News Jnr Rioli - He’s back.

[tigger_ferret]

His intent and what was in his system is irrelevant.

He stepped outside the process laid out to him by the drug testing officials, therefore he's classed as trying to cheat the test.

Not an overly hard concept to understand.

Again a pretty black and white interpretation of things.

You can break the rules without cheating in my opinion. If you’re in an exam and you start talking footy to the guy sitting next to you. That is breaking the rules not cheating. Taking in notes to a closed book exam I would call cheating. They are quite different and often have different punishments.

I think a lot of people believe it is ASADA’s responsibility is to stop cheating, rather than ban a player for what was a dumb mistake and breaking the rules.

 

[RookiePick]

Breaking the rules but not cheating. That's why he will wear 2+ instead of 4...if they don't decide to make an example of him.

 

[jatz14]

No one has ever had cocaine in their system 2 days prior to taking .

If they take every 2 days, then yes, yes they do.

 

[jatz14]

Again a pretty black and white interpretation of things.

You can break the rules without cheating in my opinion. If you’re in an exam and you start talking footy to the guy sitting next to you. That is breaking the rules not cheating. Taking in notes to a closed book exam I would call cheating. They are quite different and often have different punishments.

I think a lot of people believe it is ASADA’s responsibility is to stop cheating, rather than ban a player for what was a dumb mistake and breaking the rules.

Your example is 2 different things. Rioli is more like taking notes into a closed book exam, then saying the notes will not help in the exam. You arent allowed to take notes in, how much the notes help is much less a consideration. He tried to cheat a test, that it wouldn't have helped his performance if he had succeeded isnt a great defence.

 

[D-N-R]

The first test was midweek. They don't test for party drugs then. The second test was match day. They DO test for party drugs then.

If they don't test for party drugs during the week then how could any player possibly get a strike? They do test for party drugs during the week but they don't have any penalty for it. They would inform the AFL who could then issue a strike to the player.

 

[Matera92]

Again a pretty black and white interpretation of things.

You can break the rules without cheating in my opinion. If you’re in an exam and you start talking footy to the guy sitting next to you. That is breaking the rules not cheating. Taking in notes to a closed book exam I would call cheating. They are quite different and often have different punishments.

I think a lot of people believe it is ASADA’s responsibility is to stop cheating, rather than ban a player for what was a dumb mistake and breaking the rules.

Have you ever taken a piss test that your career depends on?

 

[tigger_ferret]

Your example is 2 different things. Rioli is more like taking notes into a closed book exam, then saying the notes will not help in the exam. You arent allowed to take notes in, how much the notes help is much less a consideration. He tried to cheat a test, that it wouldn't have helped his performance if he had succeeded isnt a great defence.

The accuracy of the example is not really the point I was trying to make. More that you can do something against the rules and not be a cheat.

I took exception that a few posters said he took a prohibited drug and was therefore a drug cheat. I just don’t think it is that simple.

 

[ZergMinion]

If they don't test for party drugs during the week then how could any player possibly get a strike? They do test for party drugs during the week but they don't have any penalty for it. They would inform the AFL who could then issue a strike to the player.

It's a good point. Maybe it's that they don't apply ASADA penalties for party drugs during the week, or maybe it's that the AFL runs its own tests for drug strikes. Anyone know which one?

 

[kane249]

It's a good point. Maybe it's that they don't apply ASADA penalties for party drugs during the week, or maybe it's that the AFL runs its own tests for drug strikes. Anyone know which one?

Could just be the findings of the test from ASADA are shared with the AFL who can then act on any illicit drugs found?

 

[Trav22]

The bit that gets me is if willie tampered with the test (knowing he was going to fail)
Then sat another test 2 weeks later and actually failed, wouldn’t you put down the pot and detox your ass off for the next two weeks.
he is obviously smoking quiet frequently to still test positive two weeks later.
must not value his job too highly.

I’m not trying to put the bloke down, I wish all the best for him. Just though you would act a bit more professional being a paid Athlete.

 

[Seadog]

The bit that gets me is if willie tampered with the test (knowing he was going to fail)
Then sat another test 2 weeks later and actually failed, wouldn’t you put down the pot and detox your ass off for the next two weeks.
he is obviously smoking quiet frequently to still test positive two weeks later.
must not value his job too highly.

I’m not trying to put the bloke down, I wish all the best for him. Just though you would act a bit more professional being a paid Athlete.

Yeah whatever, he did what he did and he'll get what he gets, all the moralizing and hand wringing won't change anything.

 

[TY24]

I'll weigh in on this again.

The 4 year suspensions will be reserved for someone who deliberately and methodically plans to deceive officials and mask a PED to gain an unfair advantage over their opponents.

The kid who panicked after not being able to produce a sample and used Gatorade because he couldn't take a leak and was trying to hide a joint he had during the week will not cop a full 4 year suspension.

18-24 months tops.

 

[Trav22]

Yeah whatever, he did what he did and he'll get what he gets, all the moralizing and hand wringing won't change anything.

cool story bro!
if you don’t like what’s posted don’t read it, simple!

