Ryan Crowley tests positive to banned substance (Opposition supporters tread carefully)

[Kapow!!!]

I mean how long does it take to do a test, I would suggest it takes under half an hour, and since this is the only positive match day test in the past few years you would think it would be some sort of priority, by the way I don't think Ryder or Monfires will play

You're not familiar with Biochemistry testing are you? The standard reporting time on most Steroid Profile testing is 4-5 weeks. The fact is most Endocrinology and Biochemistry testing take a significant amount of time to come through (usually in that 4-5 week window I mentioned with the Steroid profile) for official confirmation. Considering the A test was reported positive 4 weeks later in August after the Hawthorn game, this puts the positive B test right in that time frame.

 

[theGav56]

So is it as simple as taking a Pandene Forte that he may have had been prescribed from a previous time?

Geez, who hasn't done that.

I haven't, but what is your point? I am not a professional athlete who is contractually obliged to adhere to a substance use protocol. The AFL universe has been absolutely deluged with information about what athletes can and cannot do. He went outside the clubs guidelines in what is surely a deliberate action. It is a real lapse of discipline and loyalty in my opinion, and it will hurt the club this season.

 

[clogged]

What about a possible scenario wherein Ryan was prescribed medication by his surgeon / specialist and hence did not consider it necessary to consult the club GP ?

Then he has a chance of getting off

Further, what if he also did not take the medication on the day of the game but it remained in his system ?

Doesn't matter. 'In competition' testing means any time during which the competition is running.

 

[Fred Ziffel]

I haven't, but what is your point? I am not a professional athlete who is contractually obliged to adhere to a substance use protocol. The AFL universe has been absolutely deluged with information about what athletes can and cannot do. He went outside the clubs guidelines in what is surely a deliberate action. It is a real lapse of discipline and loyalty in my opinion, and it will hurt the club this season.

There are any number of scenarios where it may not have been a deliberate action hence the category of specified substance.

 

[theGav56]

What about a possible scenario wherein Ryan was prescribed medication by his surgeon / specialist and hence did not consider it necessary to consult the club GP ? Further, what if he also did not take the medication on the day of the game but it remained in his system ?

If that was the case then I would assume that he has not been paying any attention to the information programs that the clubs/AFL run several times a year about this. I would be stunned if it is not fully covered in that kind of presentation.

 

[Eski3]

http://www.news.com.au/sport/afl/pa...mer-afl-club-doc/story-fndv8h5w-1227266271983


"Dr Bolzonello, a member of the Alphington Sports Medicine team who now works with the Calder Cannons in the under-18 TAC Cup competition, also suggested Crowley could potentially escape with no more than a warning.

He was a member of the tribunal that suspended former Casey Scorpions footballer Wade Lees for 18 months in 2012. Lees had consumed a fat-burning product ordered online for the US, which was later was revealed to contain traces of a banned steroid.

“I think there’s the potential for Ryan’s situation to be much less than that,” Dr Bolzonello said.

“Ryan’s is a prescribed substance ... and there is allowance for the tribunal to consider the matters around Ryan’s ingestion of that medication; whether there was an intent to cheat and if they’re satisfied that his situation was one of error or honest mistake then he can get much less. In fact he can even get a warning.”"

 

[Fred Ziffel]

Then he has a chance of getting off


Doesn't matter. 'In competition' testing means any time during which the competition is running.

The category of specified substance was created for inadvertent use which I would assume would cover a substance that has remained in his system, although the medication wasn't taken on game day. I believe such a category explicitly bans game day taking of the substance but not any other time.
That seems like a mitigator to me.

 

[theGav56]

There are any number of scenarios where it may not have been a deliberate action hence the category of specified substance.

He didn't deliberately not inform the club doctors that he was getting treatment outside of the club?

 

[Big Animal]

Stupid mistake from Crowls; a sad (probable) end to a fine career. Whatever happens from here though he's been a fantastic clubman and I'm proud to have him as a life member.

Let's try avoid turning into Essendon supporters and blaming everything and everyone except the guy who is actually responsible though hey? Crowls stuffed up and will have to wear the consequences like a man (though hopefully it will end up on the minor end of the scale). Some of these sympathy posts I'm reading from Bomber supporters as if we're now brothers fighting against a common enemy are making my skin crawl.

100%

And, on a positive note, thread has taught me a lot about treating depression

 

[Admiral Byng]

What about a possible scenario wherein Ryan was prescribed medication by his surgeon / specialist and hence did not consider it necessary to consult the club GP ? Further, what if he also did not take the medication on the day of the game but it remained in his system ?

I think that would be the best-case scenario.

But in the lack of any further information we'll have to wait for the AFL to stop dragging their feet and set up a tribunal appointment to hear the case.

 

[clogged]

The category of specified substance was created for inadvertent use which I would assume would cover a substance that has remained in his system, although the medication wasn't taken on game day. I believe such a category explicitly bans game day taking of the substance but not any other time.
That seems like a mitigator to me.

It's not about game day. It's about in competition. If he takes it on Sunday after a game and tests positive a week later he's deemed as having taken it for 'game day'.

 

[Frank J Moose]

this isn't a swipe at Crowley, but how convenient that the AFL gives him a show-cause notice 2 days after Freo got knocked out of the finals, I would suggest the AFL know about this a long time before hand and ENCOURAGED asada to take their time with the 2nd sample. I think it shows they tailor things to suit their needs

As was only a specified drug he would be allowed to compete IN ANY SPORT until the hearing. His suspension is voluntary. No anti port agenda in it. They weren't trying to "tear you apart"

 

[Fred Ziffel]

He didn't deliberately not inform the club doctors that he was getting treatment outside of the club?

