Scandal Lachie Whitfield, Gubby Allan investigated for avoiding drug testers

Remove this Banner Ad

Muggs said:
Why? Did they actively seek to avoid a drug test? Are there alleged text messages and emails outlining this?

Thought it was a family member anyway that got him out the gutter, 3.30am so not during testing hours (5am-11pm) - and who ever it was took him home. So likely taking him to his registered overnight whereabouts location rather than an alternate location.

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/bulldog-liberatore-quizzed-over-drug-offences-20120806-23pda.html
Click to expand...

Are you actually suggesting that by 5am Libba would have been drug free?
I can assure you the same thoughts of "evasion" would have been upper most in WB officials, and communications including text message inevitable.
They would have been as"actively" avoiding a test as the GWS officials - Isn't it just logical they would have had the same paranoia.
Further, Lamberts home is a registered location given he often has players staying with him.

So the parellels between both cases are substantial.
 
No SPIN said:
Are you actually suggesting that by 5am Libba would have been drug free?
I can assure you the same thoughts of "evasion" would have been upper most in WB officials, and communications including text message inevitable.
They would have been as"actively" avoiding a test as the GWS officials - Isn't it just logical they would have had the same paranoia.
Further, Lamberts home is a registered location given he often has players staying with him.

So the parellels between both cases are substantial.
Click to expand...

No just saying that a test not going to happen than and there and as he was taken home he most likely got taken to the place he had registered as his whereabouts incase ASADA knocked on the door first thing and not a different location, so can't see how this can be considered evading.

Actually no there is no reason to have the same paranoia. Libba got awarded a strike pretty damn quickly and was not a few months after two Collingwood players got rubbed out for having illicit drugs cut with a PED, Libba was three years before. There was no concern about illicit drugs and PEDs being combined.

As for registered address you register your location you going to be at, sleep at. No such thing as a registered address from this point of view. ASADA rocks up where you say you going to be not where you might be. if Whitfields whereabouts location was updated to show he was at Lamberts no issue he is safe can't be done for evasion. If his whereabouts was not updated to show he was staying at Lamberts and there are text messages and emails showing this was done on purpose than there may be an evading issue.
 
Last edited:

Log in to remove this ad.

Muggs said:
No just saying that a tester not going to happen than and there and as he was taken home he most likely got taken to the place he had registered as his whereabouts incase ASADA knocked on the door first thing.

Actually no there is no reason to have the same paranoia. Libba got awarded a strike pretty damn quickly and was not a few months after two Collingwood players got rubbed out for having illicit drugs cut with a PED was three years before. There was no concern about illicit drugs and PEDs being combined.

As for registered address you register your location you going to be at, sleep at. No such thing as a registered address from
This point of view. ASADA rocks up where you say you going to be not where you might be. if Whitfields whereabouts location was updated to show he was at Lamberts no issue hes safe can't be done for evasion. If his whereabouts was not updated to show he was staying at Lamberts and there are text messages and emails showing this was done on purpose than there may be an evading issue.
Click to expand...

so we agree that in both instances there is no evasion charge likely based on being present at the registered location.
so what remains is the behaviour of officials based on the obvious paranoia on the day they found out. And the strategies, messages, and action would have been equally suspicious. I think Libbas minders would have done everything possible to protect him including taking some risks that if uncovered could have been problematic.
Just because Libba got a strike does not absolve the officials of potentially being any less guilty than the GWS officials. The fact that their communication were not reviewed is probably very fortunate.

So really these cases are very very similar but only one is being investigated.
 
GreyCrow said:
1. Football clubs are seen as families more than families are. Especially for players from other states.
2. She was worried so took her concerns to his employer/family first. No media , no ASADA. The club.
3. You're only calling her a lagger/dog act now. Its hindsight because of the consequences.
4. Your one line that should be the focus of everyone and not the ex-GF.
Click to expand...

1. Disagree. It's an employer first and foremost.

2. How do you know this? Do we even know she was his GF at the time? When did she become the Ex?

3. I'm saying its a dog act to go to his employer. I stand by it. I would never go to my Mrs employer (if she was a drug user, categorically she ain't) and email them "hey, just concerned with my Mrs. Does she seem high at work? Cause I think she been high for the last 3 days at home. Let's meet up and discuss her health and welfare thanks".

