Just call it naivety, boy from the bush type of thing then.
Otherwise you are just saying that the penalty for sample tampering is 18 months and not 4 years and I don’t know how you get there.
News Jnr Rioli - He’s back.
- Thread starter Biggie
- Start date
- Tagged users None
Just call it naivety, boy from the bush type of thing then.
Otherwise you are just saying that the penalty for sample tampering is 18 months and not 4 years and I don’t know how you get there.
Absolutely. He's been home because it's the off season. Once pre-season starts he'll be back with the lads.
FreeTK
Premiership Player
- Oct 2, 2019
- 4,781
- 8,822
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Banned
- #2,828
There are 113 pages in this thread. Alot of the early discussion was around what to expect as a consequence.I'm one of the few posters on this board that think he will get under 2 years. I'm not going to rehash that entire debate as it would bore a lot of people in this thread. But to summarise my thoughts quickly for you;
1) 4 years is the absolute maximum if it is found that Willie intentionally tampered with his sample
2) Intentionally is defined by ASADA as 'an athlete trying to cheat'
3) It's my opinion (based on very little info) that Willie wasn't trying to cheat, but obscuring his cannabis use in an out of competition test.
4) If it is deemed that Willie's actions were not with the intention to cheat then the maximum is 2 years
5) ASADA and sporting bodies determine sanctions based on proportionality,severity and degrees of fault and early admission. It is quite common for an athlete to get less than the prescribed maximum penalty for any particular infraction
6) ASADA/WADA/AFL objectives in anti doping is to protect clean sport and clean athletes. If WC/Willie's counsel can prove Willie is a clean athlete an overly punitive punishment for an athlete not doping is not in anyone's best interest
7) Willie's Cannabis infraction is the lesser of the two infractions so he will only be subject to serve the penalty for the more serious offence (tampering)
8) Willie must serve some kind of suspension for his actions.
That is just the place I have arrived at given the public information available (which isn't much). I'm not in here saying that I somehow know better than everybody else and I am right and everyone else is wrong. Reality is none of us really know and there is an awful lot of this to still play out. There may very likely be facts still to emerge which change any calculation of what penalty Willie is looking at.
EDIT: I would add a speculative point and say that WC choosing not to delist Rioli suggests the information that they gotten from him about the events and advice from QC suggest that he will not serve 4 years. If QC said "nah, he's ****ed for 4 years" West Coast wouldn't have made a decision to retain him on the senior list.
Last edited:
This business of him not being able to train at the club club is also bullshit. Honestly this is out of control, he smoked weed and panicked at the test. He isnt a drug cheat and surely that has to mean something in all of this.
FreeTK
Premiership Player
- Oct 2, 2019
- 4,781
- 8,822
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Banned
- #2,830
He was training with ST Mary's in Darwin. He had his shirt off at training and he actually looks pretty fit.
But he promised to make his way back. “I’ve got great support here (in Darwin) and like I said, I’ve been proving doubters (wrong) my whole life — so I’ll definitely come back bigger and better,” he said.
He was not able to say when he expected to learn his fate. “I’ve got no time frame on anything — I just want to keep training and keep improving and that’s all I can say,” he said.
Last edited:
Not really. Anyone banned (i.e. after the hearing, not provisional) can't be involved in their professional sporting environment/club (regardless of the sport).
Whether it is cannabis, cocaine, or EPO - at the end of the day there are rules in place and if you break them the penalty is clear.
I think there is scope to potentially downgrade the penalty (maybe an outside hope of having the tampering charge withdrawn and the positive test being his issue - but that is unlikely) - but in reality he's broken 2 rules, and for one of them he will serve a suspension (and that rightly means not training at the club for a period of time).
A couple of things from your post.
If proven that he did substitute his urine for Gatorade, that is by definition cheating.
It doesn't matter what he was trying to hide or when TBH.
He didn't pee into the cup, he was trying to deceive/cheat.
Secondly, there's no way WC would delist anyone who is going through the legal process.
That is pretty much admitting his guilt and would be throwing him under the bus.
I hope like you, Willie get's 2 years or less, but honestly cannot see it.
FreeTK
Premiership Player
- Oct 2, 2019
- 4,781
- 8,822
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Banned
- #2,836
Although I don't agree with some of the points you raised, I think they are a reasonable and fair difference of opinion. Neither of us are experts, so there's not much value in thrashing around the details of why we don't agree. We will just need to see how it plays out and hope for the best.
The only thing I am really stubborn about is the idea that he will get 4 years. So often there are doping infractions in sport and the media talks about the maximum penalty (4 years). Many people interpret the maximum penalty as being the most likely outcome, and it just isn't.
Urine substation is one of the less common doping infractions, so it is hard to find parallels. There are some cases like Orien Greene, who used his team mates urine and got 2 years.
https://www.espn.com/nba/news/story?id=5264338
Let's keep our fingers crossed and see how it plays out.
Last edited:
I think without the details the above is a little too black&white for me.
