Lachie Whitfield testing drama

[Dave]

When the f#*k did this suddenly become about Performance Enhancing Drugs? Did I miss something or is Carro just on the recreational ones?

At no point in this excruciatingly long saga have PEDs been mentioned by anyone other than wild BF conspiracy nut jobs. It's only ever been about recreational drugs.

Pardon my intrusion (probably a bit late for that ), my understanding is that in trying to evade a test, it's being suggested he's breached the AFL AD code. Mind you, I'm just a head in the sand, kool aid chugging hirdite so I'm probably wrong .

 

[Gigantor]

It's pretty incredible to me that Caroline Wilson has yet to track down Lachie Whitfield's ex missus in her "investigations".

So far all we have heard from the young lass is that she called him a "c***" in the aftermath.

I do think for the story to have some balance we need some context when it comes to her and the relationship. So far all we know is that she was a "concerned" citizen.

My memory is that her exact words were that: "he's a f____ c***"

But in no way should we use such a quote to reach conclusions about her character or her motivations.

 

[Ichabod Noodle]

Pardon my intrusion (probably a bit late for that ), my understanding is that in trying to evade a test, it's being suggested he's breached the AFL AD code. Mind you, I'm just a head in the sand, kool aid chugging hirdite so I'm probably wrong .

Well for one, there were no tests to evade. But my point is that up until Carro's piece today it was supposedly because he took coke or Es or something. The ex was supposedly "concerned" about his recreational drug use when she slung the first allegation. Now Carro is talking PEDs - why? Where did she get that from? Nobody, but nobody has talked about Lachie taking PEDs - not even the ex girlfriend who started this. So why is Carro doing now - other than to pour s#*t on us because we just took her favourite player in last week's trade period.

PEDs have NEVER been part of the conversation.

But mud sticks and she's certainly slinging some today.

 

[Gigantor]

Pardon my intrusion (probably a bit late for that ), my understanding is that in trying to evade a test, it's being suggested he's breached the AFL AD code. Mind you, I'm just a head in the sand, kool aid chugging hirdite so I'm probably wrong .

Here is the exact wording from the Australian Football Anti-Doping Code:

10.4 Evading, Refusing or Failing to Submit to Sample Collection
Evading Sample collection, or without compelling justification, refusing or failing to submit to Sample collection after notification as authorised in applicable Anti-Doping Rules.

10.5 Whereabouts failures
Any combination of three missed tests and/or filing failures, as defined in the International Standard for Testing and Investigations, within a twelve-month period by a Player in a Registered Testing Pool.



I can't see that 10.5 applies, so that leaves us with 10.4, which I think is what you are referring to.

He hasn't refused or failed to submit to a sample collection, because he was never asked to (and it has been confirmed that there was no testing being done during the period in question).

Could he be evading collection? To my eyes, it's clear that you can only evade sample collection under this clause if you have been notified that you need to front for a sample collection, which clearly, never happened.

Now even if one were to argue that he has evaded sample collection, it's unclear to me at least as to whether the clause applies to the WADA Code and the prohibited list only, or whether it extends to the AFL's add-on illicit drug policy.

All in all, it looks like a massive stretch to me that he has done anything which would be subject to a four year ban.

 

[Colonial]

Well for one, there were no tests to evade. But my point is that up until Carro's piece today it was supposedly because he took coke or Es or something. The ex was supposedly "concerned" about his recreational drug use when she slung the first allegation. Now Carro is talking PEDs - why? Where did she get that from? Nobody, but nobody has talked about Lachie taking PEDs - not even the ex girlfriend who started this. So why is Carro doing now - other than to pour s#*t on us because we just took her favourite player in last week's trade period.

PEDs have NEVER been part of the conversation.

But mud sticks and she's certainly slinging some today.

I was wondering about that.

Yesterdays reports were he was out partying and was then worried that he took PEDs.


Who takes PEDs to party? Isnt and wasnt always cocain or something similar that was the discussion?

If so 1st strike and done.

 

[Colonial]

Our old friend Grant is still after us and hammering Lachie.


Mind you he is defending Jobe and telling him to stay strong.

Double standards by that VFL muppet.

 

[actabunni]

No matter what did or didn't happen I fear we have seen the last of Lachie for sometime asada need a kill and he will be it. Lachie was at best foolish but the 2 people who have contributed heavily 2 this situation are Allan and Lambert both employees of the club who should have known better than this both should be rubbed out for stupidity.

