It’s yet another disreputable story of drug related and immature behaviour, from an organisation that now has a lengthy history of similar incidents, suggesting (again!) that it’s a rotten club culture from the top down. Players, coaches, admin staff, even board members, come and go. The one common factor is the long-serving CEO.
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.
If every FIFO worker in Australia can wizz in a cup without contaminating the sample, a highly paid, professional athlete can do it too.
And, if they lost their cool and did it once, there is absolutely no excuse for doing it twice.
He got 2 years, he was damn lucky. In any other organization, doing stuff like that is instant dismissal. You wouldn’t even get the opportunity to do it twice.
Even in the case of a false positive, you get driven off site and told to wait until it’s been confirmed.
Rioli has no defense here, he has no argument to offer and trying to defend it in any manner is in poor taste.
Login to reply,
The_Yeti, Bizkit, shane, Raglan Matt, Corporal Agarn, freo00, Hamihill said You Beaut
1 month 1 week ago #88
There is no evidence given to show that Rioli tested negative on either occasion, so to dismiss it as a prank gone wrong is really not justifiable. Using legalise is somethingthe eagles are good at, to get their players off any charges, but for the AFL to become complicit in this calls into question the integrity of the organisation. They (the AFL) have a history and culture of trying to sweep drug use under the carpet, and it needs to stop now, before AFL players are dying mid-career from heart and other PED or rec drug induced problems. This is what has happened in US based sports competitions such as NFL & even NBL.
Moving forward, an athlete using an anabolic steroid like clenbuterol, when confronted with a drug test, should provide an adulterated sample. He then should go home and smoke marijuana. Two weeks later, give or take, when the athlete is targeted for a second sample, he would hope the marijuana would be detected but not the Clenbuterol.
Luckily athletes will never put the time and effort into thinking up ways of rorting the system.
I don’t care about Willi Rioli. This outcome, if allowed to stand, sets a dangerous precedent.
Login to reply,
The_Yeti, Bizkit, shane, Dockermus, freo00 said You Beaut
How can you honestly make a case for 'abscence of any intention to cheat' when he did it twice. Both times were intentional acts.
You continue to try to muddy the waters with cannabis but that is just another irrelevancy. He tampered with a test twice. Each of those occasions merits the full four years. Each one.
You incorrectly make the unjustified assumption that cannabis is the issue. The code requires sporting bodies to treat sample tampering as a failed drug test for performance enhancing drugs. There is no evidence that his actions were unintentional other than his testimony and facing a four year ban he would no incentive to be dishonest, right </sarcasm>
We are arguing over the same ground here every time because you refuse to acknowledge the serious offence of tampering and try to muddy the waters with the cannabis.
Yes, he deserves the full four years and in another sport he would be looking at the full four years. Tampering with a sample is not an unintentional act. Doing it twice just confirms his intent.