TOPIC: Rioli ...

expat Rioli ... 1 month 1 week ago #43

Hackdorn must think that he is now the biggest flog in the business. Crying over misinformation.
Login to reply,

Marlz10 Rioli ... 1 month 1 week ago #44

I hate to think what we have to lay our hands on to fix this on the front page of the West tomorrow...
Login to reply,
CaptSnooze, Sunny said You Beaut

Drubbing Rioli ... 1 month 1 week ago #45

Ch7 were already on it. Today tonite glossed right over the drugs, and focussed on Muddy waterman's kid getting the opportunity to warm the bench.
Login to reply,
CaptSnooze, Corporal Agarn said You Beaut

freo00 Rioli ... 1 month 1 week ago #46

FOX Footy
10 hrs ·

Willie Rioli has received a provisional drug ban for substituting a urine sample.

But the young Eagle has found some support, with AFL identities questioning the findings.

It has started ?

It was just parsley ?
Login to reply,

Raglan Matt Rioli ... 1 month 1 week ago #47

Raglan Matt
Something in the steaks he been eating???
Worked for Alberto.
Login to reply,

Matebe Rioli ... 1 month 1 week ago #48

Give the boy a break. He was probably just thirsty after going for a long run on a warm day.
Login to reply,

Montrachet Rioli ... 1 month 1 week ago #49

Hagdorn claiming this this to be an 'emotional' event is completely unacceptable and goes to set another example of this state's sycophantic media . It isn't 'emotional', its absolutely disgraceful.

But far worse Rioli's actions or Hagdon's response is the unrepeatable comment from Mac for which no less than a tar and feathering shall suffice as punishment. Sorry Mac but it is what it is and you can't unsay it.
Login to reply,
demo1 said You Beaut

expat Rioli ... 1 month 1 week ago #50

Interesting read from John Ralph today...

"Incredibly, if Rioli did have an illicit drug such as cocaine or marijuana in his system, it wasn’t anything ASADA testers were looking for.
Those drugs are only illegal on match day, so he wasn’t even risking a positive drug strike under the league’s illicit drugs code."

So it really baffles the mind why you've substitute your urine if he actually did... The only other thought is that it was tampered with afterwards, but I won't go there.
Login to reply,

shane Rioli ... 1 month 1 week ago #51

What's baffling? He had something in his urine that he didn't want them to know about.
Login to reply,

Redned Rioli ... 1 month 1 week ago #52

I have heard speculation (and everyone is speculating) that the sample was adulterated with sports drink.
Bright side: accidental contamination
Dark side: masking
Login to reply,

rogerrocks Rioli ... 1 month 1 week ago #53

I thought that standard procedure was to watch as they pissed in a bottle. I wonder how that went wrong?
Login to reply,

expat Rioli ... 1 month 1 week ago #54

Some good questions in this article...

The questions that need answering

A number of questions remain unanswered.

Sam Edmund and former boss Richard Ings (speaking on SEN) give their take on the on going scandal.

Why wasn’t Rioli watched/was he as per guidelines?

Edmund: He was, by at least one “chaperone” - an ASADA official charged with observing the athlete at all time while another officer fills out the paperwork and administers the test.

Ings: This happens because you have a very observant control officer who is facilitating the test. The doping control officer is there to witness the sample being provided. If there is any abnormalities, if there’s any indication of any adulteration of the sample then the doping control officer will report it, it will be investigated and charges potentially laid. We don’t have all the details but what we do know is that ASADA is alleging that there was a substitution or a substitution attempt at the point of collection that was clearly picked up by the doping control officer. It has been investigated, the sample has been tested for something which isn’t urine and the process is proceeding accordingly.

What would have happened when they observed something was off in the test?

Ings: The doping control officer won’t go to an athlete who is substitution urine and go ‘no, no, no mate you can’t do that, you’ve got to give us the right stuff’. The attempt to substitute is a violation in itself so the doping control officer will simply collect the sample, report the incident and leave it for the authorities at ASADA to investigate.

Who would have witnessed the test?

Ings: Within the doping control room you’ve got the player, you’ve got anybody who is invited there by the player to witness the testing and you’ve got the doping control officer. It’s a very small group. So we don’t know what was said between the parties but I think it’s very safe to assume that the doping control officer must have seen something untowards and that it was reported directly to ASADA. The sample tested for something that wasn’t urine and that has triggered the investigation and allegation of a tampering and substitution offense.