I imagine Allen probably got the email went up to Lachie and said WTF? Lachie probably said "we been broke up for months, she off her head trying to cause trouble" and Allen thinks "yep delete email, what partner or person professing to care about a person would take that step"... A person that calls an ex a "C..t" to journalists... Honestly, a person that gives a s**t about their partner is not gonna do that.

4. Understand what your saying, and I agree to an extent but honestly you flip the gender of the Ex and we are calling the ex BF an over bearing possessive arsehole trying to ruin a female athletes career. We'd be saying the female athlete needs to get an AVO because the ex BF is like Dokic's dad and emotionally abusing her.

You can do many harmful things to an ex in revenge or whatever, but to go after their livelihood or their career? Regardless of the persons gender that is just wrong.
 
Last edited:
No SPIN said:
so we agree that in both instances there is no evasion charge likely based on being present at the registered location.
so what remains is the behaviour of officials based on the obvious paranoia on the day they found out. And the strategies, messages, and action would have been equally suspicious. I think Libbas minders would have done everything possible to protect him including taking some risks that if uncovered could have been problematic.
Just because Libba got a strike does not absolve the officials of potentially being any less guilty than the GWS officials. The fact that their communication were not reviewed is probably very fortunate.

So really these cases are very very similar but only one is being investigated.
Click to expand...

No don't agree as from what has been suggested I there is real doubt that Whitfield whereabouts location was updated to show he stayed at Lamberts. Everything that is being alleged was he was taken somewhere where testers would not know where he is. If they updated his wherabouts address for those three days specifically no issue but needs to be spefically updated not relying on the fact that a random ASADA tester knows that Lamberts address is sometimes used as the overnight location for some GWS players.

You also have the issue that Police and family found out about Libba before the Bulldogs, so the cat was out the bag - so they could not have covered it up if they tried.

As for the general issue as opposed to Libba specifically . Would not be in the least bit surprised though (as Robbo suggested in his article on this) that clubs do look after players who might rock up to the club drunk, high, stoned etc - and the first instance is the welfare of the player. Take the player away from the club. If a tester rocks up, as I suggested in my earlier post take the missed test strike, pay the wherabouts fine.

The issue is do those communications also talk explicitly about avoiding tests. If they focus on player welfare no issuue, if they do talk about avoiding tests, than yes the clubs are lucky and this incident may make them rethink what happens.
 
TTRRAAVVIISS said:
1. Disagree. It's an employer first and foremost.
Click to expand...
We agree to disagree.
2. How do you know this? Do we even know she was his GF at the time? When did she become the Ex?
Click to expand...
This was in one of the 1st articles. Your last 2 I think the article says was between the 1st contact - GF to the 2nd contact 2 months later - ex. Back to your family argument. Where does Lachie come from and did the GF have that number? At what stage of a relationship does a GF get a parents number , especially if you are living interstate away from your parents.

3. I'm saying its a dog act to go to his employer. I stand by it. I would never go to my Mrs employer (if she was a drug user, categorically she ain't) and email them "hey, just concerned with my Mrs. Does she seem high at work? Cause I think she been high for the last 3 days at home. Let's meet up and discuss her health and welfare thanks".
Click to expand...
Maybe she wanted to make sure the gravy train didn't screw up the gravy ;)
 
Muggs said:
No don't agree as from what has been suggested I there is real doubt that Whitfield whereabouts location was updated to show he stayed at Lamberts. Everything that is being alleged was he was taken somewhere where testers would not know where he is. If they updated his wherabouts address for those three days specifically no issue but needs to be spefically updated not relying on the fact that a random ASADA tester knows that Lamberts address is sometimes used as the overnight location for some GWS players.

You also have the issue that Police and family found out about Libba before the Bulldogs, so the cat was out the bag - so they could not have covered it up if they tried.

As for the general issue as opposed to Libba specifically . Would not be in the least bit surprised though (as Robbo suggested in his article on this) that clubs do look after players who might rock up to the club drunk, high, stoned etc - and the first instance is the welfare of the player. Take the player away from the club. If a tester rocks up, as I suggested in my earlier post take the missed test strike, pay the wherabouts fine.

The issue is do those communications also talk explicitly about avoiding tests. If they focus on player welfare no issuue, if they do talk about avoiding tests, than yes the clubs are lucky and this incident may make them rethink what happens.
Click to expand...

