Lachie Whitfield under investigation

[monoccular 16,042]

On 15 November 2016 at 9:14 PM, 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. 

And a way for gutless Gil to avoid making a "hard decision" yet again.

I really hope that ASADA and WADA dig their heels in this time, and demand the full monty.

Not wishing Whitfield harm in a personal way, but sure as hell hoping that ASADA / WADA can really get stuck into the pathetic "leadership" (LOL) of the AFL old boys' club.

[Chris 2,892]

1 hour ago, Ted Fidge said:

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?

My f#ing phone keeps doing that. I don't even know who Susan is!

[Mazer Rackham 14,969]

2 minutes ago, Chris said:

My f#ing phone keeps doing that. I don't even know who Susan is!

Sure, Chris. It "went rogue", did it? I suppose Susan "duped" you?

Four years of this has clued us in to all the tricks.

[daisycutter 28,485]

54 minutes ago, Whispering_Jack said:

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. 

they would sue themselves? priceless

[Rodney (Balls) Grinter 10,579]

13 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

There is also inconstancy in the logic for Whitfield's reduced ban.  In quotes I've heard from Gill, he states to the effect that Whitfield is less capable, because as a young person, he was lead by senior figures at the club - this defence did nothing for the Essendon players, even though as I understand it some challenged the club and sought assurances that they were not contravening the banned substances.  Whitefield must have known what he was doing was clearly wrong, he is an adult, not a child and should not be given the soft touch he was.

Saad is the one I feel most sorry out of all this.  The AFL effectively ended his career over what I think was most likely to be an honest mistake.  Even if Whitfield was suspended for the 18momths Saad was it is actually unlikely it would be as career ending.

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

16 hours 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 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. 

Just what is ASADA's responsibility in all this? 

https://www.asada.gov.au/news/blog-setting-record-straight-asada-and-afl-s-illicit-drugs-policy

Added: ASADA enters the picture if Whitfield's test evasions are also regarded as evading PEDs testing under the ASADA code. I presume that falls to ASADA to decide, but has it done so yet? 

[Chris 2,892]

56 minutes ago, Dr John Dee said:

Just what is ASADA's responsibility in all this? 

https://www.asada.gov.au/news/blog-setting-record-straight-asada-and-afl-s-illicit-drugs-policy

Added: ASADA enters the picture if Whitfield's test evasions are also regarded as evading PEDs testing under the ASADA code. I presume that falls to ASADA to decide, but has it done so yet? 

ASADA's role is pretty clear, they come in whenever there is a breach, or suspected breach of the anti-doping code. What should happen, but due to the idiots running the sport doesn't, is that the AFL should simply hand over what they know to ASADA and help ASADA wherever requested. ASADA then investigate and determine if a breach has occurred and then the defined process is followed, as it was with the EFC boys. 

What the AFL seem to think happens is they give ASADA some of the info, then blame ASADA for delays, then ban people for things other than anti-doping in order to try and save face. 

In terms of the Whitfield case, yes it is a potential anti-doping violation and as such should be handled by ASADA. The last comment I saw from ASADA was a week or so back when they said they were yet to receive all the information they requested from the AFL. They stated that until they had this information and time to work through it that they would not be able to make a determination in this case (sounds fair enough). 

The AFL have since banned Whitfield and the others on charges that are not anti-doping related (just like punishing the dons for non anti doping things to try and get ASADA of their case). Some have reported ASADA agreed to the bans but one of them was Robbo so I give that little weight, others have been far more on the fence in terms of ASADA's involvement. It was reported that Whitfield and the others would only agree once ASADA said they wouldn't pursue it further, again who knows how true this is, and even if ASADA do agree to that there is nothing stopping WADA coming in over the top of them all at some point. 

I would give it until either ASADA say they have agreed to this, or we are another few months down the track before I  would be confident of what ASADA have or have not done in this case. 

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

4 minutes ago, Chris said:

ASADA's role is pretty clear ...

Thanks Chris, so is your explanation. 

[Dwight Schrute 16,749]

10 minutes ago, Chris said:

ASADA's role is pretty clear, they come in whenever there is a breach, or suspected breach of the anti-doping code. What should happen, but due to the idiots running the sport doesn't, is that the AFL should simply hand over what they know to ASADA and help ASADA wherever requested. ASADA then investigate and determine if a breach has occurred and then the defined process is followed, as it was with the EFC boys. 