This isn't the end of it also wait for the sanctions on the club I can see a trade ban conveniently applied watch this space.

 

[Muggs]

Here is the exact wording from the Australian Football Anti-Doping Code:

10.4 Evading, Refusing or Failing to Submit to Sample Collection
Evading Sample collection, or without compelling justification, refusing or failing to submit to Sample collection after notification as authorised in applicable Anti-Doping Rules.

10.5 Whereabouts failures
Any combination of three missed tests and/or filing failures, as defined in the International Standard for Testing and Investigations, within a twelve-month period by a Player in a Registered Testing Pool.



I can't see that 10.5 applies, so that leaves us with 10.4, which I think is what you are referring to.

He hasn't refused or failed to submit to a sample collection, because he was never asked to (and it has been confirmed that there was no testing being done during the period in question).

Could he be evading collection? To my eyes, it's clear that you can only evade sample collection under this clause if you have been notified that you need to front for a sample collection, which clearly, never happened.

No

Sorry to intrude but there has been cases of evasion established in other countries where the athlete saw the tester coming and took off and done for evasion. It's unrealistic to expect that evasion can only occur after notification been served, as all you have to do is run away soon as you see the tester so you never get notified.

This is covered in the notes to the code that you quoted.

13. For example, it would be an anti-doping rule violation of if it were established that a player was deliberately avoiding a Doping Control official to evade notification or Testing. A violation of “failing to submit to Sample collection” may be based on either intentional or negligent conduct of the player, while “evading” or “refusing” Sample collection contemplates intentional conduct by the player.

If you been notified its either refusal or failure to submit. I leave it up to you all to debate this, but thought you should have the correct information, that evasion is pre-notification.

 

[Gigantor]

Our old friend Grant is still after us and hammering Lachie.


Mind you he is defending Jobe and telling him to stay strong.

Double standards by that VFL muppet.

From the quotes we read, more than likely she needs help, and that's where the focus should be.

That is a very different thing to laying blame.

 

[Gigantor]

Sorry to intrude but there has been cases of evasion established in other countries where the athlete saw the tester coming and took off and done for evasion. It's unrealistic to expect that evasion can only occur after notification been served, as all you have to do is run away soon as you see the tester so you never get notified.

This is covered in the notes to the code that you quoted.

13. For example, it would be an anti-doping rule violation of if it were established that a player was deliberately avoiding a Doping Control official to evade notification or Testing. A violation of “failing to submit to Sample collection” may be based on either intentional or negligent conduct of the Athlete, while “evading” or “refusing” Sample collection contemplates intentional conduct by the player.

If you been notified its either refusal or failure to submit. I leave it up to you all to debate this, but thought you should have the correct information, that evasion is pre-notification.

Fair enough, but there was no tester. That's a pretty important point.

Secondly, as I said above, I'm not sure where the AFL's illicit drug policy stands on this point, but even then, no evidence has emerged that testers were looking for him, or had notified him, or had even been contemplating testing anyone at that time.

 

[Ichabod Noodle]

Sorry to intrude but there has been cases of evasion established in other countries where the athlete saw the tester coming and took off and done for evasion. It's unrealistic to expect that evasion can only occur after notification been served, as all you have to do is run away soon as you see the tester so you never get notified.

This is covered in the notes to the code that you quoted.

13. For example, it would be an anti-doping rule violation of if it were established that a player was deliberately avoiding a Doping Control official to evade notification or Testing. A violation of “failing to submit to Sample collection” may be based on either intentional or negligent conduct of the player, while “evading” or “refusing” Sample collection contemplates intentional conduct by the player.

If you been notified its either refusal or failure to submit. I leave it up to you all to debate this, but thought you should have the correct information, that evasion is pre-notification.

See, this thing about evasion really gets me. It's not like he was hiding out where he couldn't be found. You don't think that if the drug testers had have turned up to Lachie's door and found him not home, the would have just left and charged him with evasion. No. they would have rung the club, the club would have rung around, "anybody seen Lachie, there are testers here" you think Lambo wouldn't have said "he's here, been sleeping on the couch, we'll have him there in half an hour (maybe an hour depending on traffic)" I just can't see how Lambo (or Lambo's missus) would have acted any differently. No way they would have put down the trap door in the cellar to hide him from testers. They're not that sort of people.