I don't believe your speculation or that of the media, who would have us believe that the QC review could not make a simple deduction that a change of location was not a breach.
So therefore I am prepared to take the side of the QC on this that there is no enforceable breach based on location of the player.

Do you realistically believe that there was not talk about how to protect the player in EVERY possible way by WB officials, including avoiding testers.
 
Last edited:
No SPIN said:
do you realistically believe that there was not talk about how to protect the player in EVERY possible way by WB officials.
Click to expand...

About the risk of ASADA testers in 2012 yes?

Again it's YEARS before anyone thought about illict and PEDs being combined.

There was no escaping the fact he was going to get a strike for illict use due to the police involvement, and it hitting the news already. There was no hiding Libba from this.
 
No SPIN said:
do you realistically believe that there was not talk about how to protect the player in EVERY possible way by WB officials.
Click to expand...

I agree in essence with your point, and suspect there are probably a few players around the league who have been sent away from Training Sunday/Monday morning for "protection". Probably a few clubs officials who are silently thankful that it's not them being in the spot light after having done much the same.

I just think due to the public nature of Libba and the timing of it years before the two Collingwood blokes he was not one of them in terms of avoiding testers.
 
No SPIN said:
I don't believe your speculation or that of the media, who would have us believe that the QC review could not make a simple deduction that a change of location was not a breach.
So therefore I am prepared to take the side of the QC on this that there is no enforceable breach based on location of the player.

Do you realistically believe that there was not talk about how to protect the player in EVERY possible way by WB officials, including avoiding testers.
Click to expand...

You edited this since I responded. I believe the Senior consul when he said could not find evidence to suggest a breach. I doubt he did a forsenic search like the AFL. This could change things, likely the AFL has more evidence.

A change of location can be a breach if the intent was to evade, it's not evasion if there is no intent. Need evidence to prove intent.

Did the forensic search provide this evidence?
 
GreyCrow said:
We agree to disagree.
This was in one of the 1st articles. Your last 2 I think the article says was between the 1st contact - GF to the 2nd contact 2 months later - ex. Back to your family argument. Where does Lachie come from and did the GF have that number? At what stage of a relationship does a GF get a parents number , especially if you are living interstate away from your parents.

Maybe she wanted to make sure the gravy train didn't screw up the gravy ;)
Click to expand...

Hahaha don't screw up the gravy honey I won't let you, let me just report you to your employer and then I'll guarentee the gravy keeps coming in ... Wait what??? You get a 4 year ban from the info I hand over??? WTF??? Oh no spoiled gravy.

Family contact - hasn't heard of white pages? she couldn't like sneak a peak at his phone and get it from his contacts? Please. Nah lets cause the least amount of dramas possible for the boyfriend I love so much... That's it bingo going straight to his employer!!
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Muggs said:
That footnote does put the emphasis on the intention. IMO intention seems to be more important thing, rather than having an actual test. With random testing you never know if the test is going ahead.

I've read quite a few doping cases and don't remember any where someone been done for evading where there was no test being conducted, so no precedent that I'm aware of. This could be due though to how would doping authorities know if someone was avoiding them if they were not there to collect in the first instance?

Having a whistleblower on evading could make this first of its type, so would not surprise me to find ASADA is thinking about this, and getting second opinions from WADA and Richard Young.
Click to expand...

Agree its a unique set of circumstances. The timeline could be important. By that I mean, if the sms was sent at a time he was under the influence of drugs can he even form intent? If he sent the sms' on a Monday morning and then by the Monday night he changed his mind and was going to comply with the ASADA rules then what? Just depends on the evidence and his, Gubby and Lambert's explanations.

I'm sure 2.2 and 10.4 were not really written with these set of circumstances in mind. Might lead to a rewording of the provision to clarify it even further.
 
Lacustrus said:
What bloody uninteresting life you must lead to go to the trouble of writing this b-sh$t essay . Fell asleep half way through. Don't give us the scenic tour , get yo the point, if you have one
Click to expand...

Hahaha thanks mate probably as uninteresting as yours trolling Bigfooty for something to do.
 