What the AFL seem to think happens is they give ASADA some of the info, then blame ASADA for delays, then ban people for things other than anti-doping in order to try and save face. 

In terms of the Whitfield case, yes it is a potential anti-doping violation and as such should be handled by ASADA. The last comment I saw from ASADA was a week or so back when they said they were yet to receive all the information they requested from the AFL. They stated that until they had this information and time to work through it that they would not be able to make a determination in this case (sounds fair enough). 

The AFL have since banned Whitfield and the others on charges that are not anti-doping related (just like punishing the dons for non anti doping things to try and get ASADA of their case). Some have reported ASADA agreed to the bans but one of them was Robbo so I give that little weight, others have been far more on the fence in terms of ASADA's involvement. It was reported that Whitfield and the others would only agree once ASADA said they wouldn't pursue it further, again who knows how true this is, and even if ASADA do agree to that there is nothing stopping WADA coming in over the top of them all at some point. 

I would give it until either ASADA say they have agreed to this, or we are another few months down the track before I  would be confident of what ASADA have or have not done in this case. 

In my opinion the GIANTS should do what you've suggested and the AFL should have very little involvement at all until the relevant parties have determined what happened.

ASADA investigate, working with the Giants to ensure there are no breaches and pass the information back to the Giants and the AFL, if after all that it's deemed there needs to be a sanction, they work through it, but until that has happened i'd say it's between the Giants and ASADA. 

The AFL need to take a lesson from PJ, the best management teams are not seen or heard, they pull strings in the background, the AFL are way to involved and always protecting the bottom line.

[Willmoy1947 3,769]

The ex would have a pretty good idea of what was being consumed. That said, the interviews would have to have been taped between her and appropriate bodies and him and appropriate bodies. Not over by a long shot in my opinion

[rjay 23,888]

1 hour ago, Chris said:

ASADA's role is pretty clear, they come in whenever there is a breach, or suspected breach of the anti-doping code. What should happen, but due to the idiots running the sport doesn't, is that the AFL should simply hand over what they know to ASADA and help ASADA wherever requested. ASADA then investigate and determine if a breach has occurred and then the defined process is followed, as it was with the EFC boys. 

What the AFL seem to think happens is they give ASADA some of the info, then blame ASADA for delays, then ban people for things other than anti-doping in order to try and save face. 

In terms of the Whitfield case, yes it is a potential anti-doping violation and as such should be handled by ASADA. The last comment I saw from ASADA was a week or so back when they said they were yet to receive all the information they requested from the AFL. They stated that until they had this information and time to work through it that they would not be able to make a determination in this case (sounds fair enough). 

The AFL have since banned Whitfield and the others on charges that are not anti-doping related (just like punishing the dons for non anti doping things to try and get ASADA of their case). Some have reported ASADA agreed to the bans but one of them was Robbo so I give that little weight, others have been far more on the fence in terms of ASADA's involvement. It was reported that Whitfield and the others would only agree once ASADA said they wouldn't pursue it further, again who knows how true this is, and even if ASADA do agree to that there is nothing stopping WADA coming in over the top of them all at some point. 

I would give it until either ASADA say they have agreed to this, or we are another few months down the track before I  would be confident of what ASADA have or have not done in this case. 

'Chris' can you provide a link to this comment?

 I believe it was made by Roy Masters/Caroline Wilson in an article and not by ASADA.

[Chris 2,892]

1 hour ago, Abe said:

In my opinion the GIANTS should do what you've suggested and the AFL should have very little involvement at all until the relevant parties have determined what happened.

ASADA investigate, working with the Giants to ensure there are no breaches and pass the information back to the Giants and the AFL, if after all that it's deemed there needs to be a sanction, they work through it, but until that has happened i'd say it's between the Giants and ASADA. 

The AFL need to take a lesson from PJ, the best management teams are not seen or heard, they pull strings in the background, the AFL are way to involved and always protecting the bottom line.

I disagree they should work with the club, the club is the one with the greatest vested interest. The AFL should act as the leader of the league and deal with ASADA and tell the clubs what is required. 

[Chris 2,892]

32 minutes ago, rjay said:

'Chris' can you provide a link to this comment?

 I believe it was made by Roy Masters/Caroline Wilson in an article and not by ASADA.

