On 19/10/2016 at 06:52, Diamond_Jim said:

4 years for stupidity .... and the magnificent 34 got off with one season for participating in an uncontrolled drug festival..... where's the balance

Well, those guys are all "good blokes," of course.

  On 20/10/2016 at 22:17, Choke said:

Maybe that's why the loaded up with 11 draft picks.

If they're kicked out of the first 2 rounds, they still have picks/points to bid on their academy players.

It's not like the AFL can fine them. They're a franchise club. It'd be like moving the money from your left to your right pocket.

So what does that realistically leave in terms of penalties?

Choke that's the perfect penalty from the AFL $5million dollars. Wow huge penalty, will need a loan from the AFL to pay it. That will teach them. ASADA will never work it out. 

Do the AFL think everyone is as dumb & corrupt as them? (rhetorical)

  On 20/10/2016 at 23:40, ManDee said:

Choke that's the perfect penalty from the AFL $5million dollars. Wow huge penalty, will need a loan from the AFL to pay it. That will teach them. ASADA will never work it out. 

Do the AFL think everyone is as dumb & corrupt as them? (rhetorical)

Ah of course! I'm sorry I had it the wrong way around.

Thanks for the correction. I'm not sure what I was thinking, assuming the AFL wanted an ACTUAL penalty.

  On 05/09/2016 at 21:32, monoccular said:

Does anyone really doubt that Ben Cousins running all day like a maniac in that GF years ago (did he win the NS Medal?) was not 'enhanced' by speed or a similar substance?   IF the AFL had taken and kept specimens from all players in that GF, and subjected them to testing, I wonder what the result would be and how they would have handled it?  Personal opinion is that it would be swept under a pile of rugs. Too hard to rescind a Premiership.

So, yes it is the AFL's business, and it should be taken seriously.

Drugs taken on gameday are classed as PED's so a positive test on gameday IS the AFL's business.

Drugs taken out of competition are not PED's and are NOT the AFL's business.

  On 21/10/2016 at 00:59, Dr. Gonzo said:

Drugs taken on gameday are classed as PED's so a positive test on gameday IS the AFL's business.

Drugs taken out of competition are not PED's and are NOT the AFL's business.

I agree.

However from my understanding of the rules, if someone avoids an illicit drug test, it's assumed that they have avoided a performance enhancing drug test, and the penalty is therefore harsh. Is that right? I'm pretty sure that's what happened here and that's why Whitfield is in so much trouble.

  On 21/10/2016 at 00:59, Dr. Gonzo said:

Drugs taken on gameday are classed as PED's so a positive test on gameday IS the AFL's business.

Drugs taken out of competition are not PED's and are NOT the AFL's business.

Steriods? I presume you mean recreational drugs.

The issue is avoiding testing which may uncover PED's.

  On 21/10/2016 at 00:59, Dr. Gonzo said:

Drugs taken on gameday are classed as PED's so a positive test on gameday IS the AFL's business.

Drugs taken out of competition are not PED's and are NOT the AFL's business.

Wrong.

It's in the rules, so it undeniably IS their business.

I'm happy to see the players tested every week. Weed out the druggos

  On 21/10/2016 at 03:52, faultydet said:

Weed out the druggos

Good luck with that. 

  On 21/10/2016 at 03:52, faultydet said:

Wrong.

It's in the rules, so it undeniably IS their business.

I'm happy to see the players tested every week. Weed out the druggos

Not quite right, faulty. I assumed the same as you but had a look and the rules only refer to PEDs and the ASADA code. And the ASADA code only involves recreational drugs to the extent that they might be performance enhancing. The AFL only has a recreational drugs 'policy' which the players are expected to sign up to but which, even when they do, they can drive a truck through. 

  On 05/09/2016 at 21:32, monoccular said:

Does anyone really doubt that Ben Cousins running all day like a maniac in that GF years ago (did he win the NS Medal?) was not 'enhanced' by speed or a similar substance?   IF the AFL had taken and kept specimens from all players in that GF, and subjected them to testing, I wonder what the result would be and how they would have handled it?  Personal opinion is that it would be swept under a pile of rugs. Too hard to rescind a Premiership.

