Time for AFL to part ways with ASADA

[Free Agent]

Just think the league needs to move away from ASADA. Let's be honest. They have been poor. How can anyone say this organisation has done a good job and deserves to continue.
ASADA has been a huge disappointment in the way they handle drug testing and findings of players.
I'm referring to both the Bombers saga and now seeing it again with the lack of answers for Willie Rioli. After spending the last 6-7 months without footy he still has nothing.
What takes them so long to make a decision. What amature organisation are we dealing with here.

If a player has been found to have done something wrong then stop messing around and apply the penalty so all parties can move on. It does no good for the mental welfare of the player. Even if they have done the wrong it shouldn't take this long.

It's time to part way with them from AFL. We can't have this poorly run organisation continue to do the leagues drug testing. Why can't we bring in some alternative party to take over that gets things done a lot quicker. Why can't the AFL make the penalty. All ASADA has to do is say he is guilty and let the AFL decide the penalty.
It's time for a change for the better of the league's future. ASADA needs to move on.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[Senor M]

Willie Rioli pours gatorade into a urine test....


....and somehow it's time for the AFL to part ways with ASADA

Do Eagles supporters blame others for EVERYTHING that happens at their club?

 

[Free Agent]

Willie Rioli pours gatorade into a urine test....


....and somehow it's time for the AFL to part ways with ASADA

Do Eagles supporters blame others for EVERYTHING that happens at their club?

So what. Doesn't matter who I support. It doesn't matter if a player has taken drugs and is guilty. I'm not defending Willys actions you moron. Why does it take 7 months to come to a decision. Just apply the penalty and be done with it. Geez its not that hard to figure out. All I'm saying is given ASADAs slowness to cases they have been really poor. We need to find quicker ways to come to a conclusion in any case. And that could be Richmond Collingwood Geelong player in the future. Some shit will go down with AFL players testing positive to drugs in the future. That wont go away. It's gonna happen. This is a league issue that needs to be sorted now and find better way to move forward.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

 

[Senor M]

So what. Doesn't matter who I support. It doesn't matter if a player has taken drugs and is guilty. I'm not defending Willys actions you moron. Why does it take 7 months to come to a decision. Just apply the penalty and be done with it. Geez its not that hard to figure out. All I'm saying is given ASADAs slowness to cases they have been really poor. We need to find quicker ways to come to a conclusion in any case. And that could be Collingwood Geelong player in the future. Some shit will go down with a player testing positive to drugs in the future. That wont go away. This is league issue that needs to be sorted now and find better way to move forward.

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk

Then why create a thread & focus on the Willie Rioli situation?

ASADA has been a huge disappointment in the way they handle drug testing and findings of players.
I'm referring to both the Bombers saga and now seeing it again with the lack of answers for Willie Rioli. After spending the last 6-7 months without footy he still has nothing.
What takes them so long to make a decision. What amature organisation are we dealing with here.

Why didn't you make this thread 12 months ago when Sam Murray had to wait almost a year for his ban to be formalised?

Or when Ahmed Saad had to wait 10 months for his drug ban to be handed out?

The ASADA process is the way it is because it takes time for investigate complex situations, get multiple tests done of samples and then there's lawyers involved, etc.

 

[11kgm]

Don't get me started on ASADA they are corrupt as they come same as WADA if you know the right people you are good

 

[Power Raid]

yep let's go like the NFL and self regulate drugs

yeah nah

 

[00Stinger]

Willie Rioli pours gatorade into a urine test....


....and somehow it's time for the AFL to part ways with ASADA

Do Eagles supporters blame others for EVERYTHING that happens at their club?

Rioli apparently couldn't piss because he was dehydrated so he poured gatorade into his urine sample.

Then two weeks later failed a drug test on match day

Dickhead deserves the 4 year suspension for being a sneeky little prick that didn't even learn his lesson.

It's been 7 months, not sure what the rush is when he is still going to be suspended for an extra 3 & 1/2 years

 

[00Stinger]

to break away from ASADA they would have to cut ties with WADA and if they do that the federal government have told them they will cut funding

It's not going to happen

 

[BigFatNorthFan]

I think it would probably have some benefit in that cases could get resolved more quickly and the AFL could have some discretion over what an appropriate punishment is, but that would inevitably be softer than ASADA/WADA rules and I think lead to more players flauting the rules. As it stands, if you break the rules even slightly you cop an awful whack - so don't do it.

 

[Aussie in exile]

to break away from ASADA they would have to cut ties with WADA and if they do that the federal government have told them they will cut funding

It's not going to happen

Exactly

 

[HairyO]

What takes them so long to make a decision. What amature organisation are we dealing with here.

It takes as long as it takes to ensure they get convictions for drug cheats.

If they are so amateur, how did they take on the AFL and win and get the largest guilty finding in the history of team sport anywhere in the world ?

 

[faible]

It takes as long as it takes to ensure they get convictions for drug cheats.

If they are so amateur, how did they take on the AFL and win and get the largest guilty finding in the history of team sport anywhere in the world ?

ASADA didn't do this, WADA did.

ASADA ballsed-up their investigation in many ways, so they're generally pretty cautious about having all their ducks in a row before they proceed now.

Whilst the WADA rules aren't very well adapted to team sports, they're certainly better at ensuring clean(er) sport than the NFL or MLB's internal drug codes are. You basically have to be caught red handed with a needle hanging out of your arm by multiple people before they bother.