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-11-08/asada-waits-on-afl-regarding-whitfield-case

From within linked article. 

"Now, later on Tuesday, the anti-doping watchdog told AFL.com.au that it's League headquarters holding things up. 

"On 31 October 2016, ASADA asked the AFL for its full investigation file, which we are still awaiting," an ASADA spokesperson told AFL.com.au.

"Because the potential consequences for individuals are so serious, it is important that ASADA considers all relevant material before any decision is made about whether to take forward possible anti-doping rule violations.   

"In this case, as the information was collected as a part of an AFL investigation, due diligence requires ASADA to assess all evidence collected in its entirety."

 

That was written on the 8th of November. Whitfeild was banned on the 15th or so. Big call for ASADA to go from not having the info to signing off on bans in a week!

[beelzebub 22,225]

1 hour ago, Chris said:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-11-08/asada-waits-on-afl-regarding-whitfield-case

From within linked article. 

"Now, later on Tuesday, the anti-doping watchdog told AFL.com.au that it's League headquarters holding things up. 

"On 31 October 2016, ASADA asked the AFL for its full investigation file, which we are still awaiting," an ASADA spokesperson told AFL.com.au.

"Because the potential consequences for individuals are so serious, it is important that ASADA considers all relevant material before any decision is made about whether to take forward possible anti-doping rule violations.   

"In this case, as the information was collected as a part of an AFL investigation, due diligence requires ASADA to assess all evidence collected in its entirety."

 

That was written on the 8th of November. Whitfeild was banned on the 15th or so. Big call for ASADA to go from not having the info to signing off on bans in a week!

Pure conjecture from here, but where is there any mention of ASADA actually signing off on this ?  AFAIK  they were still to receive the full brief !!  Sounds to me more like the AFL's dodgy sleight of hand. Gill's Dill's hoping no-one saw nor understood what they just did 

[rjay 23,888]

1 hour ago, beelzebub said:

Pure conjecture from here, but where is there any mention of ASADA actually signing off on this ?  AFAIK  they were still to receive the full brief !!  Sounds to me more like the AFL's dodgy sleight of hand. Gill's Dill's hoping no-one saw nor understood what they just did 

Yes....

McLachlan said the bans came with the approval of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority, even though all parties had escaped sanction under the AFL Anti-Doping Code.

Now, I'm not a big Dill fan but even he wouldn't come out with this statement if it wasn't true.

Maybe time to put the conspiracy theory to bed on this one. If anyone has a problem (I think Whitfield has been treated to leniently by the way) then start laying the blame at ASADA, not the AFL.

[Willmoy1947 3,769]

2 hours ago, beelzebub said:

Pure conjecture from here, but where is there any mention of ASADA actually signing off on this ?  AFAIK  they were still to receive the full brief !!  Sounds to me more like the AFL's dodgy sleight of hand. Gill's Dill's hoping no-one saw nor understood what they just did 

Me thinketh he use-eth hand too much....

 

38 minutes ago, rjay said:

Yes....

McLachlan said the bans came with the approval of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority, even though all parties had escaped sanction under the AFL Anti-Doping Code.

Now, I'm not a big Dill fan but even he wouldn't come out with this statement if it wasn't true.

Maybe time to put the conspiracy theory to bed on this one. If anyone has a problem (I think Whitfield has been treated to leniently by the way) then start laying the blame at ASADA, not the AFL.

Haven't seen this bloke say TWSNBN were guilty lately....

[beelzebub 22,225]

53 minutes ago, rjay said:

Yes....

McLachlan said the bans came with the approval of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority, even though all parties had escaped sanction under the AFL Anti-Doping Code.

Now, I'm not a big Dill fan but even he wouldn't come out with this statement if it wasn't true.

Maybe time to put the conspiracy theory to bed on this one. If anyone has a problem (I think Whitfield has been treated to leniently by the way) then start laying the blame at ASADA, not the AFL.

rjay..Ive not seen him quoted as such anywhere...Not saying he hasn't I just havent seen it yet

here  the AFL Statement on Lachie     it's not mentioned either. Odd I think if as you say it has ASADA's blessing.

I wait ..cheers

[Chris 2,892]

1 hour ago, rjay said:

Yes....

McLachlan said the bans came with the approval of the Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority, even though all parties had escaped sanction under the AFL Anti-Doping Code.

