Mega Thread Hot Topic - Drugs and AFL

[Jason K]

The B sample took a long time to be tested. Crowley wasn't even aware he was in trouble until the SCN arrived.

But the SCN arrived in September no? I realise that it should have been sooner but the fact he is still under provisional suspension in March is the AFL tribunal mucking around, not ASADA. Unless I am missing something?

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

This is an AFL stuff up/cover up - ASADA and The Anti Doping Rule Violation Panel did their work in reasonable time.

http://www.fremantlefc.com.au/news/2015-03-16/ryan-crowley-media-statement
Sample collection – 13 July 2014
· A Sample tested – 11 August 2014
· Player Crowley notified of positive A Sample – 18 August 2014
· B Sample tested – 11 September 2014
· Show Cause Notice sent to player Crowley (including notification of B Sample positive) – 18 September 2014
· Voluntary Provisional Suspension accepted – 25 September 2014
· Infraction Notice served – 1 October 2014
· Letter re outcome of Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel findings sent to player Crowley – 16 October 2014.

http://www.fremantlefc.com.au/news/2015-03-16/ryan-crowley-media-statement

 

[cj_09]

The bit I find troubling with Crowley testing positive last year in round 17, did him still playing affect any results in the games before finals last year? ASADA stuffed that up as by rights a positive test should rule you out instantly as far as I'm aware.

Maybe we would have won the last game against them, then finished top 4, got the second chance, made the GF and would have......


Hmmm, I gotta stop thinking like that.

 

[charcolechaddy]

We played Freo on 13/9 - interesting the B sample was tested on 11/9 - a Thursday so no chance result was known by Friday arvo.

So who covered this up for almost 6 months?? ASADA? AFL? Freo?

I agree this sounds as suspect as a car from the dodgy brothers.

 

[AdamMarrett]

This is an AFL stuff up/cover up - ASADA and The Anti Doping Rule Violation Panel did their work in reasonable time.

http://www.fremantlefc.com.au/news/2015-03-16/ryan-crowley-media-statement
Sample collection – 13 July 2014
· A Sample tested – 11 August 2014
· Player Crowley notified of positive A Sample – 18 August 2014
· B Sample tested – 11 September 2014
· Show Cause Notice sent to player Crowley (including notification of B Sample positive) – 18 September 2014
· Voluntary Provisional Suspension accepted – 25 September 2014
· Infraction Notice served – 1 October 2014
· Letter re outcome of Anti-Doping Rule Violation Panel findings sent to player Crowley – 16 October 2014.

http://www.fremantlefc.com.au/news/2015-03-16/ryan-crowley-media-statement

Between this and Essendon how can anyone have faith in the AFL and ASADA to be transparent with anything.If the AFL are covering this stuff up something has to give as it's becoming a joke.

 

[Janus]

We played Freo on 13/9 - interesting the B sample was tested on 11/9 - a Thursday so no chance result was known by Friday arvo.

So who covered this up for almost 6 months?? ASADA? AFL? Freo?

Exactly the sort of case that the AFL would have been aware of for months but only releases now in order to condition the public on a soft ban for Essendon. "Hey, Crowley was caught and he only got six months backdated. Essendon's players weren't, and based on circumstantial evidence, they should only get the same amount of time."

Control the spin cycle, condition the masses, and you get your desired result.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

Between this and Essendon how can anyone have faith in the AFL and ASADA to be transparent with anything.If the AFL are covering this stuff up something has to give as it's becoming a joke.

ASADA have done nothing wrong in this case. Its not up to them to make any public announcement. The AFL have been sitting on this since 16th October 2014 when the ADRV panel made their finding. How come Crowley never told Freo? Or if they did, did they sit on it? How come the AFL didn't act on this in October/November?? ah looks like Freo were told but not allowed to publicly comment.

http://www.fremantlefc.com.au/news/2015-03-16/ryan-crowley-media-statement
Fremantle president Steve Harris said because of the AFL Anti-Doping Code’s confidentiality clauses, the club has not previously commented on the matter publicly.

So what's the bet the AFL were waiting for a ruling on Essendon before they looked at this and Essendon has now dragged on for so long the AFL had to finally act before Rd 1 was upon us. I assume Crowley hasn't played a NAB challenge game yet.

 

[AdamMarrett]

ASADA have done nothing wrong in this case. Its not up to them to make any public announcement. The AFL have been sitting on this since 16th October 2014 when the ADRV panel made their finding. How come Crowley never told Freo? Or if they did, did they sit on it? How come the AFL didn't act on this in October/November?? ah looks like Freo were told but not allowed to publicly comment.

http://www.fremantlefc.com.au/news/2015-03-16/ryan-crowley-media-statement
Fremantle president Steve Harris said because of the AFL Anti-Doping Code’s confidentiality clauses, the club has not previously commented on the matter publicly.

So what's the bet the AFL were waiting for a ruling on Essendon before they looked at this and Essendon has now dragged on for so long the AFL had to finally act before Rd 1 was upon us. I assume Crowley hasn't played a NAB challenge game yet.