If a drug test is unannounced and the person is not home, it's not an automatic suspension. What if they're out watching a movie, or gone down the shops to get milk? There's a reasonable time limit to produce yourself. There has to be or an athlete may never be allowed out the front door again.

He was at the Lamberts - something a lot of Giants players used to do. You saw it on twitter all of the time if you followed either the players or the Lamberts. If there had have been testers (and there weren't) he would have been tested. Maybe an hour later than expected, but he would have been tested.

Being at the Lamberts is not evading a test. Being at a mates place that nobody knows about with your phone switched off, is, but the Lamberts? Not for a minute.

 

[Ellie Aquitaine]

So far all we have heard from the young lass is that she called him a "c***" in the aftermath./QUOTE]

My memory is that her exact words were that: "he's a f____ c***"

To quote TISM, I may be a c....

This is covered in the notes to the code that you quoted.

13. For example, it would be an anti-doping rule violation of if it were established that a player was deliberately avoiding a Doping Control official to evade notification or Testing. A violation of “failing to submit to Sample collection” may be based on either intentional or negligent conduct of the player, while “evading” or “refusing” Sample collection contemplates intentional conduct by the player.

There's two elements to this:

First, if the reports of emails and texts which suggest Gubby was a prime mover in getting Lachie to stay at the Lamberts then this could be a violation because it isn't one of Whitfield's addresses.

Second, if Lachie didn't play that game not because he was ill but because he may have been tested or notified of testing after the game, then that compounds the alleged evading at the Lamberts.

I am of the view that Lachie was scared and did as he was told in this, but he's also an adult and responsible under the ASADA Code for compliance with it.

If Gubby was behind it and, potentially also responsible for trying to cover it up, he should be facing Code of Conduct charges of a higher order.

 

[_GT_]

None of this helps us convince young players or their families that this is good club that will take good care of them. So much good work could unravel in one moment of madness. I am starting to get angry.

 

[HTPunter]

None of this helps us convince young players or their families that this is good club that will take good care of them. So much good work could unravel in one moment of madness. I am starting to get angry.

Worse case scenario is that Gubby and Lambert were up to absolutely no good and neither are at GWS anymore.

The likes of Coniglio, Shiel, Cameron etc will mean it's not unraveled, even in worse case scenario.

I was wondering about that.

Yesterdays reports were he was out partying and was then worried that he took PEDs.


Who takes PEDs to party? Isnt and wasnt always cocain or something similar that was the discussion?

If so 1st strike and done.

The 'story' about Keeffe and Thomas was that there was clenbuterol in their cocaine.

I don't do cocaine and have no idea if this is likely, but that was the story.

If that is a reasonable story, then maybe same with Whitfield?

 

[Gigantor]

If that is a reasonable story, then maybe same with Whitfield?

They tested positive.

You can't go back 2 years after the fact and say: hmmm, he may have done cocaine, and, hmmm, it may have been laced with a prohibited substance....

 

[Ellie Aquitaine]

The 'story' about Keeffe and Thomas was that there was clenbuterol in their cocaine.

I don't do cocaine and have no idea if this is likely, but that was the story.

If that is a reasonable story, then maybe same with Whitfield?

It is probably the story that he took something - whether cocaine or some pills - and could not be certain that it wasn't cut with, or contained, something on the banned list. Given the Keeffe and Thomas episode, steps may have been taken to ensure he wasn't tested - just in case.

Unless you've been in China for your bender, then you can blame it on contaminated meat.

 

[Diehard Saint]

My memory is that her exact words were that: "he's a f____ c***"

But in no way should we use such a quote to reach conclusions about her character or her motivations.

Hi, excuse the interruption, I have been reading this thread quietly interested to hear all your views, and I cannot let the above statement slide...

There must be thousands of males out there who have used those words, or similar, to describe females, on numerous occasions. So does that show their characters as well? Abhorrent and disgusting as they may be, no court would accept them as motive.

Unfortunately, the default mode for a lot of wrongdoers is to blame others. Heaven forbid they take consequences for their actions, i.e. Taking the drugs n the first place!

Considering all the education the players get, Whitfield was very stupid, but I actually think the actions of the two senior people are worse and they should cop more of the punishment.

 

[Determinant]

Hi, excuse the interruption, I have been reading this thread quietly interested to hear all your views, and I cannot let the above statement slide...

There must be thousands of males out there who have used those words, or similar, to describe females, on numerous occasions. So does that show their characters as well? Abhorrent and disgusting as they may be, no court would accept them as motive.

