Rumour Willie Rioli allegedly caught tampering with a drug testing sample

[Magpie_Matty]

Just like your default preliminaryship!

Arrr I see what you did there
Quality

 

[Linda_Lovelace]

If he has tampered with a sample, he will get the max 4 years. He can play any card he wants but end of the day you can't dodge the test unless you are Lachie Whitfield but he plays for the AFL and like his mate Toby can't be touched.

 

[Private Hudson]

Hearing how you have to give a sample with your pants down and shirt up, I legit wouldn’t be able to piss with someone watching me like that.

 

[SunshineBoy]

has there been a statement saying they are going to contest it, that would be setting alarm bells off for me, I follow MMA where fighters are caught alot lol, first thing you here is they are innocent, will be contesting it blah blah blah

Add Aussie swimmers, athletes, footballers usually threaten court action, clubs generally get dogs to eat paperwork etc etc

 

[CatFan79]

clubs generally get dogs to eat paperwork

Are you calling Dean Wallis a dog?

 

[SunshineBoy]

Are you calling Dean Wallis a dog?

Did he eat the paperwork or feed it to his poodle?

 

[Buzz Hawk]

Hypothetically, if he had run the gauntlet, provided a sample and was busted for a recreational drug, am I right in saying that he would have received a strike (assuming it was his first), nobody would have known and he could have kept playing?

 

[Cotchins Hair Piece]

Hypothetically, if he had run the gauntlet, provided a sample and was busted for a recreational drug, am I right in saying that he would have received a strike (assuming it was his first), nobody would have known and he could have kept playing?

No, it was a game day test. You can’t get a strike.

 

[FrustratedTiger]

I hear Marijuana. And he wouldnt of gone for that.

Awaiting B Sample late news said.

In all seriousness, if that's the case, it's mind numbingly dumb. And so sad that something so stupid might railroad the career of a kid with so much more natural talent than most of his peers. Where are the people educating the players at the Eagles?

 

[matt_bas]

No, it was a game day test. You can’t get a strike.

Test was done on a Tuesday

 

[Captivating]

Hearing how you have to give a sample with your pants down and shirt up, I legit wouldn’t be able to piss with someone watching me like that.

ASADA have developed a VR app to help people with this. You put on the goggles and experience the test. It's there to make people more comfortable with the process - especially teenage athletes who are experiencing this for the first time.

This app actually recently won an innovation award.

Introducing a world first in anti-doping education – ASADA takes you through the doping control process with our new, web based, virtual reality (VR) experience.

You can use your modern smart phone or tablet, your computer, or your own virtual reality goggles to go through doping control. Let Alex and Tony guide you through the process and see how your sample tested at the end.

 

[Tap Tap Tapperoo]

Hearing how you have to give a sample with your pants down and shirt up, I legit wouldn’t be able to piss with someone watching me like that.

100%. He should play the stage fright defence.

 

[King Of Money]

So where does the secondary B sample come from?
Everything I've read says the athlete pees into a container which is then sealed and goes to the lab. This is 'the sample'.
1st test fails so they test a B sample, suggesting to me that it's separate from the original sample.
If it's from the original container then I would call it a B test rather then a B sample. Or am I missing something.

 

[Andrew Birch]

if the protocol is correct it would mean willie has taken a bottle of a popular drink and literally poured it into the container with the bloke watching only for him to go you can't do that willie, seal it and then get him that way. going "gotcha". no player would be that ******* dumb and the whole thing wouldn't make sense. they'd just ask him to do the test properly and stop being a dickhead.

doesn't add up.

unless you are suggesting he's had others help distract the tester then got caught after the sample was handed over. or he tampered with it after that.

the way the AFL worded it is that the sample was sent of for testing and came back as not urine!

lol because anti doping bodies are known to have a sense of humour about athletes trying to cheat urine tests.

 

[Andrew Birch]

We are all going to be deprived of seeing someone with a once in a generational talent from playing all because he is a selfish, stupid and naive individual. You can't expect to get away with this sort of stuff.

