News Willie Rioli: tampered with drug testing sample; tests positive for cannabis

[Loken]

This report claiming he “later had a blood test which revealed that he had no illicit or performance-enhancing substances in his body.” makes no reference to who did the blood test or who made those findings.

Unless it was ASADA it will have zero bearing on the case.

 

[Unique Name]

How much later was the next test? I haven't read through all the reports.

 

[Scotland]

This report claiming he “later had a blood test which revealed that he had no illicit or performance-enhancing substances in his body.” makes no reference to who did the blood test or who did the testing.

Unless it was ASADA it will have zero bearing on the case.

Even if it was ASADA it should have zero bearing on the case.

Couldn't provide a sample, gave blood test, blood test clean = 0 case.

Provided a dodgy sample, gave blood test, blood test clean = questions to be answered.

 

[Loken]

Even if it was ASADA it should have zero bearing on the case.

Couldn't provide a sample, gave blood test, blood test clean = 0 case.

Provided a dodgy sample, gave blood test, blood test clean = questions to be answered.

I disagree.

He could use the information to say that he didn't tamper with the samples to try to get out of a positive test but rather that he made a massively niave stupid mistake.

He still get's time but realistically it could be reduced.

If ASADA didn't do the blood test then the results will have no influence.

Couldn't provide a sample, gave blood test, blood test clean = 0 case.

There is no way you cant provide a urine sample, they stay with you until you can.

There is no scenario where he doesn't get time, the matter is just how long.

 

[Anja_Nees]

So he did not realise that if he poured a sports drink into the jar that they would not be able to test it to find out what was in his urine? These explanations keep making him look dumber and dumber.

Being fair I doubt anyone thinks he’s a rocket scientist at this point.

 

[3rdMan]

Two years is bs. The Pies guy got caught with PED in his system and claimed it was a party drug and got 18 months.

Thats a nice excuse to use to reduce your penalty, nothing stopping others doing the same and he got 18 months.

Whitfield got 6 months after deliverately hiding from testers and the club helped him hide.

24 months for doing something totally stupid at a test when you have no PED in your system?

This was when the max penalty was 2 years, it's now 4.

 

[Scotland]

I disagree.

He could use the information to say that he didn't tamper with the samples to try to get out of a positive test but rather that he made a massively niave stupid mistake.

He still get's time but realistically it could be reduced.

If ASADA didn't do the blood test then the results will have no influence.

Maybe 'zero bearing' is too strong, but he still has to make his case. Drugs or no drugs tampering is a no no. I've never thought he was in line to get 4 years but he will still cop a penalty that isn't a slap on the wrist.

 

[Obeanie1]

This was when the max penalty was 2 years, it's now 4.

The max could now be 10 years.

The question is what is a reasonable penalty for what Rioli has done wrong?

He stuffed up a testing procedure. Then was tested and found clean.

I would suggest the maximum penalty is reserved to those who are found with PED's in their system, have been found to be trying to cheat the test/system and it isn't the first time this has happened.

That is why you have a sliding scale of penalties to match the seriousness of the breach.

 

[kingswood71]

The max could now be 10 years.

The question is what is a reasonable penalty for what Rioli has done wrong?

He stuffed up a testing procedure. Then was tested and found clean.

I would suggest the maximum penalty is reserved to those who are found with PED's in their system, have been found to be trying to cheat the test/system and it isn't the first time this has happened.

That is why you have a sliding scale of penalties to match the seriousness of the breach.

Articles 2.2 and 10 of the WADA code......

 

[Thegibbsgamble]

Would be really sad if he smoked pot with his woman and did what stoner couples do, screw all night.

 

[Rob]

How much later was the next test? I haven't read through all the reports.

The journo reporting this blood test (John Townsend) said on radio this morning he doesn't know when it happened or even who conducted it. But he did say it comes from a reliable source. West coast are on record saying they had no idea about any of this until last Thursday, so it's safe to say it wasn't club arranged, unless they did it in the last few days (which is very possible). But if it wasn't the club, it had to be ASADA, in which case why wouldn't this "reliable source" say that?

