Lachie Whitfield and GWS Officials Under Investigation

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Lance Uppercut said:
2 points, from different perspectives.

1) people say there was no attempt to dope. Really? Smells like bullshit to me. Occam's Razor suggests if you're terrified of a ped test it's probably because you've taken peds recently

2) 4 years for this seems patently unfair to me. Even if point 1) is true. One of the central tenets of the penalty scheme is that you aren't banned for life for a first offence. Yet it seems to me that even someone of Whitfield's age profile is stuffed if he gets 4 years - which even if there are the chances for discounts or backdating, is the standard, set penalty. I know some of the hardliners on this board will say tough, doping is evil, his own fault blah blah blah - but in a sport like AFL a 4 year ban means you effectively lose your career for a first offence. Seems a bit ******* harsh to me
Click to expand...


Especially when you consider the wet lettuce treatment the EFC players got, fear not this will be a governance issue that is anyone's fault bar those involved
 
Lance Uppercut said:
2) 4 years for this seems patently unfair to me. Even if point 1) is true. One of the central tenets of the penalty scheme is that you aren't banned for life for a first offence. Yet it seems to me that even someone of Whitfield's age profile is stuffed if he gets 4 years - which even if there are the chances for discounts or backdating, is the standard, set penalty. I know some of the hardliners on this board will say tough, doping is evil, his own fault blah blah blah - but in a sport like AFL a 4 year ban means you effectively lose your career for a first offence. Seems a bit ******* harsh to me
Click to expand...

That's a fair concern, for sure.

No doubt it's harsh. And you're right - realistically his career is done if he gets 4 years. Any AFL footballer is.

But...

I reckon if you knowingly and genuinely cheat by taking PEDs - you should be done. I don't think in the anti-doping caper, you should get a second chance.

But clearly, there's the 'but he's not a drug cheat' argument that comes up. And it's a valid one. There is a big difference between someone knowingly cheating, and someone being duped or having their gear spiked or whatever.

So there's no doubt that the 'one penalty fits all' thing is harsh. And in reality, it's not fair either.


But I can't really see an alternative from the anti-doping perspective. I mean, people are s**t. They lie, and cheat, and maneuver, weasel and try to con there way out of things every day.

The big players in the Essendon thing are still bullshitting about it.

I'd go as far as to say that it's the extreme exception for people to be honest - particularly when the stakes are as high as they are in professional sport.

So whilst we might believe Whitfield, and his story may seem reasonable - you can't doubt that there would be 1000s of others lining up with a similar excuse that they completely pulled out of their arse in order to weasel out of it.


So it really comes down to the old 'do we ensure no innocent people get penalised, but as a result let heaps of guilty people off too', or 'ensure we get all the guilty ones even if it means a few innocent ones will get done in the process'.


In the real world - it's clearly gotta be option 1. But in sport and anti-doping, I tend to lean to option 2.
 
GoTigers2015 said:
The argument for the accused - Whitfield concocted a story that he was hiding from drug testing as a ruse to end a difficult relationship. He was fact suffering from a migraine. There was nothing to hide despite deleted emails and texts and Whitfield missing the next game.

images
Click to expand...

It's like some of the concocted primary school stories that I hear from students at school when they've been caught out. More holes than Swiss Cheese and it quickly unravels under simple investigation. Once again, the inept performances that we see from sports administrators is simply mind boggling. Give both Lambert and Allan 2 years. Apart from anything else they both deserve it for being so ridiculously stupid.
 
2DMB said:
Especially when you consider the wet lettuce treatment the EFC players got, fear not this will be a governance issue that is anyone's fault bar those involved
Click to expand...
GWS are the AFL's pet project so the most they can expect is the wet lettuce treatment.
Expect just spin and BS from Gill and AFL house as they look for a bigger rug.
 
Lance Uppercut said:
2 points, from different perspectives.

1) people say there was no attempt to dope. Really? Smells like bullshit to me. Occam's Razor suggests if you're terrified of a ped test it's probably because you've taken peds recently

2) 4 years for this seems patently unfair to me. Even if point 1) is true. One of the central tenets of the penalty scheme is that you aren't banned for life for a first offence. Yet it seems to me that even someone of Whitfield's age profile is stuffed if he gets 4 years - which even if there are the chances for discounts or backdating, is the standard, set penalty. I know some of the hardliners on this board will say tough, doping is evil, his own fault blah blah blah - but in a sport like AFL a 4 year ban means you effectively lose your career for a first offence. Seems a bit ******* harsh to me
Click to expand...

Yes because AFL is SUUUUCH a unique sport that the WADA code really isn't suitable.
All these poor little lambs being swept up in a system that the AFL doesn't control.