If, as has been suggested to me (and parts of, if not all, reported in the media) he was waiting for 4 hours with a tester and a club minder while he couldn't produce a sample - then he poured gatorade into the cup in front of both and handed it over - there is certainly a case to be made that he didn't attempt to deceive - and that the test wasn't actually completed (surely the test has to be collection of urine, or what is believed to be urine, to be 'completed'). If it wasn't a completed test, it can't be tampered with.
If he walked behind a curtain, then poured the gatorade and popped back around and said 'finally able to pee' and handed the cup over - that is trying to evade (but then there is also the argument of the tester not watching the sample be provided -as they are meant to do that).
I get the feeling this will end up a bit of a legal terminology battle - possibly with the hope of the positive test being the charge that he eventually faces.
FreeTK
Premiership Player
- Oct 2, 2019
- 4,781
- 8,822
- AFL Club
- West Coast
- Banned
- #2,839
Here is the precise definition of intentional as per WADA code:
"As used in Articles 10.2 and 10.3, the term “intentional” is meant to identify those Athletes who cheat. The term, therefore, requires that the Athlete or other Person engaged in conduct which he or she knew constituted an anti-doping rule violation or knew that there was a significant risk that the conduct might constitute or result in an anti-doping rule violation and manifestly disregarded that risk"
That definition provides for some ability for Willie's defence counsel to make a case that his actions weren't with the knowledge that he was committing an anti doping rules violation. Literally, who pours gatorade in to a urine sample in front of anti doping officials if they know that their actions would result in an anti doping rules violation and a potential 4 year ban? It's farcical how brazen he was and suggests a lack of understanding.
If it can be proven that Willie wasn't acting with disregard for the rules the starting point for the ban would be 2 years, and could be reduced even more dependant on circumstances.
I tend to think that the AFL education program will probably feature as part of Willie's defence and it will be argues that it was manifestly inadequate.
So I like to follow a bit of tennis right. A couple of years ago Sharapova (not a fan) got done for doping. She had been taking a substance not on the banned list for 10 years. Then it was banned and she continued to take it and got done about 3 weeks after it was put on the banned list.
She was originally up for 4 years. Got 2 years, and then appealed to Court of Arbitration for Sport. Her appeal hinged on the idea that the tennis governing body (ITF) did not provide enough information to it's athletes about the changes. All they did was send an email with a link. After CAS heard all of the evidence, she was deemed to be ineligible for competition for 15 months. That is just one example that has some points of relevance and demonstrates how much leeway there is in determining length of sanctions dependant on individual circumstances.
This is far from a black and white case, and 4 years based on the very little details that we do know would be a miscarriage of justice.
Last edited:
I've read different things.
To my knowledge, there was no club minder at all present.
There is no curtain, the tester watches you at all times.
There is no evidence that the tester wasn't watching.
Whether he pored Gatorade, spat or did a poo in the cup is irrelevant IMO.
It was a completed test, it just wasn't urine.
Again, we'll agree to disagree.
Willie not knowing the rules or just panicking or being stupid won't hold much weight as a defence IMO.
Surely he knew that pouring Gatorade into the cup was wrong.
Getting a positive test for cannabis later hurts his case as it could be looked upon as he was trying to cover
that up.
We'll wait and see.
- Sep 8, 2011
- 11,013
- 11,016
- AFL Club
- West Coast
Pretty peak ammos rig!
- Sep 8, 2011
- 11,013
- 11,016
- AFL Club
- West Coast
What’s he supposed to do? We got eliminated the day after and now the seasons over. Players have a mandatory break from the club....
True - forgot about the mandatory break
My understanding is he’s allowed to train with the club while under investigation, once his sentence is handed down he can’t be involved with the football club in any way for the duration of his suspension.
Correct. Also can’t be involved in basically any semi serious competitive sport for the duration of his suspension
Yep.
To add to this though, there is a clause for the player to start training again prior to the official ban ending. I believe it is 2 months prior, but may be 3 months.
Not sure if it can be varied depending on the suspension period (and the provisional suspension period).
On SM-G973F using BigFooty.com mobile app
My prediction: 18 months.
I don't think it was a deliberate cheat. So 2 years downgraded to 18 because hes a good boi Rioli. He will miss all of next year and be back for 2021.
I might be wrong but this is my gut feeling based on how the political and public opinion is flowing. You may say that is not the legal argument but we all know this is a highly politicised process and being seen to do right is just as important as actually doing right.
I don't think it was a deliberate cheat. So 2 years downgraded to 18 because hes a good boi Rioli. He will miss all of next year and be back for 2021.
I might be wrong but this is my gut feeling based on how the political and public opinion is flowing. You may say that is not the legal argument but we all know this is a highly politicised process and being seen to do right is just as important as actually doing right.
18 months he will be fine. The first 9 months will be served provisionally (before his hearing mid year) so he will be training at the club that whole time.
Add in the fact he can return to training a couple of months prior to his ban ending and 18 months would equal about 6 months away from the club.
The issue is that the pre ban and end of ban terms are fixed, so if the ban is longer than 18 months then only the time away from the club portion increases (I.e. 2 years means a year away from the club).
On SM-G973F using BigFooty.com mobile app
Similar threads