Pardon my skepticism.

 

[Tim Evans Beard]

The max could now be 10 years.

The question is what is a reasonable penalty for what Rioli has done wrong?

He stuffed up a testing procedure. Then was tested and found clean.

I would suggest the maximum penalty is reserved to those who are found with PED's in their system, have been found to be trying to cheat the test/system and it isn't the first time this has happened.

That is why you have a sliding scale of penalties to match the seriousness of the breach.

Intention of action has no bearing - only the action. The breech is tampering. There are no subsets such as ‘tampering to hide PEDs’, ‘tampering to hide illicit drugs’, or ‘tampering as I couldn’t pee’.

The belief that context is considered by default is incorrect. The action alone is considered and it is up to the athlete to demonstrate circumstances warranting consideration and reduction.

 

[Unique Name]

The journo reporting this blood test (John Townsend) said on radio this morning he doesn't know when it happened or even who conducted it. But he did say it comes from a reliable source. West coast are on record saying they had no idea about any of this until last Thursday, so it's safe to say it wasn't club arranged, unless they did it in the last few days (which is very possible). But if it wasn't the club, it had to be ASADA, in which case why wouldn't this "reliable source" say that?

Pardon my skepticism.

If the blood test was taken days later it means absolutely nothing. Drugs could be clear from his system in that time and his tampering would have paid off.

 

[good4footy]

Two years is bs. The Pies guy got caught with PED in his system and claimed it was a party drug and got 18 months.

Thats a nice excuse to use to reduce your penalty, nothing stopping others doing the same and he got 18 months.

Whitfield got 6 months after deliverately hiding from testers and the club helped him hide.

24 months for doing something totally stupid at a test when you have no PED in your system?

There is actually nothing correct in your post.

Murray got done for having cocaine in his system on match day. Never tested positive for a PED and got 18 months. If you are referring to Thomas who indicated he took cocaine that must have been laced with Clem- he got the maximum penalty.

Whitfield didn't escape a drug test. He panicked (sounds familiar) thought he was going to be tested. ASADA confirmed they weren't looking to test him but when the facts came out that he was hiding from a non existent test he was suspended for 6 months. Didn't fail a test nor provide a false sample as there was no testing.

I hope Rioli doesn't get 4 years if he has passed a subsequent test but to think he will get what Whitfield got I think is wishful thinking.

 

[Gigantor]

One game suspension, max, that ought to be enough.

 

[Stikman75]

A) Strict liability - without it any positive finding could be mitigated by anyone and drug use could be rampant without fear of penalty. Some of the best in the world get away with it even with the seemingly harsh rules. Cheating a test MUST be treated the same as a positive for the worst possible substance or the system can't work.
B) Education - particularly since the Essendon scandal the AFL has been huge on making sure the players and officials know their obligations and the severity of penalties for not meeting them. No sporting body wants the embarrassment, let alone the taint, of a doping conviction in their organisation and they work hard to avoid it. I'm a volunteer coach in a pissy little sport, dealing with athletes that have a one-in-a-million chance of ever being tested yet I still have to do an annual refresher course. If he didn't take the test seriously it's not through a lack of education.
C) PED tests aren't all about anabolic steroids and EPO. Depending on the sport any number of otherwise innocuous substances could be banned for good reason, they also look for things they don't know exist yet. Chess even has a lot of banned substances.
D) Delaying a test is a way of cheating it - many substances have short half-lives and steps can be taken to "clean" the body in a relatively short space of time. Lance Armstrong once cheated a blood test by taking a 20 minute "shower" to delay it. If the blood test was delayed 4hrs then a not-positive on that means absolutely nothing with respect to what may have been found in the initial urine test.
E) All participants agree to the rules in advance - they aren't forced into signing contracts and it's not hidden in the details. They have a choice to play by the rules written to protect them and others or not play at all.

Whether the maximum (or any) penalty or not is fair to Willie and his individual circumstances is irrelevant as far as the anti-doping agencies are concerned. The integrity of the anti-doping framework is paramount and that means severe penalties for ANY breach, no matter how innocuous.