 

[FKASC]

cool story bro!
if you don’t like what’s posted don’t read it, simple!

How can you not read something you’ve already read tho

 

[eagles rule]

Again a pretty black and white interpretation of things.

You can break the rules without cheating in my opinion. If you’re in an exam and you start talking footy to the guy sitting next to you. That is breaking the rules not cheating. Taking in notes to a closed book exam I would call cheating. They are quite different and often have different punishments.

I think a lot of people believe it is ASADA’s responsibility is to stop cheating, rather than ban a player for what was a dumb mistake and breaking the rules.

But what if the guys were actually talking about what the exam answers were ??
Cheating or breaking the rules..


On iPhone using BigFooty.com mobile app

 

[shooshka]

The bit that gets me is if willie tampered with the test (knowing he was going to fail)
Then sat another test 2 weeks later and actually failed, wouldn’t you put down the pot and detox your ass off for the next two weeks.
he is obviously smoking quiet frequently to still test positive two weeks later.
must not value his job too highly.

I’m not trying to put the bloke down, I wish all the best for him. Just though you would act a bit more professional being a paid Athlete.

The first line is correct.

The second and third we actually have no idea about as the levels in the positive test were not released. Seeing as it can show up in tests up to 30-days after use (and there are a myriad of factors that affect this - most of which are unknown in this case) there is just not enough evidence in the public domain either way as to whether the tampering affected his behavior afterwards.

 

[shooshka]

His intent and what was in his system is irrelevant.

He stepped outside the process laid out to him by the drug testing officials, therefore he's classed as trying to cheat the test.

Not an overly hard concept to understand.

I disagree.

What was in his system was somewhat irrelevant (albeit it shows his intent) - but his intent is very relevant. A lot of what Armstrong did in cycling was borderline legal - but the intent was pretty clear. Also sandpaper-gate really didn't effect the condition of the ball, but again the intent was clear. Sam Murray tested positive on gameday - but got 18 months (max 4 years) - because the intent was to take a party drug, not to get performance enhancement. Intent won't define his guilt or innocence, but it will decide the penalty.

Also the process is an interesting discussion - if he stepped outside of it, surely the official did too (assuming as reported it was either blue gatorade and/or was poured into the cup in view of the tester). And if so, then were they cheating also - or just incompetent or confused? At what point does Willie get to claim the same?

 

[Tugga27]

I disagree.

What was in his system was somewhat irrelevant (albeit it shows his intent) - but his intent is very relevant. A lot of what Armstrong did in cycling was borderline legal - but the intent was pretty clear. Also sandpaper-gate really didn't effect the condition of the ball, but again the intent was clear. Sam Murray tested positive on gameday - but got 18 months (max 4 years) - because the intent was to take a party drug, not to get performance enhancement. Intent won't define his guilt or innocence, but it will decide the penalty.

Also the process is an interesting discussion - if he stepped outside of it, surely the official did too (assuming as reported it was either blue gatorade and/or was poured into the cup in view of the tester). And if so, then were they cheating also - or just incompetent or confused? At what point does Willie get to claim the same?

Where has it ben said that the official didn't do his job correctly?

 

[Max zero]

Your example is 2 different things. Rioli is more like taking notes into a closed book exam, then saying the notes will not help in the exam. You arent allowed to take notes in, how much the notes help is much less a consideration. He tried to cheat a test, that it wouldn't have helped his performance if he had succeeded isnt a great defence.

No Rioli is more tipping a cup of Gatorade onto the the exam and then handing the soggy paper and then getting a 'zero.'

It wasn't an attempt to pass.

 

[Illeagle]

How can you not read something you’ve already read tho

Smoke pot and forget you read it??

 

[FKASC]

Smoke pot and forget you read it??

 

[squashface]

Smoke pot and forget you read it??

Thanks, Willie.

 

[jatz14]

No Rioli is more tipping a cup of Gatorade onto the the exam and then handing the soggy paper and then getting a 'zero.'

It wasn't an attempt to pass.

Dont think they care what he was attempting, only what he did.

 

[shooshka]

Where has it ben said that the official didn't do his job correctly?

I've said it a few times in this thread already.

Have a read of the Asada policy on taking a urine sample - if it was blue gatorade, or he tipped it into the cup in front of them then there is no way they followed their own policy correctly.

The problem is that Asada are similar to the AFL in that they will make it up as they go along - in one case the letter of the law is how things are meant to be, in another if a policy wasn't followed it is because it is someone elses fault. All then charged in a court where precedent means nothing.

I would be shocked if somewhere along the way the defence team don't argue the process. there are quite a few inconsistencies (whether Willie was confused as to whether it was an AFL test or Asada, of just the way the test took place etc) that are at least worth testing. He can't really argue his guilt, but can certainly argue the reasons behind it.

 

[SloppyJoe]

Until we know what actually happened, no one can give an accurate estimate of penalty.