Lachie Whitfield under investigation

[monoccular 16,147]

17 hours ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

The Age is reporting that Allen will likely lose his job at the Pies and not return after the suspension.  Apparently he signed a 'stat declaration over his role in the Whitfield matter' (the Age didn't say what it said).

I recall Eddie went ballistic when the Shaw brothers and Didak lied to him to him over some off-field matter.  Eddie doesn't take being lied to very well which is quite admirable.

It was rather smart of the Pies getting that stat dec and really, really dumb of Allen to sign it.

Nathan Buckley:"Eddie. I will be a great coach"

:-)

[Sir Why You Little 34,606]

17 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

spot on. like my gk's after halloween. they had so many sweets in their bags that if you had removed half they wouldn't have noticed 

The system GW$ work under is Eons away from other clubs. 

And nobody questions it 

GW$ remind me of Don "The Con" Trump. They take. 

[sue 8,450]

rubbed out for 6 months according to abc

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-15/gws-lachie-whitfield-suspended-for-six-months-for-doping-breach/8027120

Edited November 15, 2016 by sue

[beelzebub 22,225]

The cynic in me suggests the AFL is wanting to establish a start time for all and any sanctiobs 

[faultydet 7,593]

7 minutes ago, beelzebub said:

The cynic in me suggests the AFL is wanting to establish a start time for all and any sanctiobs 

Beyond any reasonable doubt.

They are attempting to choose their own timetable again, in order to mitigate their own measly penalties.

ASADA, pull your finger out of your coight.

[RalphiusMaximus 5,993]

So he's able to start playing again in April?  He misses maybe six rounds?  Great work AFL.  Way to show a hard line on drug issues. 

[faultydet 7,593]

9 hours ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

So he's able to start playing again in April?  He misses maybe six rounds?  Great work AFL.  Way to show a hard line on drug issues. 

6 months takes it to May.

Still pissweak. And they managed AGAIN, to start the penalty in the off season. Absolutely infuriating, and predictable.

[Ted Lasso 16,864]

18 minutes ago, faultydet said:

6 months takes it to May.

Still pissweak. And they managed AGAIN, to start the penalty in the off season. Absolutely infuriating, and predictable.

So he doesn't miss a game? 6 months and 0 games for actively avoiding a drug test? they can't be serious... wasn't SAAD given 2 years because he bought something and didn't even drink it?

[Chris 2,892]

1 hour ago, Abe said:

So he doesn't miss a game? 6 months and 0 games for actively avoiding a drug test? they can't be serious... wasn't SAAD given 2 years because he bought something and didn't even drink it?

He misses 8 weeks or so, but still a joke. Saad also bought the drink and drank it, he was done for a positive urine test, he also only got 18 months. You may be thinking of Wade Lees who bought a powder from overseas, never even received the package and yet was banned for 2 years for intent. The banned substance in his case was one ingredient within a protein powder from memory. 

[Ted Lasso 16,864]

10 minutes ago, Chris said:

He misses 8 weeks or so, but still a joke. Saad also bought the drink and drank it, he was done for a positive urine test, he also only got 18 months. You may be thinking of Wade Lees who bought a powder from overseas, never even received the package and yet was banned for 2 years for intent. The banned substance in his case was one ingredient within a protein powder from memory. 

That one sounds right! 

still Whitfield should have been given at least 12 months imo

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

And Titus skewers it again:

 

 

[Willmoy1947 3,790]

On 11/15/2016 at 1:40 PM, monoccular said:

Nathan Buckley:"Eddie. I will be a great coach"

:-)

Buckley would probably clock him!!

[Willmoy1947 3,790]

21 hours ago, sue said:

rubbed out for 6 months according to abc

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-15/gws-lachie-whitfield-suspended-for-six-months-for-doping-breach/8027120

The goose apologised to everyone,

 

18 hours ago, RalphiusMaximus said:

So he's able to start playing again in April?  He misses maybe six rounds?  Great work AFL.  Way to show a hard line on drug issues. 

except his girlfriend, for "saving his life"

[Lucifers Hero 37,173]

This article makes my head hurt: http://www.theage.com.au/afl/right-result-but-lachie-whitfield-case-is-afl-chief-gillon-mclachlans-tanking-moment-20161115-gsq79n.html 

For example:  The AFL's release on the case on Tuesday makes for the same sort of paradox as the AFL's punishment of Melbourne for doing something, just not tanking. Whatever you wanted to say about Melbourne they didn't tank – because tanking didn't exist. They did something, we are not quite sure what, but it was not tanking...

...The AFL's statement reads like the tanking finding: the trio were suspended for long periods not for evading drug testers, but for what exactly?

Gil has learnt well the pragmatism of Machiavelli - 'the end justifies the means'! 

Edited November 16, 2016 by Lucifer's Hero

[Mazer Rackham 14,970]

1 hour ago, Lucifer's Hero said:

Gil has learnt well the pragmatism of Machiavelli - 'the end justifies the means'! 

Even as the EFC drug scandal unfolded, it seemed to me that the MFC "not tanking" drama had been a trial run for the AFL.

They were able to hone their skills in investigating/not investigating, punishing/not punishing, and giving backhanded rewards.

And, if they had had their way, there would have been no investigation at all and therefore nothing to ensue.

You have to wonder, how many dramas have they been able to cover up entirely over the years?

[faultydet 7,593]

3 minutes ago, Ted Fidge said:

Even as the EFC drug scandal unfolded, it seemed to me that the MFC "not tanking" drama had been a trial run for the AFL.

They were able to hone their skills in investigating/not investigating, punishing/not punishing, and giving backhanded rewards.

And, if they had had their way, there would have been no investigation at all and therefore nothing to ensue.

