Rumour Willie Rioli allegedly caught tampering with a drug testing sample

Remove this Banner Ad

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.
Check your facts and stop passing the buck.
 
This from Richard Ings probably clarifies the official process:

51da0515fb.png

well done young man
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Check your facts and stop passing the buck.
I seriously can’t believe you bothered quoting me with that. Little bored mate? I posted what I posted after reading the Fox Footy article, I didn’t think I’d have to check other sources. Have a good day bashing your keyboard.
 
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.
Summed up perfectly, tester can’t say stop stuffing around, he is an adult an knows the rules.
 
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.


Brilliantly explained.
 
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.
100% agree...if proper protocols / systems were followed it would be impossible to do the old switcharoony of sample.

Something fishy...
 
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.
It really doesn't. Based on past experience with how quickly ASADA works, it seems to me they've tried to push this through quicker so that Rioli has as little impact as possible during a time he could be facing a provisional suspension.
 
100% agree...if proper protocols / systems were followed it would be impossible to do the old switcharoony of sample.

Something fishy...


Someone has explained the process perfectly earlier in the thread. ASADA person supervising the test doesn’t stop them if they are observed ” cheating “ the test as that in itself is illegal. They merely report back what they saw and then the testing has verified what has been reported.
 
If he was caught red handed there is nothing to contest. If it’s ambiguous you would assume they await the result of the b sample before putting forward a defence.

It’s a little different to MMA where the athletes use the tainted supplement trick of mixing a tiny bit of gear in with some protein powder and throwing it to the back of the pantry for a rainy day.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Only problem with your rainy day solution is that USADA for mma athletes will then independently source a sample of that supplement from the same batch to see if the whole batch contained the gear. Athletes just find a dodgy supplement and use it as cover as opposed to making their own
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

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.

An athlete pisses into a cup, this urine is then separated into "A" and "B" samples and sealed
 
Did anyone else hear the bloke from Perth on Macquarie with Marco and The Ox yesterday just after the Willie news broke?
Apparently there will be another announcement after the grand final, same deal, but they wouldn't drop the name for legal reasons.
If Willie's news has gone public, how can they be hiding the other?
 
Young guy makes really stupid decision?

Either really stupid or someone else told him they'd done it and got away with it?

The question still remains as to why??? Either he was worried about something or had the worst stage fright ever.

One of these seems a lot more plausible than the other....
 
Did anyone else hear the bloke from Perth on Macquarie with Marco and The Ox yesterday just after the Willie news broke?
Apparently there will be another announcement after the grand final, same deal, but they wouldn't drop the name for legal reasons.
If Willie's news has gone public, how can they be hiding the other?
If its an AFL player still in finals being under ASADA investigation they wouldn't let him play if he has an "adverse analytical finding".
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top