It’s very possible that the doping control officer may have indicated that there making a report of something that they’ve seen, there are concerns, it would have been noted on the doping control form. That’s very, very possible. But at the end of the day the doping control officer has apparently done their job, they have noticed something untoward going on and reported it for investigation.

Why did he need to submit something not urine? What could he be covering up?

Edmund: Who knows? But whatever it might be, it would have been nowhere near as serious as the charge of manipulating a sample. The haunting fact is that if Rioli tested positive to an illicit substance, ASADA wouldn’t have batted an eyelid.

Who is at fault besides Rioli?

Edmund: At this point, no one.

Why was he allowed to keep playing?

Edmund: There’s a process to follow. While outsiders may claim this has taken too long to come to light given Rioli was tested on August 20, former CEO Richard Ings was stunned by the speed of it.

Ings: Well it’s incredibly fast. I mean the test was only literally a few weeks ago. We’re not used to these matters moving this quickly, which would strongly suggest to me that this was a pretty clear case for ASADA to commence a prosecution.

How did he think he would get away with this?

Edmund: The million dollar question. But perhaps panic overrides any common sense.

Will we find out what the substance actually was?

Ings: I’m unsure if we will find out any more details. This is a matter that will wind through the AFL process, undoubtedly there will be a hearing, and there will be an AFL tribunal. If a guilty verdict is handed down there will a judgement which will eventually be made public and it’s in that judgement that we will get more detail.

What’s the reality here? Irrespective 4 years for tampering?

Edmund: The maximum penalty is four years which would be catastrophic for Rioli. The matter will now go to the AFL’s independent tribunal where David Grace QC will defend him and ASADA will argue its case for fault.

Ings: This would be considered very seriously. This is an unusual case, we are used to positive drugs test coming through. This is the first case in quite some time of tampering of a sample, certainly at this level. It’s a very, very serious allegation. It’s viewed as the most serious violation of rules and can carry up to a four year ban.

Can he fight the ban?

Ings: Well there is no real ability for the AFL itself to water down anything. These matters go to the AFL’s independent anti-doping tribunal, the evidence is heard, ASADA argues its case for fault, David Grace is an exceptional counsel will defend Willie Rioli and the tribunal at the AFL will make its decision, which can then be appealed of course as we’ve seen with Essendon to the court of arbitration fo sport.

If it’s a match day test it’s for performance enhancing not illicit drugs so what does that indicate?

Edmund: ASADA test on match days and during the week. The only way he can get in real strife with ASADA is for performance enhancing drugs. If Willie Rioli tested positive for illicit drugs on match day he would follow the same path as Collingwood’s Sam Murray. If he tests positive for illicit drugs on match day, or any day, he’s obviously in big trouble. If he tests positive for illicit on a Dorevitch test he gets a strike.
Login to reply,
docbert said You Beaut

Date Rioli ... 1 month 1 week ago #55

What appears to go unnoticed in this sorry saga is the depth of the Eagle's playing stocks - take a look at his emergency replacement

Young Jack Petruccelle really smashed the door down with his scintillating form for Eagles-Lite against the mighty Monts on the weekend:

6 Kicks
3 Handballs
3 Marks
4 Tackles
1 goal
1 behind

The Cats must be shaking in their boots.........
Login to reply,

demo1 Rioli ... 1 month 1 week ago #56

This is another example of the WA media not asking questions related to WCE.
Going back a few weeks ago, young Jarrod Cameron was the buzz of the town - was it ten goals from ten kicks?
He was on fire, then something happened - he was dropped.
Fast forward a few weeks - he turns up to a WAFL final vs West Perth in a "unfit state to play" and was sent home.
This week he turns up to training with a completely shaved bald head - just coincidence??

I also wonder about the gum chewing?? Surely you have noticed it with some Weagles whilst not wearing a mouth guard.
I heard Liam Ryan say during the week he cant wear mouth guards - strange because I recall seeing him wear them at WAFL level when he couldnt run very well - also just coincidence..
Login to reply,
Corporal Agarn, R.Lyon said You Beaut