So, yes it is the AFL's business, and it should be taken seriously.

I will never forget being at that game and the extraordinary difference between Cousins pre- and post- half time that it was breathtaking on the day

fearless,tireless,superhuman, etc etc.

Must have been a good coach's address at the break is what I'm thinking 

  On 21/10/2016 at 00:59, Dr. Gonzo said:

Drugs taken out of competition are not PED's and are NOT the AFL's business.

Drug testing is the AFL's business. If someone undertakes a course of action intent upon avoiding a drug test, then such action is also the AFL's business and moreover, if officials of that player's club act in collusion with such avoidance then it is clearly an issue of the AFL's reputation and very much the AFL's business. 

  On 22/10/2016 at 00:16, Whispering_Jack said:

Drug testing is the AFL's business. If someone undertakes a course of action intent upon avoiding a drug test, then such action is also the AFL's business and moreover, if officials of that player's club act in collusion with such avoidance then it is clearly an issue of the AFL's reputation and very much the AFL's business. 

More than that, it is ASADA's and / or WADA's business too.

Deliberately avoiding a drug test is taken as the equivalent of failing one.

  On 22/10/2016 at 00:16, Whispering_Jack said:

Drug testing is the AFL's business. If someone undertakes a course of action intent upon avoiding a drug test, then such action is also the AFL's business and moreover, if officials of that player's club act in collusion with such avoidance then it is clearly an issue of the AFL's reputation and very much the AFL's business. 

I understand that. I'm saying morally if a person takes recreational drugs it is not the AFL's business. Of course PED's are and drugs taken on match day. Other than that the afl shouldn't be bothered concerning themselves with it for a number of reasons. Most of all is because it doesn't work. Dane Swan, never failed a drug test. Ben Cousins, never failed a drug test. Not very effective...

It continues:

Caroline Wilson with some huge news on Lachie Whitfield, Graeme Allan and Craig Lambert

"Caroline Wilson said on 3AW "highly incriminating" text messages sent by Whitfield to his former partner had formed part of the investigation.

"Some unbelievable evidence has come to light," she said on Sports Today.

"I have absolutely no doubt there will be a lengthy suspension."

Apparently there is now a claim to the affect that the texts to his girlfriend were a "lie".

Let's see the evidence but if the case against these characters is proved then it amounts to a further condemnation of the AFL. The news first broke before the finals and relates to events that took place and were known to them well before then. Whitfield should not have been allowed to play in the finals in the face of these allegations.

  On 24/10/2016 at 08:13, Whispering_Jack said:

Let's see the evidence but if the case against these characters is proved then it amounts to a further condemnation of the AFL. The news first broke before the finals and relates to events that took place and were known to them well before then. Whitfield should not have been allowed to play in the finals in the face of these allegations.

The incident occurred a year previously didn't it? And was only brought to light because the girlfriend was peeved that nothing was being done about it? After Caro broke the story the AFL hastily put out a release saying they had been looking at it.......

Its a farce as usual.

  On 24/10/2016 at 07:59, Diamond_Jim said:

It continues:

http://www.3aw.com.au/news/caroline-wilson-with-some-huge-news-on-lachie-whitfield-graeme-allan-and-craig-lambert-20161024-gs9l0j.html

"Caroline Wilson said on 3AW "highly incriminating" text messages sent by Whitfield to his former partner had formed part of the investigation.

"Some unbelievable evidence has come to light," she said on Sports Today.

"I have absolutely no doubt there will be a lengthy suspension."

Apparently there is now a claim to the affect that the texts to his girlfriend were a "lie".

