Good call you hero.and if proven guilty, a cheat. Don't forget, cheat.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Good call you hero.and if proven guilty, a cheat. Don't forget, cheat.
Check your facts and stop passing the buck.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.
This from Richard Ings probably clarifies the official process:
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.Check your facts and stop passing the buck.
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
Gatoradepopular 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.
Just sick of clowns like you making stuff up to suit your argument. Actually can't believe you wasted your time coming up with that excuse. Little desperate mate?I seriously can’t believe you bothered quoting me with that. Little bored mate?
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
Gatoradepopular 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.
100% agree...if proper protocols / systems were followed it would be impossible to do the old switcharoony of sample.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.
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.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...
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 ownIf 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
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.
Young guy makes really stupid decision?What is strange is why do it?
It wasn’t match day, so unless he already had a strike, he would have only received a strike??
Young guy makes really stupid decision?
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".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?
What is strange is why do it?
It wasn’t match day, so unless he already had a strike, he would have only received a strike??
west coast hating conspiracyHow come this has taken weeks to come out?
Most players are not mensa candidatesStill find it hard to believe that he'd pour Gatorade into the sample in front of the chaperone and thought he could get away with it....
I know, but if true, this goes to new levels of stupidity!Most players are not mensa candidates