He has that x factor that we love in the game such a shame because I don't think he is coming back from this. He doesn't tend to stay in great shape when out of the game.

and if proven guilty, a cheat. Don't forget, cheat.

 

[Orange Agent]

Hearing how you have to give a sample with your pants down and shirt up, I legit wouldn’t be able to piss with someone watching me like that.

Last 2 jobs I've had required this as a pre-employment check. First time was a shock and a bit of stage fright, after that was not a big deal.

 

[Stars align]

Look after reading through 13 pages I still cannot see how he has done what is implied. Would appreciate if someone can break it down succinctly

Last 2 jobs I've had required this as a pre-employment check. First time was a shock and a bit of stage fright, after that was not a big deal.

 

[SunshineBoy]

and if proven guilty, a cheat. Don't forget, cheat.

Cheat needs to be bolded

 

[outabounds]

I am not usually very supportive of anyone accused of this sort of thing but if all protocols were followed, how exactly could this have happened? Also, the fact that this happened nearly a month ago and the authorities unleash it on the eve of the Semi's smacks of opportunism. Something just is not adding up for me here.

 

[Bay Giant]

Different code; different times.

But I recall Wally Lewis telling a story once, that after a game when drug testing first came in late ‘80’s he was absolutely spent after a big game.

Sitting on the bench in the rooms after the game and the tester walks in and give Wally the vial.

Wally sat there drinking his post-game beers and couldn’t be bothered getting up. Getting the wind-up for last shower he shakes a can of beer to within an inch of its life. Waits a few minutes then pours the beer in to the vial.

Handed the sample to the tester and has a shower and leaves.

To this day* he wonders what the tester thought when they analysed his sample and it was entirely beer.

*unsure if he still does “to this day” but he did at the time of recounting the story.

Also unsure if the story is true because I can’t find it anywhere on line to back it up, but it’s certainly a funny “story”

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

How come this has taken weeks to come out?

 

[owen87]

Look after reading through 13 pages I still cannot see how he has done what is implied. Would appreciate if someone can break it down succinctly

It's not a case of the tester seeing him do it and then telling him to try again, tampering with a sample is a sanctionable offence and a tester just providing their description of an attempt to tamper is insufficient proof. Everyone is assuming that (a) the tester didn't see him do it, or that (b) if the tester did see him do it, they'd just tell him to stop messing around and try again, which is not the case.

Instead it would be something like the below;

• Willie attempts to mix Gatorade popular sports drink in with his sample via some means.
• Tester witnesses him do this.
• Tester notes said behaviour.
• Sample is sealed and sent for analysis.
• Analysis comes back confirming testers version of events.
• Athlete is sanctioned for tampering with a sample.

From what I've read the tester can also (once in possession of the first sample) ask Willie to provide a second - untampered with - sample for analysis.

 

[owen87]

It's not a case of the tester seeing him do it and then telling him to try again, tampering with a sample is a sanctionable offence and a tester just providing their description of an attempt to tamper is insufficient proof. Everyone is assuming that (a) the tester didn't see him do it, or that (b) if the tester did see him do it, they'd just tell him to stop messing around and try again, which is not the case.

Instead it would be something like the below;

• Willie attempts to mix Gatorade popular sports drink in with his sample via some means.
• Tester witnesses him do this.
• Tester notes said behaviour.
• Sample is sealed and sent for analysis.
• Analysis comes back confirming testers version of events.
• Athlete is sanctioned for tampering with a sample.

From what I've read the tester can also (once in possession of the first sample) ask Willie to provide a second - untampered with - sample for analysis.

This from Richard Ings probably clarifies the official process:

 

[Cotchins Hair Piece]

Test was done on a Tuesday

Thanks mate, I was going off the original fox footy article which stated it was a game day test, they’ve since edited it to the 20th. Obviously in too much of a rush to ‘break’ the story and didn’t check their facts. Good luck for tonight, I’ll be at the game.

 

[6yearsold]

Its hard to believe someone is that dumb. Than again the serial killer known as BTK only got caught because on asking the police whether floppy disks can be traced he believed them when they said no and than at the trial said he was disappointed the police had lied to him.