared as he'd perhaps have received a TUE anyway.

Cadel Evans rode in the tour De France with I think it was a broken arm or shoulder and he took only basic painkillers, then quit the next day, had surgery and took all the strong stuff then. This is the choice of an athlete.

TUEs make it more complicated, although in my opinion actually just facilitate cheating.

 

[Nutsngum]

The option is to not play. It's a specified substance, which means if he wanted to take it to relieve excruciating pain he could do so and just not play. He would not have been banned for taking it in October, especially if declared as he'd perhaps have received a TUE anyway.

Thats not really an option though at his age. Im not saying that he should be playing with an injury like that for example but I can certainly understand why one would do it to keep their career going and sympathise with it.

 

[ike2112]

I understand it too, but I think he could have sat out a couple weeks, don't see what his age has to do with it (do you mean limited time left in his career to win a flag, hence wanting to play?).
I also think he should have sought better medical advice - I'm not convinced that he couldn't have gotten a TUE and it been dealt with above-board. Depends what the substance is but you can take things which are normally banned if you get the required medical sign-off. Suggests to me there's still a fair level of ignorance about what you can and can't do/take.

 

[Nutsngum]

I understand it too, but I think he could have sat out a couple weeks, don't see what his age has to do with it (do you mean limited time left in his career to win a flag, hence wanting to play?).
I also think he should have sought better medical advice - I'm not convinced that he couldn't have gotten a TUE and it been dealt with above-board. Depends what the substance is but you can take things which are normally banned if you get the required medical sign-off. Suggests to me there's still a fair level of ignorance about what you can and can't do/take.

Yeah I mean in that if he begins to have to take extended rest periods then he can probably kiss long term game time goodbye. Lyon isnt exactly one to endure that kind of stuff with players.

Better medical advice is also possible. Not really enough information right now to decide unfortunately.

 

[ike2112]

There is also the possibility he told the club he was struggling and they effectively told him to 'man up' and get on with it.
He should be reliant upon the club, tell them he is injured, they treat him, and it he's not right he doesn't play. We don't know if they perhaps were pushing him beyond what he thought reasonable hence he felt he had to go elsewhere.
There's every chance part of his defence is an accusation of lack of welfare from the club, which would tie in with him not informing them right away.

 

[By a Point]

There is also the possibility he told the club he was struggling and they effectively told him to 'man up' and get on with it.
He should be reliant upon the club, tell them he is injured, they treat him, and it he's not right he doesn't play. We don't know if they perhaps were pushing him beyond what he thought reasonable hence he felt he had to go elsewhere.
There's every chance part of his defence is an accusation of lack of welfare from the club, which would tie in with him not informing them right away.

these types of laws are partly to protect the players from themselves and also from zealous staff. The laws rely upon the players to say no.