From WADA’s own
fact sheet “[Strict liability] is the starting point so that, while an anti-doping rule violation occurs regardless of the athlete’s intention, there is flexibility in the sanctioning process to consider the circumstances.” The WADA Code allows for the length of that ban to be reduced from four years to two years for mitigating circumstances. I just think we need to be clear that a two year sanction is available under the code.
It’s a valid argument to say the mitigation considerations have been misapplied; or at least it would be if you knew the facts of the case.
The AFL on hearing all the evidence found an “absence of any intention by Willie to cheat by gaining a performance enhancing effect". Again, you might disagree with their finding of fact (despite not having heard those facts), but under the code they are the correct people to decide on those facts.
We know Rioli’s case is different to Jack’s because despite his tampering there was a sample taken (I’m still curious about this part, as it suggests it wasn’t a complete bait-and-switch), and it didn’t contain an anabolic steroid used by bodybuilders (like Jack’s), but cannabis. Again, you might not think it matters, but surely we can agree they are on different ends of the ‘performance enhancing’ spectrum. WADA understands the difference, and the ban for cannabis taken out of competition is three months.
Don’t get me wrong, I’d be ropable if Rioli got off entirely. There needs to be serious consequences for players undermining the system, even if it’s unintentional; even if it’s something as ridiculous as Gatorade in a pee cup. Again, we’re talking the difference between two and four years here, not innocence and guilt.
It’s easy to imagine the worst (especially if West Coast are involved), but what if it’s really just dumb. What if Rioli ‘topped up’ his sample with Gatorade to get the sample amount above the line so he could get to a family event, and the samples were still accurately tested? Do you really think four years is an appropriate in those circumstances? Maybe you would, but others would disagree.
I admire the courage of your convictions, but it’s a pretty big stretch to argue a two year ban is unjust when you don’t know the facts that have been applied to the sanction determination.