Unfortunately, the default mode for a lot of wrongdoers is to blame others. Heaven forbid they take consequences for their actions, i.e. Taking the drugs n the first place!

Considering all the education the players get, Whitfield was very stupid, but I actually think the actions of the two senior people are worse and they should cop more of the punishment.

Pretty much, you are one dumb mofo to be doing recreational drugs in a testing environment.
But you are woefully negligent to use your office to then conduct the actions of the officials IF they really did exactly what the story says.

I still can't see how failing to be available for a test that didn't exist is a huge enough issue for bans, as is not being tested and therefore not returning a positive result even if he was. Essentially leaving aside the GF issue, he failed to correctly report his location for 2 or 3 days, that's all he can apparently actually be guilty of, if the facts of the story as we know them are true.. Lambert and Gubby would face "bringing the game into disrepute at a minimum.

 

[Gigantor]

Hi, excuse the interruption, I have been reading this thread quietly interested to hear all your views, and I cannot let the above statement slide...

There must be thousands of males out there who have used those words, or similar, to describe females, on numerous occasions. So does that show their characters as well? Abhorrent and disgusting as they may be, no court would accept them as motive.

Unfortunately, the default mode for a lot of wrongdoers is to blame others. Heaven forbid they take consequences for their actions, i.e. Taking the drugs n the first place!

Considering all the education the players get, Whitfield was very stupid, but I actually think the actions of the two senior people are worse and they should cop more of the punishment.

Personally, I would be mortified at being publicly quoted as having used that sort of language against anyone.

 

[Ichabod Noodle]

he failed to correctly report his location for 2 or 3 days, that's all he can apparently actually be guilty of, if the facts of the story as we know them are true..

I'm surprised that the club didn't list Lambo's place as an approved address for all their players, given how much time most of them spent there.

Me, sitting out here in Penrith, with no insider knowledge or contact with the club beyond being a member and a fan - if asked the question "where's Lachie, he's not at home?" My first response would have been "Well, have you tried the Lamberts, if he's not at home, he's probably there"

This is what I don't get.
A) there were no drug testers to avoid, and
B) he was at the Lamberts - hardly in hiding anyway.

 

[captainMyCaptain]

Look's like a situation is taking place where there is going to be some level of penalty directed toward Whitfield but given the he said she said element even with the apparently damaging text there still remains a large grey areas which will likely lead to a lesser penalty which is what the AFL is most likely trying to negotiate with ASADA

 

[Gigantor]

Look's like a situation is taking place where there is going to be some level of penalty directed toward Whitfield but given the he said she said element even with the apparently damaging text there still remains a large grey areas which will likely lead to a lesser penalty which is what the AFL is most likely trying to negotiate with ASADA

That's probably the case, but I still don't get what ASADA's involvement is in this.

 

[Ellie Aquitaine]

That's probably the case, but I still don't get what ASADA's involvement is in this.

The more I think about, the less I think that being at the Lamberts is why ASADA is still involved and bans are discussed.

If there is a possibility of testing on match day and if he wasn't actually ill, then he has evaded a testing situation with ASADA.

 

[Gigantor]

The more I think about, the less I think that being at the Lamberts is why ASADA is still involved and bans are discussed.

If there is a possibility of testing on match day and if he wasn't actually ill, then he has evaded a testing situation with ASADA.

But even then, his whereabouts are known because he is at the ground. The opportunity for him to be notified that he'll be tested is there - but it didn't happen, there has never even been a suggestion of this.

I would agree that if by chance his girlfriend has intimated that he took an illicit drug on match day ( which is on the prohibited list for use on match day), then that will be evidence of use of a prohibited substance - but that's a different matter to evasion - and that would be entirely about Whitfield, would have nothing to do with the officials.

 

[Muggs]

That's probably the case, but I still don't get what ASADA's involvement is in this.

If you don't mind I can explain why I think ASADA is involved, if you do Mods please delete.

The argument is since testing is random, any intention to evade testing is based on the possibility of being test, an actual test might not be needed. You make the decision to evade before you know if you going to be tested and as evasion is an intent offence this is the critical matter, not if there is a test.

Assuming this is the case it would come down to what were his whereabouts time and locations listed with ASADA as to where he was available to be tested, and can ASADA prove he was intentionally not at those locations.

Do the messages therefore provide intent?

If ASADA is involved they believe the answer to the above questions are yes.