No , I didn't say that.
Obviously the club knew he had surgery but the surgeon may have prescribed a particular painkiller without consulting Ken Withers.
A specialist is a specialist.

 

[Taylor]

He didn't deliberately not inform the club doctors that he was getting treatment outside of the club?

Do you know that?

He could have had a mole removed for all you know.

 

[Fred Ziffel]

It's not about game day. It's about in competition. If he takes it on Sunday after a game and tests positive a week later he's deemed as having taken it for 'game day'.

I thought it was game day.
I wish I could find a painkiller that was still in my system and effective for days.

 

[imperial_oz]

Caroline Wilson love her or hate her she states that the pain killer that was detected on game day may have actually remained in his system from taking it earlier to game day.

As Fremantle were at pains to make clear on Monday, Crowley's alleged misdemeanour was of his own doing. He appears to have taken something to ease his back pain without consulting his club doctor. There is a suggestion Crowley took the drug not on the day of the Giants game, but that the substance remained in his system.

If he can prove this and I'm not sure how he could then there is a slight chance of getting off.

He won't get off but he may well get the sanction reduced to a reprimand id he can show that it wasn't performance enhancing or used for masking. I don't see how he can get off when the substance was still in his system

 

[Taylor]

I thought it was game day.
I wish I could find a painkiller that was still in my system and effective for days.

If you take something with codeine in it then you will have it in your system for a couple of days.

 

[Vintage]

Playing devils advocate here, but what makes people so sure he only used painkillers once on game day? Couldn't he have been running the gauntlet for a while to keep playing with pain?

 

[Fred Ziffel]

Anyone who doesn't believe these AFL players deserve the money they earn is ignorant.

 

[beetz]

Playing devils advocate here, but what makes people so sure he only used painkillers once on game day? Couldn't he have been running the gauntlet for a while to keep playing with pain?

I would not be surprised if a large majority of the entire competition has taken more than a panadol on game day.

 

[youmewe]

Anyone harbouring any hopes that Crowley can in any way avoid suspension over this matter, please dump those hopes ...


-------------------------------------------- < here.


Let me draw your attention to Clauses 11 and 11.1 of the AFL Anti Doping Code:

11.

…

An Anti Doping Rule Violation occurs even if the Player does not know the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method is prohibited under this Code. The onus is on the Player to check all substances and methods.

11.1

The presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in a Player's Sample.

(a)

It is each Player's personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his body. Players are responsible for any Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found to be present in their Sample. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing Use on the Player 's part be demonstrated in order to establish an Anti-Doping Rule Violation under Clause 11.1.

http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/Schedule 6 - National Anti-Doping Code.pdf

 

[yoong]

It's not about game day. It's about in competition. If he takes it on Sunday after a game and tests positive a week later he's deemed as having taken it for 'game day'.

Ok, I need help with the English here
Does it mean the entire afl season, or just game day??

In-Competition means, for purposes of differentiating between In-Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing, where a Player is selected for Testing on the day of a Match conducted in the AFL Home and Away Season, the AFL Finals Series, the AFL Pre-Season Series and the International Rules Series.

http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/Schedule 6 - National Anti-Doping Code.pdf

 

[beetz]

Ok, I need help with the English here
Does it mean the entire afl season, or just game day??

In-Competition means, for purposes of differentiating between In-Competition and Out-of-Competition Testing, where a Player is selected for Testing on the day of a Match conducted in the AFL Home and Away Season, the AFL Finals Series, the AFL Pre-Season Series and the International Rules Series.

http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/Schedule 6 - National Anti-Doping Code.pdf

They just had the ex- ASADA boss on 6PR. He said you can take such a drug any time you like during the season, but if it's in your system on game day you're going to be in strife.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Anyone harbouring any hopes that Crowley can in any way avoid suspension over this matter, please dump those hopes ...


-------------------------------------------- < here.


Let me draw your attention to Clauses 11 and 11.1 of the AFL Anti Doping Code:

11.

…

An Anti Doping Rule Violation occurs even if the Player does not know the Prohibited Substance or Prohibited Method is prohibited under this Code. The onus is on the Player to check all substances and methods.

11.1

The presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in a Player's Sample.

(a)

It is each Player's personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his body. Players are responsible for any Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found to be present in their Sample. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing Use on the Player 's part be demonstrated in order to establish an Anti-Doping Rule Violation under Clause 11.1.

http://www.afl.com.au/staticfile/AFL Tenant/AFL/Files/Schedule 6 - National Anti-Doping Code.pdf

The argument here is that he hasn't been charged with a Prohibited Substance, he has been charged with a Specified Substance, which is a different (and less serious) category.

But I'll have to more careful read of the AFL Code. Which I don't have time to do at work.

 

[yoong]

The argument here is that he hasn't been charged with a Prohibited Substance, he has been charged with a Specified Substance, which is a different (and less serious) category.

But I'll have to more careful read of the AFL Code. Which I don't have time to do at work.

I think I found the section.

14.3 Elimination or Reduction of Period of Ineligibility for Specified Substances under Specific Circumstances.
Where a Player or other Person can establish how a Specified Substance entered his body or came into his Possession and that such Specified Substance was not intended to enhance the Player’s sport performance or mask the Use of a performance-enhancing substance, the period of Ineligibility found in Clause 14.1 shall be replaced with the following:
First violation: At a minimum, a reprimand and no period of Ineligibility, and at a maximum, two (2) years of Ineligibility.

To justify any elimination or reduction, the Player or other Person must produce corroborating evidence in addition to his word which establishes to the comfortable satisfaction of the hearing panel the absence of an intent to enhance sport performance or mask the Use of a performance-enhancing substance. The Player’s or other Person’s degree of fault shall be the criterion considered in assessing any reduction of the period of Ineligibility.