He hasn't to my knowledge yet and now we know why there were whispers in Perth about him last week....see that I don't agree with by the AFL.It needs to be transparent with banned substances,I get the confidentiality with illicit substances and their policy there but banned substances is a tad much to sit on for that long, I don't care what the AFL thought it was doing.

I find this muddies the waters on field with Crowley playing the final rounds and finals, as he tested positive to a banned substance so he shouldn't have been on the field.It's different to the Essendon scenario in my eyes but I don't see how he could play after that test failure.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

http://m.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl...l-on-doping-saga/story-fni5f6kv-1227263743183

Dunno if the link works but a good article about what's coming up March 31st

This is a good article because I think its the first article I have read by a journo who correctly detailed the whole process. Its worth quoting from it.

March 31 is a guilty or not guilty call — NOT a final determination of penalties. Even if all 34 are found guilty, they most likely won’t be named, as the anonymity provisions in the AFL’s anti-doping code extend through their 21-day appeal period.

Stephen Dank’s guilt or innocence on a range of charges should also be decided.

Dank will get a life ban from being involved in Australian football IMHO.

IF IT’S NOT GUILTY
THE players, now involved with three AFL clubs, are free to play in Round 1 matches beginning on April 2.

ASADA and the World Anti-Doping Authority both have appeal rights — ASADA at the first instance to the AFL Appeals Tribunal and WADA to either that body or directly to the Court of Arbitration for Sport.

IF IT’S GUILTY
IF one or more of players is found guilty, brace yourself for more tribunal hearings.

The possibility that some players will be found guilty and others not is very real — sources close to the tribunal process say the players’ experiences in the 2012 supplements program, and their recollections of those experiences are not all alike.

First, and shortly after the verdict, there will be a directions hearing to work out when and on what basis sanctions hearings will take place. Players’ lawyers will outline what provisions in the AFL Anti-Doping Code they believe should be applied to reduce what are normally inflexible sanctions.

If ASADA, which has not made submissions on penalty so far, and the AFL agree the discounts should apply, sanctions hearings could be mercifully short — a couple of days.

If the sanctions hearings are to be contested, then the merits of each of the 34 individual cases could be up for argument, with hearings taking weeks. If any or all of the players don’t like the final result, they can appeal to the AFL Appeals Tribunal and then CAS.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

I find this muddies the waters on field with Crowley playing the final rounds and finals, as he tested positive to a banned substance so he shouldn't have been on the field.It's different to the Essendon scenario in my eyes but I don't see how he could play after that test failure.

This bit is wrong. Under the rules you are allowed to compete until your B sample is also tested and a result obtained. At the Olympics and some world championships the drug testing is set up so the B sample is tested relatively quickly usually within 24 hours. The B sample wasn't finished being tested until after Freo were knocked out. I don't have a problem with what happened. But if Freo beat Port - the B sample was positive on the 18th and Crowley given a SCN on the 18th, would the AFL have stopped him from playing the Hawks on the 20th?? If it was at an Olympics he would be kicked out off the Olympic village and venues as soon as the B sample result is known.

 

[AdamMarrett]

This bit is wrong. Under the rules you are allowed to compete until you B sample is also tested and a result obtained. At the Olympics and some world championships the drug testing is set up so the B sample is tested relatively quickly usually within 24 hours. The B sample wasn't finished being tested until after Freo were knocked out. I don't have a problem with what happened. But if Freo beat Port - the B sample was positive on the 18th and Crowley given a SCN on the 18th, would the AFL have stopped him from playing the Hawks on the 20th?? If it was at an Olympics he would be kicked out off the Olympic village and venues as soon as the B sample result is known.

My understanding was wrong and thanks for clearing that up.I feel his career maybe ended here out if this depending on what he has taken.

 

[Chrizzt]

So if the initial verdict is not guilty, what happens if the players then play round 1, while ASADA appeal, then win on appeal to find the players guilty. Will the players then lose the ability to backdate suspensions as they have played, or will that period (between not guilty and then guilty upon retrial) not be included as the players technically wouldn't be under SCN at that time?

 

[bcswift]

An inconvenient truth leads to a very convenient delay. The AFL loses more credibility.

A Sample tested – 11 August 2014
Player Crowley notified of positive A Sample – 18 August 2014
B Sample tested – 11 September 2014

 

[Boss351]

Mr. Crowley, what went on in your head?

Mr. Crowley, won't you ride my white horse?

© O. Osbourne, Randy Rhoads

 

[Forzaport]

An inconvenient truth leads to a very convenient delay. The AFL loses more credibility.

A Sample tested – 11 August 2014
Player Crowley notified of positive A Sample – 18 August 2014
B Sample tested – 11 September 2014

Considering each test is 1 month apart to the day, I imagine this is probably standard operating protocol.

 

[yepits2020]

All we know is they Crowley has tested positive to a Specified Substance not supplied through the club. It was contained within a painkiller.

Do we know if was over the counter or required a prescription?

Could it still be a stimulant? It seems so.

could it be a narcotic analgesic? Possible... Does mask an injury in competition.