 

[Gigantor]

A) Strict liability - without it any positive finding could be mitigated by anyone and drug use could be rampant without fear of penalty. Some of the best in the world get away with it even with the seemingly harsh rules.

This is the key point. Those with clout and resources DO get away with it, all the time. The framework is good at picking up low hanging fruit, and those who haven't even tried to get an advantage.

The framework is stupid, and what Rioli did is of zero consequence in the scheme of things.

 

[Freoforever86]

The test result does matter. Reported a blood test returned a zero result so proving he wasn't dodging a PED strike. So Rioli is clean at this point on PED's. If that test had of come back positive then sure throw the book at him as he was cheating AND tried to cheat the test as well.

Now reported he couldn't pee after training and in frustration poured gatorade into the cup. Stupid thing to do. And yes deserves a penalty.

Regarding peeing I remember when I played post game we would hit the VB's, go home, shower, go to pub and I wouldn't pee for hours after six beers that's how dehydrated you get. So it isn't a stretch that he couldn't pee.

Why ASADA and WADA don't just opt for a blood test after waiting an hour is an interesting question.

Totally get Rioli did a really stupid thing and should be penalised. Feel 6 - 12 months is about right. Whitfield got 6 months after running away and hiding from a ASADA test with the club helping him hide. Which one is worse?

If he gets four years this goes to court.

Nah the results don’t matter at all.
The story could be a complete fabrication. Plus I can’t imagine the tester would just wait for hours and not give a blood test. It’ll come out pretty quickly.

Won’t be less than a year.
Gut says 2 years. But I think one is enough. Wouldn’t be surprised if they gave him 4.

 

[HirdsTheWord]

if hes done a blood test and hes proven to be drug free then obviously he shouldn't get 4 years.

he has still tampered with a test though and still deserves some type of punishment, for nothing else but stupidity.

 

[Obeanie1]

There is actually nothing correct in your post.

Murray got done for having cocaine in his system on match day. Never tested positive for a PED and got 18 months. If you are referring to Thomas who indicated he took cocaine that must have been laced with Clem- he got the maximum penalty.

Whitfield didn't escape a drug test. He panicked (sounds familiar) thought he was going to be tested. ASADA confirmed they weren't looking to test him but when the facts came out that he was hiding from a non existent test he was suspended for 6 months. Didn't fail a test nor provide a false sample as there was no testing.

I hope Rioli doesn't get 4 years if he has passed a subsequent test but to think he will get what Whitfield got I think is wishful thinking.

Is cocaine classed as a PED?

 

[Obeanie1]

if hes done a blood test and hes proven to be drug free then obviously he shouldn't get 4 years.

he has still tampered with a test though and still deserves some type of punishment, for nothing else but stupidity.

Agreed. 9 to 12 months would be fair imo.

If reports are correct he was clear with the subsequent tests.

 

[Stikman75]

The framework is stupid, and what Rioli did is of zero consequence in the scheme of things.

You, me and quite possibly everyone except Rioli have absolutely no idea of what he actually did. It might have been a practical joke or brain-fart but it might also have been an attempt to hide legitimate PED use. In order to catch anyone at all the system must assume the latter. In the scheme of things penalising him heavily for the thing that we know he did do (i.e. substitute a sample) is of massive consequence because our legal system is heavily dependent on precedence. Fairness for the individual doesn't enter into it.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Is cocaine classed as a PED?

On game day , yes.

 

[Loken]

Agreed. 9 to 12 months would be fair imo.

If reports are correct he was clear with the subsequent tests.

You are missing the point. There is no fair, there are only facts.

Unless ASADA did the blood test, then it is irrelevant.

 

[Obeanie1]

Whether the maximum (or any) penalty or not is fair to Willie and his individual circumstances is irrelevant as far as the anti-doping agencies are concerned. The integrity of the anti-doping framework is paramount and that means severe penalties for ANY breach, no matter how innocuous.

As soon as a system with mandatory penalties and little flexibility starts throwing up blatantly unfair and harmful penalties you know the system is broken. And opens itself up to legal challenge.