 

[HairyO]

ASADA didn't do this, WADA did.

ASADA ballsed-up their investigation in many ways, so they're generally pretty cautious about having all their ducks in a row before they proceed now.

WADA prosecuted the exact same case.

The only difference was an independent judge, not the sham the AFL set up.

 

[faible]

WADA prosecuted the exact same case.

The only difference was an independent judge, not the sham the AFL set up.

Knowing someone who’s very close to the panel that adjudicated the AFL decision; it wasn’t a sham.

They were however, asked to review the evidence in a totally different way to WADA (which was not a standard of evidence that would ever be used in a criminal trial by the way) and so their decision was a correct legal decision.

If you’re going to argue that ASADA did everything right then you’re pushing the wrong barrow, WADA learned from ASADA’s errors and pushed to have the evidence reviewed in a totally different fashion for a reason.

 

[Demon in Hell]

Knowing someone who’s very close to the panel that adjudicated the AFL decision; it wasn’t a sham.

They were however, asked to review the evidence in a totally different way to WADA (which was not a standard of evidence that would ever be used in a criminal trial by the way) and so their decision was a correct legal decision.

If you’re going to argue that ASADA did everything right then you’re pushing the wrong barrow, WADA learned from ASADA’s errors and pushed to have the evidence reviewed in a totally different fashion for a reason.

The AFL appointed tribunal was supposed to be impartial.

Are you now saying that someone ASKED them to not be impartial.

If you are correct then the whole AFL handling of this was a complete and utter shambles.

Thank god we had WADA come over the top.

 

[faible]

The AFL appointed tribunal was supposed to be impartial.

Are you now saying that someone ASKED them to not be impartial.

If you are correct then the whole AFL handling of this was a complete and utter shambles.

Thank god we had WADA come over the top.

What? Did you even read what I wrote?

https://www.smh.com.au/opinion/the-...e-from-the-same-evidence-20160113-gm4q4w.html provides a reasonable review of the difference, specifically;

The Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority presented the evidence as links in a chain. WADA, using the same arguments, said each piece of evidence was a strand in a cable.

The AFL's panel reached the correct legal decision based upon how the evidence was presented by ASADA, so WADA learned from their mistakes and took a different approached.

Neither was wrong or right, they each reached the legal decision based upon the case presented.

ASADA argued that D must be true because C followed B followed A, without being able to prove they did so. The chain was broken.

WADA argued that D must be true because C occurred, B occurred and A occurred, with evidence to prove that each did so, with no reliance upon proving one piece of evidence was linked directly to another.

 

[Demon in Hell]

They were however, asked to review the evidence in a totally different way to WADA

of course I read what you wrote......and clearly you stated the supposed independent and impartial tribunal was asked by someone to go down a different path.

That is purely and simply interfering in due process i.e. they can’t be independent and impartial if someone else tells them what to do.

By the way, who was the person who told them to review the evidence differently?

 

[faible]

of course I read what you wrote......and clearly you stated the supposed independent and impartial tribunal was asked by someone to go down a different path.

That is purely and simply interfering in due process i.e. they can’t be independent and impartial if someone else tells them what to do

I stated no such thing. A court (or tribunal) simply hears the case as presented to them. It's not on the court as to how the evidence is presented.

If ASADA had presented their evidence in the same way WADA did, it's quite possible the tribunal would have reached the same verdict as CAS.

By the way, who was the person who told them to review the evidence differently?

ASADA and WADA.

The tribunal doesn't choose how the evidence is presented, simply that, whether within the bounds of how the evidence is presented to them, it meets the standard of proof.

WADA learned from ASADA's mistakes. Including presenting their case differently and filling some of the missing pieces of evidence to strengthen the case.

You're looking for something that's not there.

 

[Demon in Hell]

The only thing I suggest you do is to go back and read it all again.

But do it tomorrow, because you are clearly drunk right now.

 

[faible]

The only thing I suggest you do is to go back and read it all again.

But do it tomorrow, because you are clearly drunk right now.

Right, so you're trolling and not interested in discussing why WADA succeeded where ASADA failed, or why that might make ASADA a lot more cautious about having all their information in order before putting forth their evidence now.

My mistake.

 

[Demon in Hell]

Darn right it’s your mistake.

Go back and read the first 15 words of your second paragraph in post #14.

And read it real slowly.

 

[faible]

Darn right it’s your mistake.

Go back and read the first 15 words of your second paragraph in post #14.

And read it real slowly.

Once again, it was ASADA presenting the evidence.

I can't decide if you're trolling or simply an idiot.

 

[Demon in Hell]

FMD.

You were the one who stated in the first 15 words of the second paragraph of post #14

“They were however, asked to review the evidence in a totally different way to WADA“.

So Numbnuts, please tell me how a supposed independent tribunal, appointed by the AFL, can be independent when they are being told what to do?

Don‘t think I can spell it out any easier than that. It’ really not hard.

 

[faible]

FMD.

You were the one who stated in the first 15 words of the second paragraph of post #14

“They were however, asked to review the evidence in a totally different way to WADA“.

So Numbnuts, please tell me how a supposed independent tribunal, appointed by the AFL, can be independent when they are being told what to do?

Don‘t think I can spell it out any easier than that. It’ really not hard.

They were asked by ASADA... literally what I’ve been saying all day.

 

[yaco55]

Owen - Please don't waste time on Demon in Hell.