TTRRAAVVIISS said:
Agree its a unique set of circumstances. The timeline could be important. By that I mean, if the sms was sent at a time he was under the influence of drugs can he even form intent? If he sent the sms' on a Monday morning and then by the Monday night he changed his mind and was going to comply with the ASADA rules then what? Just depends on the evidence and his, Gubby and Lambert's explanations.

I'm sure 2.2 and 10.4 were not really written with these set of circumstances in mind. Might lead to a rewording of the provision to clarify it even further.
Click to expand...

Agree I said in the HTB I actually see the actions of Gubby and Lambert as the bigger issue. You raise an important question about Whitfield capacity to form intent, that does not apply to the other two.

Also have the issue that ASADA role is prevent PED use, and the worry here in terms of PED is at most was the illict substance he took cut with it? not was he using PED based on what has come out. So that in itself may put it outside ASADAs jurisdiction, even if a technical breach of the code. Not sure how going after Whitfield actually advances the fight against PEDs in anyway. Sure hit Whitfield with illicit breaches I'm not sure about doping breaches.

I do however have major issues around club officials actions in aiding in the avoidance of testing by players under any circumstances, this a very slippery slope. So while I'm may seem pro going after Whitfield I'm much more pro going after the club officials if the evasion took place. I would personally have no objection with Whitfield being penalized via the illict drugs policy, and the officials via the anti-doping policy. However my reading of 10.4 not sure it can apply to officials as they not subject to testing....so this may just leave the AFLs catch all bringing the game into disrepute. And as you said rewording.
 
Last edited:
Muggs said:
Agree I said in the HTB I actually see the actions of Gubby and Lambert as the bigger issue. You raise an important question about Whitfield capacity to form intent, that does not apply to the other two.

Also have the issue that ASADA role is prevent PED use, and the worry here in terms of PED is at most was the illict substance he took cut with it? not was he using PED based on hat has come. So that in itself may put it outside ASADAs jurisdiction, even if a technical breach of the code. Not sure how going after Whitfield actually advances the fight against PEDs in anyway, sure hit Whitfield with illicit breaches I'm not sure about doping breaches.

I do however have major issues around club officials actions in aiding in the avoidance of testing by players under any circumstances, this a very slippery slope. So while I'm may seem pro going after Whitfield I'm much more pro going after the club officials if the evasion took place.
Click to expand...

Yeah I was thinking along the same lines about ASADA's role being primarily to prevent PED, as opposed to prosecuting illicit drugs. And like you my first thoughts were more about the actions of club officials than Whitfield. It's gonna be an interesting one that's for sure
 
TTRRAAVVIISS said:
Why would you not contact the parents? It makes more sense to contact his family than his employer don't you think? The only reason you contact an employer is to cause dramas
Click to expand...

Because they are over the age of 18 and therefore legally adults who are bound by a sporting code and contractual obligations to their employer.
 
adammania9 said:
Ahmed Saad gets two years for drinking an energy drink - ends up screwing up his entire career.
Whitfield gets 6 months that begins now in the off-season. What the hell is this?
Click to expand...
Pathetic. Absolutely pathetic and weak as piss from the AFL. I'm ashamed, and now S**tfield essentially gets an 8 week suspension.

I don't even care about the PED debate, he made a stupid decision and was too weak to take it on the chin and to accept what his punishment would be. Took an easy option and implicated his club officials, who then, themselves, did the wrong thing.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

B
  • Locked
Scandal Drugs? What Drugs
Replies
1
Views
1K
Wosh
Wosh
PartyPies10
Rumour Jeremy Finlayson under investigation - 3 game suspension
47 48 49 50 51
Replies
1K
Views
49K
Chief
Chief
Dan Moody
Scandal Please don't let this be Collingwood again - AFL investigating nudes
7 8 9 10 11
Replies
252
Views
37K
KekiRoo
KekiRoo
ChesterTreasure
Scandal Isiah Winder under investigation
Replies
24
Views
5K
Rob
Rob
B
Scandal Shane Charter (SHANE CARTER IS INNOCENT!) hit with drug charges
2 3 4 5
Replies
118
Views
19K
Misher
Misher
Chief
Admin Announcement Drug talk: No thanks. It's always been that way on BigFooty
Replies
0
Views
2K
Chief
Chief
F
Rumour New job for Gillon?
Replies
20
Views
2K
Tandy
Tandy

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top