The AFL themselves should be in charge of deciding who is and isn't a drug cheat.

That would protect all the poor little lambs like whitfield, okeefe and jobe.

Even poor little justin charles...
He wouldn't have even taken those steriods if he hadn't got injured playing that unique sport AFL.
WADA don't understand how easily you can get injured playing unique AFL.

The AFL understand how easily you can get injured and lose your career playing unique AFL.
They should take care of the little lambs,not WADA.
 
ThirtyFive said:
Give both Lambert and Allan 2 years. Apart from anything else they both deserve it for being so ridiculously stupid.
Click to expand...
More like 8 years to a life ban.

These are the idiots that the young, impressionable players are relying on. They have to be held to account.

Set some examples. You cop a double penalty to your player ... or we ban you from the game for life.

There should be NO excuses now, after the EFC saga.
 
I initially had a small amount of sympathy Whitfield - he got some bad advice from the football managers and now has to pay the price - but younger / junior staff taking the fall for the misdeeds of more senior figures in an organisation is a story that has been going on from time immemorial - after all, Lloyd Blankfein is still CEO of Goldman Sachs when many others have fallen due to its' behaviour.

However, all that vanished when it became clear the plan is 'smear the girlfriend' - it's basically the 'Plan B' defence from The Practice (if anyone remembers that show) - it's slimy and unseemly. He can have his four years.

To pick up on a point by Lance - hypothetically, I would like to see some kind of option that doesn't rub someone out for four years. For example, let's say he could go to ASADA and 'self-report' - the proviso would be they PED test him on the spot, and if positive, it's a three month ban, all in-season. This would be a one-time use only. Maybe you could couple it with a further proviso that (if the test was positive), any further positive PED test at any point in the player's career would result in a life ban from the sport at all levels.
 
Aussie in exile said:
GWS are the AFL's pet project so the most they can expect is the wet lettuce treatment.
Expect just spin and BS from Gill and AFL house as they look for a bigger rug.
Click to expand...
"Pet project" versus "$200m stadium upgrade handout" .... this should be a very entertaining conundrum for the AFL.

<popcorn>
 
Firstly: give it up for Caro, always with the quality headlines, how good is that lady!!!!

Secondly: fantastic news for all football fans, isn't it? Just when everyone was getting tired of threads like: "How s**t is my s**t idea to make football shitter?" out comes a juicy drug scandal to carry everyone through the off-season. And it's got everything; drugs, jilted lovers, cover-ups... much scandal, so intrigue.

...

Fantastic stuff, really enjoying it over here.

4 years for Whitfield, life ban for Lambert, extended holiday with full pay for the Collingwood flog. GWS should get significant sanctions as well, maybe they don't play for points next year? Reckon this might be a good time for the AFL to strip them of draft picks (may as well take the opportunity to balance out the comp a little).

Good times
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

NoAFLinmycomp said:
"Pet project" versus "$200m stadium upgrade handout" .... this should be a very entertaining conundrum for the AFL.

<popcorn>
Click to expand...
That will have the AFL wiggling like a fish on a hook.
They have the choice, damage to the AFL brand if they don't punish GWS and risk losing the $200 loan or damage to the GWS brand which needs as much help as possible.
There is no halfway house for the AFL on this one.
 
The_Steadier said:
Yes because AFL is SUUUUCH a unique sport that the WADA code really isn't suitable.
All these poor little lambs being swept up in a system that the AFL doesn't control.

The AFL themselves should be in charge of deciding who is and isn't a drug cheat.

That would protect all the poor little lambs like whitfield, okeefe and jobe.

Even poor little justin charles...
He wouldn't have even taken those steriods if he hadn't got injured playing that unique sport AFL.
WADA don't understand how easily you can get injured playing unique AFL.

The AFL understand how easily you can get injured and lose your career playing unique AFL.
They should take care of the little lambs,not WADA.
Click to expand...
could you be any more hysterical?
 
jerry springer said:
and to think the AFL kept all this quiet for 12 months before the age got ahold of this story

I say again, what a s**t stain of a "sporting" competition the AFL is
Click to expand...

Yep. Personally think it was being swept under the rug when the ex-gf decided to let ASADA know there was a little test avoiding going on. Then when ASADA probably called the AFL and said "We have this". Well the AFL had to drag it back out from under the rug dust it off and pretend it has taken 12 months to investigate the issue. Before giving them a brief that was most likely concocted to sound somewhere in between and most probably illicit drugs to win that it might not be their territory "but it's up to you".