Now, I'm not a big Dill fan but even he wouldn't come out with this statement if it wasn't true.

Maybe time to put the conspiracy theory to bed on this one. If anyone has a problem (I think Whitfield has been treated to leniently by the way) then start laying the blame at ASADA, not the AFL.

Do you have a link to this? I have read Robbo saying it and a couple of others but it is never attributed to anyone. If true then I would be disappointed in ASADA unless they explained why, and even then I still may be. 

[rjay 23,888]

29 minutes ago, Chris said:

Do you have a link to this? I have read Robbo saying it and a couple of others but it is never attributed to anyone. If true then I would be disappointed in ASADA unless they explained why, and even then I still may be. 

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-11-15/afl-gives-whitfield-a-sixmonth-ban

It's in this article 'Chris'

I think we put ASADA on a pedestal where they shouldn't be...remember they were willing to do a deal on EFC. Hird was the sticking point, he didn't want to be the fall guy.

The AFL and it's people have learned their lessons well, make sure the deal is done and don't go to court. Done and dusted...

[Chris 2,892]

5 minutes ago, rjay said:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-11-15/afl-gives-whitfield-a-sixmonth-ban

It's in this article 'Chris'

I think we put ASADA on a pedestal where they shouldn't be...remember they were willing to do a deal on EFC. Hird was the sticking point, he didn't want to be the fall guy.

The AFL and it's people have learned their lessons well, make sure the deal is done and don't go to court. Done and dusted...

Thanks. Interesting it still isn't quoted, means nothing but normally you would directly quote them. 

Am disappointed ASADA let this not be a doping violation, unless they did look into it and their case didn't stand up. Who knows, would love to hear from Ben. 

By the way the ' around my name aren't needed, it is actually my name. 

[Willmoy1947 3,769]

"He did not specifically get asked to do a test" the mind boggles. Ben doesn't get rushed into things. He likes his meat well done.....

[Dr John Dee 1,057]

12 hours ago, Chris said:

Do you have a link to this? I have read Robbo saying it and a couple of others but it is never attributed to anyone. If true then I would be disappointed in ASADA unless they explained why, and even then I still may be. 

Gill is quoted later in the article though: 'Asked if there was a chance ASADA would challenge the bans, McLachlan said: "I wouldn’t be announcing this if I didn’t feel there was agreement with ASADA."' of course 'if I didn't feel' are the sorts of weasel words that allow all sorts of escapes if required later.

11 hours ago, rjay said:

http://www.afl.com.au/news/2016-11-15/afl-gives-whitfield-a-sixmonth-ban

It's in this article 'Chris'

I think we put ASADA on a pedestal where they shouldn't be...remember they were willing to do a deal on EFC. Hird was the sticking point, he didn't want to be the fall guy.

The AFL and it's people have learned their lessons well, make sure the deal is done and don't go to court. Done and dusted...

I'm not sure too many people put them 'on a pedestal' rjay. Most positive comment has been about the kind of job they've been able to do given how substantially underfunded they are and (in the Essendon case) without sufficient powers to obtain the sort of evidence they needed. The latter has been addressed by an amendment to the ASADA Act but the former won't change in a hurry.

Without the capacity for a 'cost no object' investigation it's inevitable they'll do deals where it at least allows a guilty finding. They did with Cronulla, entirely pragmatically. And a deal with Essendon would at least have foreclosed on the eternal whining (which Watson continued even as he handed back the medal) about how the players really didn't do anything wrong. However unsatisfactory any resultant penalties might have seemed to many of us, the players (and Essendon) would at least have had to own their misdeeds.

But,as you say, along came James.

 

 

[beelzebub 22,225]

Funny choice of words " feel like there was agreement with ASADA " 

Either there IS or its imagined ?

Must be the "vibe" 

[Mazer Rackham 14,969]

Gil's just getting in out front of the PR curve

Setting the agenda

He's negotiating with ASADA in public

 

But ASADA aren't ... they're wildcards ... Ben McDevitt has a lean and hungry look.

[Chris 2,892]

1 hour ago, beelzebub said:

Funny choice of words " feel like there was agreement with ASADA " 

Either there IS or its imagined ?

Must be the "vibe" 

Is a very funny choice of words. Surely even Dill isn't silly enough to not have an agreement such as this in writing! Than again he just may be.