This is a continuation of that Wilson report http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/giant-lachie-whitfield-claims-drug-texts-a-ruse-as-afl-antidoping-charges-loom-20161024-gs9k94.html

It seems the 3 culprits claim it was all a ruse to fool Whitfield's then girlfriend.  I would have to say that they could have concocted something far more convincing.  Key points from the article:

• Whitfield, Graeme Allan and Craig Lambert are all facing lengthy suspensions as it emerges that ASADA has formed the view that the trio breached the game's anti-doping code...which draws a maximum four-year penalty.
• The AFL remains determined that any outcome will be reached with ASADA's approval.
• While the AFL do not believe the incident warrants a four-year suspension for Whitfield, a former No. 1 draft pick, nor Allan and Lambert; Gillon McLachlan and his team remain highly tuned to the views of the national anti-doping authority.

It looks like the AFL are taking this seriously and working with ASADA this time on deciding the penalties. 

The good thing is that support staff are now caught in the ASADA net and it is not just the player(s) penalised.  Allen and Lambert will go down with Whitfield unlike all the wrongdoers at Essendon. 

 

  On 24/10/2016 at 07:59, Diamond_Jim said:

Apparently there is now a claim to the affect that the texts to his girlfriend were a "lie".

You're not wrong. It seems that Lachie was simply trying to hide from his crazy girlfriend! Wow, context can explain everything.

Giant Lachie Whitfield claims 'drug' texts a ruse as AFL anti-doping charges loom

I suppose that also explains why Lachie missed the round 7 match against Carlton. In case his girlfriend tried to run onto the ground and force him to propose.

  On 24/10/2016 at 08:19, jnrmac said:

The incident occurred a year previously didn't it? And was only brought to light because the girlfriend was peeved that nothing was being done about it? After Caro broke the story the AFL hastily put out a release saying they had been looking at it.......

Its a farce as usual.

And the farce is being added to by ASADA who now start jumping up and down, why weren't they jumping up and down when they couldn't find him for the testing, as I have put in previous posts, they are amateurs and only justify their existence by either accident or somebody dobbing in, as in this case

  On 24/10/2016 at 08:28, Satyriconhome said:

And the farce is being added to by ASADA who now start jumping up and down, why weren't they jumping up and down when they couldn't find him for the testing, as I have put in previous posts, they are amateurs and only justify their existence by either accident or somebody dobbing in, as in this case

They didn't go looking.

Whitfield hid IN CASE they went looking.

As ever, the cover up is ten times worse than the original offence.

But feel free to continue bagging ASADA based on nothing. They could use a break.

  On 24/10/2016 at 08:32, Ted Fidge said:

They didn't go looking.

Whitfield hid IN CASE they went looking.

As ever, the cover up is ten times worse than the original offence.

But feel free to continue bagging ASADA based on nothing. They could use a break.

I will continue bagging, because in my opinion all the drug agencies are useless, they are typical of any quasi government organisation, all wind and [censored]

  On 24/10/2016 at 08:32, Ted Fidge said:

They didn't go looking.

Whitfield hid IN CASE they went looking.

As ever, the cover up is ten times worse than the original offence.

But feel free to continue bagging ASADA based on nothing. They could use a break.

Gold.

all these years and they never raised this before, must have all forgotten, now all remember. And just to make sure the girlfriend believed them they deleted all other emails and correspondence that the girlfriend didnt know about, just to make it looked like a coverup and not look like he was avoiding her.. Wow these guys are real strategists, I  can see why eddie wanted allen. Colingwood has a lot of players with 'girlfriend' trouble.

  On 24/10/2016 at 08:32, Ted Fidge said:

They didn't go looking.

Whitfield hid IN CASE they went looking.

As ever, the cover up is ten times worse than the original offence.

But feel free to continue bagging ASADA based on nothing. They could use a break.

Bingo.

He wasn't on the tester's radar at that moment. But the fact he was hiding in the event he was to be tested will be looked at very harshly. Blaming ASADA for this situation is unfounded and simplistic.  

  On 24/10/2016 at 08:36, Satyriconhome said:

I will continue bagging,

Well at least you got that right.