12 months? 12 months to check if those text messages were legit. But much rather go the girl, pretend nothing to see here and hope it blows over.

And now we see the similar dog ate my homework excuses coming forth.
 
Toump Ass said:
Firstly: give it up for Caro, always with the quality headlines, how good is that lady!!!!

Secondly: fantastic news for all football fans, isn't it? Just when everyone was getting tired of threads like: "How s**t is my s**t idea to make football shitter?" out comes a juicy drug scandal to carry everyone through the off-season. And it's got everything; drugs, jilted lovers, cover-ups... much scandal, so intrigue.

...

Fantastic stuff, really enjoying it over here.

4 years for Whitfield, life ban for Lambert, extended holiday with full pay for the Collingwood flog. GWS should get significant sanctions as well, maybe they don't play for points next year? Reckon this might be a good time for the AFL to strip them of draft picks (may as well take the opportunity to balance out the comp a little).

Good times
Click to expand...
The great thing about is thread is that you can make outlandish statements like this one (don't get me wrong, I enjoyed it and agree) and no one comes back at you with any angst.

The reason being as that no one give a f*** about this plastic franchise and we all hope it sinks - hooray!
 
TheEnsign said:
I initially had a small amount of sympathy Whitfield - he got some bad advice from the football managers and now has to pay the price - but younger / junior staff taking the fall for the misdeeds of more senior figures in an organisation is a story that has been going on from time immemorial - after all, Lloyd Blankfein is still CEO of Goldman Sachs when many others have fallen due to its' behaviour.

However, all that vanished when it became clear the plan is 'smear the girlfriend' - it's basically the 'Plan B' defence from The Practice (if anyone remembers that show) - it's slimy and unseemly. He can have his four years.

To pick up on a point by Lance - hypothetically, I would like to see some kind of option that doesn't rub someone out for four years. For example, let's say he could go to ASADA and 'self-report' - the proviso would be they PED test him on the spot, and if positive, it's a three month ban, all in-season. This would be a one-time use only. Maybe you could couple it with a further proviso that (if the test was positive), any further positive PED test at any point in the player's career would result in a life ban from the sport at all levels.
Click to expand...

While not to shoot Whitfield before a decision is actually handed down on possible guilt, there is no way he had no education about this stuff. Even before being drafted, at TAC Cup level, he would have stuff about illicit drugs and PEDs drummed into him.

He's an adult at this stage. He went to those guys for help. They've told him the wrong advice. But he shouldn't have had to run to them. (Of course, all allegedly).

He's only got himself to blame if he gets hit with a ban I think.
 
SterlingArcher said:
While not to shoot Whitfield before a decision is actually handed down on possible guilt, there is no way he had no education about this stuff. Even before being drafted, at TAC Cup level, he would have stuff about illicit drugs and PEDs drummed into him.

He's an adult at this stage. He went to those guys for help. They've told him the wrong advice. But he shouldn't have had to run to them. (Of course, all allegedly).

He's only got himself to blame if he gets hit with a ban I think.
Click to expand...
The ASADA process will require him to prove why he shouldn't be banned, and given that his current defence is just a really bad one - odds are that he won't be able to comfortably satisfy the necessary people of his innocence. Guilty until proven innocent from here for Lachie.
 
Bont2Boyd said:
The ASADA process will require him to prove why he shouldn't be banned, and given that his current defence is just a really bad one - odds are that he won't be able to comfortably satisfy the necessary people of his innocence. Guilty until proven innocent from here for Lachie.
Click to expand...

No its not a positive test, so onus is still on ASADA to prove he is guilty onus is not reversed. With evasion ASADA has to prove intent to evade.

Agree though he is going to have to come up with a better defence, not sure that one is a viable alternative.
 
SterlingArcher said:
While not to shoot Whitfield before a decision is actually handed down on possible guilt, there is no way he had no education about this stuff. Even before being drafted, at TAC Cup level, he would have stuff about illicit drugs and PEDs drummed into him.

He's an adult at this stage. He went to those guys for help. They've told him the wrong advice. But he shouldn't have had to run to them. (Of course, all allegedly).

He's only got himself to blame if he gets hit with a ban I think.
Click to expand...

The one out Whitfield might have is that the club is responsible for maintaining whereabouts information and informing ASADA, its not the players role to inform ASADA directly. So if he stayed at Lambert and the club knew than he could claim he thought ASADA therefore knew...

However sending texts to his ex saying otherwise might put a spanner in doing that..

This is of course assuming of course he is charged under anti-doping.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

The_Wookie
The Andrew Wilkie Allegations
Replies
17
Views
687
pattymalone00
pattymalone00

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top