Until we know the drug and circumstances, hard to work out what he deserves, but 18 months seems the go for a specified substance tested positive in competition.

 

[bcswift]

Considering each test is 1 month apart to the day, I imagine this is probably standard operating protocol.

The AFL need to clarify this. WADA laboratory guidelines suggest 7 working days maximum between an adverse A sample and testing the B sample.

http://www.usada.org/testing/results/wada-international-standard-for-laboratories/

If they're giving 30 days, the system is a total joke. That's potentially 4 games a player can take part in when they should be banned. This isn't an individual sport where those results can be overturned.

 

[TeeKray]

It's an interesting concept....Freo potentially without a (strong) tagger...maybe more attacking football?? Crowley hardly missed a game in the last 3 years....You guys do ok without a strong tagger (i assume)? we'll see how this pans out, it may not be bad to remove the negating role ryan plays... Is it better to have a tagger or not?

none the less looking forward to round 1

And then you woke up and realised that Ross Lyon was still your coach - good luck with that buddy

 

[Ant Bear]

Titus O'Reily's take on this.
Big Footy gets a mention
http://titusoreily.com/afl-to-compl...ail&utm_term=0_6fb03b1bc7-bbfd45372c-99234425

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

An inconvenient truth leads to a very convenient delay. The AFL loses more credibility.

A Sample tested – 11 August 2014
Player Crowley notified of positive A Sample – 18 August 2014
B Sample tested – 11 September 2014

There is nothing wrong taken with the time taken between collecting Crowley’s sample and finding out that his B sample was also positive and issuing the SCN. These accredited drug testing Labs test tens of thousands and some Labs test hundreds of thousands of samples every year. There are standard international protocols developed and implemented by WADA for the Labs to receive WADA accreditation. Separation of duties and being seen to be independent is just as important as being independent. The samples are scheduled and you cant jump the queue. The scientist doing the test never knows if he/she is testing an A or B sample. The only thing they have is the urine or blood sample and a code for that sample usually a 10-12 digit number, which later on, is matched up to the report the scientist produces by someone at the National Doping Agency.

There was a 4 week time gap between collecting the sample and it being tested. There was a one week gap between starting the test and producing the result and advising Crowley. Then there is another 4 week gap before testing the B sample and then another week before the B sample result is produced and Crowley told of its result.

A 2 to 3 month gap is pretty standard from my observation of athletics between the sample being provided by an athlete and the B sample confirmation result being obtained. An athlete at an IAAF Diamond League meet or IAAF Grand Prix or an athlete at a domestic meet run by his/her national federation, gives a sample, it goes off to an accredited Lab and the tests get scheduled to be tested at the Lab as they would have thousands of tests from dozens of sports to be analysed.

The Olympics and IAAF World Championships (and many other world championships that go for a week) book a Lab years in advance to be free for the days those events are held, so that the Lab can process all their samples in a short period and produce testing results of the A samples and B samples usually by the time the event has finished or just after it. The Olympics and IAAF and other sporting federations want to catch the cheats and name and shame them and strip them of any medals whilst the event is still on. That is why B samples are tested usually within 24 hours of a positive A sample. The Olympics and World Championships are special events so they have special time frames. Footy isn’t special so it goes to the stock standard time frame like all the other sports.

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

The AFL need to clarify this. WADA laboratory guidelines suggest 7 working days maximum between an adverse A sample and testing the B sample.

http://www.usada.org/testing/results/wada-international-standard-for-laboratories/

If they're giving 30 days, the system is a total joke. That's potentially 4 games a player can take part in when they should be banned. This isn't an individual sport where those results can be overturned.

And WADA funded vs WADA accrediated are two different things

 

[RussellEbertHandball]

And those guidelines are from 1st January 2015. What were they before that?

 

[Dalphonso]

No club or no player will have any sympathy for a dirty prick like Crowley.

 

[SilenceOz]

Titus O'Reily's take on this.
Big Footy gets a mention
http://titusoreily.com/afl-to-completely-overhaul-its-cover-up-unit/?utm_source=Titus+O'Reily&utm_campaign=bbfd45372c-Newsletter+#53&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_6fb03b1bc7-bbfd45372c-99234425

Im positive Titus is just another BF Bay13 flog who tones up his writing style for articles.

 

[raptalia]

The time lines, as pointed out be forzaport, plus a bit of other info are all in the link below. One interesting point is that it was the AFL, not ASADA, who issued the Show Cause Notice. ASADA appear to have had minimal involvement. The AFL will probably use this as a PR exercise to show how well their drug testing procedures work. Not surprising that the Dockers have distanced themselves from the incident. Rosich is pushing the, 'it was all Ryan's own work' line for all it is worth.

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-ne...tive-to-banned-substance-20150316-1m08nb.html

Nothing too sinister in the procedure the AFL followed.

If Crowley gets done for two years for this Angus and Paddy will get life, if found guilty of course.

As for this Titus guy who would want to receive e mails from him? The guy reads like an ego tripper to me.