You have to wonder, how many dramas have they been able to cover up entirely over the years?

I look at every medium/long term "injury" to one of the afl's high profile party boys with great suspicion.

The code we follow is like the wonderful world of pro boxing or horse racing. Never been a fix in those codes either. Meanwhile, the upper echelon rich suck down their mighty Havana cigars, and chortle among themselves at the insipid outsiders.

[Satyriconhome 9,986]

10 hours ago, Chris said:

He misses 8 weeks or so, but still a joke. Saad also bought the drink and drank it, he was done for a positive urine test, he also only got 18 months. You may be thinking of Wade Lees who bought a powder from overseas, never even received the package and yet was banned for 2 years for intent. The banned substance in his case was one ingredient within a protein powder from memory. 

You mean inconsistency over a ban for drugs in sport, never, I am shocked

[Chris 2,892]

4 minutes ago, Satyriconhome said:

You mean inconsistency over a ban for drugs in sport, never, I am shocked

And all bought about by the inept AFL Saty, not ASADA. just so you know, ASADA appealed the Saad ban due to it not being 2 years and lost at the AFL, unsurprisingly, they banned Lees for 2 years, they banned the dons for 2 years, and depending on who you read they may or may not have signed off on the Whitfield 6 months. 

Seems pretty consistent to me. 

[Satyriconhome 9,986]

1 minute ago, Chris said:

And all bought about by the inept AFL Saty, not ASADA. just so you know, ASADA appealed the Saad ban due to it not being 2 years and lost at the AFL, unsurprisingly, they banned Lees for 2 years, they banned the dons for 2 years, and depending on who you read they may or may not have signed off on the Whitfield 6 months. 

Seems pretty consistent to me. 

It's not the time but the crime with the inconsistency, if they agreed to a six month ban, why, when it is 4 years

[Mazer Rackham 14,970]

5 minutes ago, faultydet said:

I look at every medium/long term "injury" to one of the afl's high profile party boys with great suspicion.

Yarran. Buddy. Heretier.

5 minutes ago, faultydet said:

The code we follow is like the wonderful world of pro boxing or horse racing. Never been a fix in those codes either. Meanwhile, the upper echelon rich suck down their mighty Havana cigars, and chortle among themselves at the insipid outsiders.

You have to be clumsy, a la Fine Cotton, to get caught.

Even when not clumsy ....drenching on race day as an example. The trainer of some 20+ years experience says, oh, can't you do that? It was an inadvertent mistake. Won't happen again (until next time). Steward says, fair enough. On your bike.

Damian Oliver. Bets on a horse that he's not riding, in a race he's competing in. 20 grand. Turns out it was the first and only time he's done that. How unlucky to get caught that one and only time! Then the stewards bend over to "negotiate" his penalty so he can ride in the spring carnival.

The nags are so crooked it amazes me that anyone punts on them at all.

The AFL must avoid drifting down that same path, even to the slightest degree, at all cost. We must be able to believe what we see.

[Chris 2,892]

2 hours ago, Satyriconhome said:

It's not the time but the crime with the inconsistency, if they agreed to a six month ban, why, when it is 4 years

If ASADA did agree to this I would be scratching my head too. I am not sure they have as no official statement has been seen mentioning them involved in the 6 months, the onlt mention is from some Journos while others said otherwise. 

Along with AFL banning them for nothing a they aren't actually charged with anything really, I am always very sus on AFL statements like this as they like to push others into their mold. 

edit: removed an email address Mt evil phone put in there. 

Edited November 16, 2016 by Chris

[Mazer Rackham 14,970]

3 minutes ago, Chris said:

Along with AFL banning them for nothing a they aren't actually charged with anything really, I am always very [email protected] on AFL statements like this as they like to push others into their mold. 

Surely not Susan? Don't tell me she's in on the fix as well!

First Trump, now Susan. What can a man believe in any more?

[rjay 23,927]

22 minutes ago, Chris said:

If ASADA did agree to this I would be scratching my head too. I am not sure they have as no official statement has been seen mentioning them involved in the 6 months, the onlt mention is from some Journos while others said otherwise. 

Along with AFL banning them for nothing a they aren't actually charged with anything really, I am always very [email protected] on AFL statements like this as they like to push others into their mold. 

It looks like they have 'Chris', they're not above doing deals.

They were certainly offering the EFC a let out and Cronulla took one.

I'm in no way a fan of the AFL but this has ASADA written all over it...

[Willmoy1947 3,790]

WADA wouldn't be that busy at the moment and they love a good sniff around.

[Whispering_Jack 28,007]

On 15 November 2016 at 0:32 PM, Choke said:

OK, so it's been reported that the Giants may lose drafts picks in this year's draft.

They have picks 2, 15, 37, 39, 45, 52, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 77, 109

So, let's say they lose 15 and 37, which I think has been mooted by some papers.

My questions is this - given the new requirement that you can only go to the draft with the number of list spots available, would this take into account the lost picks?

So if they have 6 open list slots (I don't know, just guessing), they would be able to use 2, 15, 37, 39, 45, 52 with no sanctions. If sanctioned as above, does this become 2, 39, 45, 52?

Or 2, 39, 45, 52, 57, 58?

One results in GWS retaining more currency for academy picks than the other.

My head hurts.

If they were to lose picks 15 and 37 then they would have picks 2, 39, 45, 52, 55, 57, 58, 59, 60, 77, 109, 127 and 145.

This would most likely have the effect of forcing GWS into points deficit next year but they would still be able to get most of the academy members they want to select.

I somehow think however, that with GWS' threats of legal action against any sanctions, nothing will happen to the AFL's pet project.