News Willie Rioli - Provisionally Suspended

(Log in to remove this ad.)

whatis

Club Legend
Jun 3, 2011
2,288
3,438
WA
AFL Club
West Coast
"Sample believe to have included a liquid substitute". Key word there "included", so it sounds like it was urine mixed with another liquid, rather than replaced by.

"Testers were aware of the alleged issue in the moment". And this makes it sound like the tester saw him do something/something was dodgy at the time.

(from https://twitter.com/FootyRhino)
 

fomoco04

1992, 1994, 2006, 2018
Jun 18, 2007
1,939
1,882
West
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Swan Districts, Deportivo, Man U
I would expect ASADA to be more stringent than you, not less.

I cannot fathom an AFL player doing a drug test being able to take half a cup of water out of the toilet bowl or turn a tap on etc. and if you have your shirt pulled up to your nips and pants around your ankles good luck concealing a Camelbak bladder or hip flask.
Yep, you’d think they’d be far more stringent.

Must be more to it than what we current know.
 

HoneyBadger35

Friends, Family, Flex
Aug 11, 2011
16,948
39,674
Gaffy's Dojo
AFL Club
West Coast
Surely B sample must be impacted too as you dont just suspend a player withoutit being tested to confirm?
Well if the B sample was normal, that is to say not interfered with, and the A sample shows signs of interference, then you’d charge him with interfering like we’re seeing now right? Maybe that’s what this is?

(I‘m assuming, this is all just my common sense application to guidelines I know nothing in depth about)
 

twce13

Premiership Player
Apr 29, 2012
4,083
5,061
AFL Club
West Coast
if the B sample isnt tainted, and its clean, that would surely work in our favour massively right. ie. willy just spit at the time of pi**ing, not really thinking, and some gatorade residue just managed to land in the cup.

clutching at straaws here :(
on the flip side if he did it to both samples, well then that's gonna be a hard one to argue.
 

Benji85

Club Legend
Aug 22, 2013
1,835
3,222
AFL Club
West Coast
The whole thing makes no sense

So he isn't a drug cheat at least that much is clear as of the info we have right now

The inference is that a liquid from a drink got into drug sample during or after testing.

The ASADA tester would have been right there watching him, theres just no possible way anything could have gone into the sample from Willie if they are monitoring it. The whole thing is absolutley bizzare

Either he accidentally spat into the cup, or he's somehow poured something in it, or perhaps even something added afterwards during transit or even testing, contamination?

Very strange.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Winky

Club Legend
Jan 7, 2009
1,916
1,191
Sunshine coast
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Swan Districts
if the B sample isnt tainted, and its clean, that would surely work in our favour massively right. ie. willy just spit at the time of pi**ing, not really thinking, and some gatorade residue just managed to land in the cup.

clutching at straaws here :(
on the flip side if he did it to both samples, well then that's gonna be a hard one to argue.
I have to say Vosso was impressive in his presser. Sounded a straight talker and knew when to draw the line. Better than most politicians today
 

Benji85

Club Legend
Aug 22, 2013
1,835
3,222
AFL Club
West Coast
The B sample won't play into it as the inference is not one of a "positive drug test". The inference is the tampering of a sample, doesn't matter if it's A or B. They are separate issues

Almost certainty spat into the cup, no doubt accidentally but it's enough to for them to report it. You only two goes at giving a test, both have to be free of anything. Spit included
 

Magnum27

Norm Smith Medallist
Sep 27, 2005
5,858
2,785
Victoria
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
WILDCATS/STH.FREO/CELTICS
I think the wording coming out in the press release has to be wrong, there is no way he can substitute it whilst being tested. Bob Murphy has said in the media and Jordan Lewis stated when being tested your pants are around your ankles and the tester is watching you chuck a slash, no way Willie could have substituted anything at that point.

There was something in his body that has come out giving him a weird reading in the cup, he may have taken a tablet that he should not have.
 

twce13

Premiership Player
Apr 29, 2012
4,083
5,061
AFL Club
West Coast
The B sample won't play into it as the inference is not one of a "positive drug test". The inference is the tampering of a sample, doesn't matter if it's A or B. They are separate issues

Almost certainty spat into the cup, no doubt accidentally but it's enough to for them to report it. You only two goes at giving a test, both have to be free of anything. Spit included
I get that in the aspect of tampering they are exclusive, but i don't see how the B sample doesn't come into play. I mean if his B sample is clean, then it shows he's clean and takes away the motive of the A sample (ie. trying to hide something) and then surely we have a stronger argument for at least a reduced punishment (ie. 6 months rather 2 years).

Anyway, I guess it's all speculation until we get more info.
 

bunkyboy

Club Legend
Jan 16, 2013
1,163
1,310
AFL Club
West Coast
The B sample won't play into it as the inference is not one of a "positive drug test". The inference is the tampering of a sample, doesn't matter if it's A or B. They are separate issues

Almost certainty spat into the cup, no doubt accidentally but it's enough to for them to report it. You only two goes at giving a test, both have to be free of anything. Spit included
But Daniels says there was a popular beverage involved.
 

Top Bottom