Lachie Whitfield under investigation

[Bay Riffin 1,479]

31 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

I don't believe that being an athlete means you should give up your rights to make silly decisions such as taking illicit drugs like so many of the population have done foolishly. Sure there's consequences but the potential 2 or 4 year bans don't fit the crime. 

If it were a Melbourne player would anywhere here want such a serious ban for a player who took illicit drugs and then tried to cover it on the very small chance they were caught with some trace amount of PED?

Bearing in mind that I'm very confident that most if not all of the players on Melbourne's list have tried some form of illicit drug at some stage.

I want a clear rule, if you cover it up and avoid drug testing, the maximum penalty applies. I can't see any other way to govern this.

 

so if a Dees player does that, then bang they have to go.

[Gorgoroth 13,016]

50 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

It is hard to say no to drugs. 

Half of Australia has an alcohol problem. 

A huge percentage of young Australians have tried some form of illicit drug. 

It's easy to say there should be zero tolerance and to make sacrifices but it just isn't going to happen in reality. So when people do slip up I'd rather them not be banned for long periods. That's the basis of the AFL's illicit drug policy that despite the negative press has actually prevented any further players slipping in to Ben Cousin's style trouble.

Crap. At 16 I decided to give myself the best chance at playing AFL. I stopped smoking dope and drinking alcohol. I still went out, still had fun with mates. Only in the last year (I'm 39) have I started drinking a couple of drinks regulary.

This whole peer pressure thing is a cop out. It's an out. I had Mates taking drugs, getting high etc I had plenty offered to me but all I said was "no"

Whitfield could have self reported but he tried to be clever. It's backfired.  Consequences are imminent. 

Edited October 25, 2016 by Gorgoroth
Spelling

[beelzebub 23,382]

1 hour ago, DeeSpencer said:

I feel so sorry for Whitfield, just as I do those Collingwood players. 

I hope there's someway for this to get sorted without him copping a lengthy ban when we don't even know if he took anything performance enhancing and had absolutely no intention to take anything performance enhancing. He took unverified substances and panicked.  

Not as much empathy for the former GWS officials.

taking the plss...surely

[RalphiusMaximus 6,088]

I have absolutely no sympathy for Whitfield.  He has no excuses.  They are educated on drugs and the WADA code right through their junior football and after they are drafted.  These kids occupy a position of unbelievable privilege when they go to AFL clubs.  They are paid well above the average wage to do nothing but exercise and play the game they love.  They are told right from the start that part of the payoff for that privilege is that they can't take drugs.  These are the actions of a spoiled narcissistic brat who doesn't have the faintest idea how lucky he is or any appreciation for the work other people have put in to get him there.  I say throw the book at him. 

[Cards13 9,117]

6 hours ago, Choke said:

I feel sorry for Sammi Nowland.

She does not deserve the [censored] that will be unloaded on her if Whitfield is banned.

I had exhausted my supply of vomit bags during the EFC saga (I have a couple left for when Jobe is allowed to keep his medal though), but will now need to order another truck load.

The AFL is actively making it difficult for me to follow the sport I love.

Was disappointed with Ox this morning, they were discussing it with Galbally and Ox asked him how often dois a relationship split cause issues to come out in court during his career. Leech pulled it up pretty quick and said this situation looks like it arose from her genuine concern for his wellbeing but it was a terrible response to an issue Whitfield, Lambert and Allen created on their own.

[Satyriconhome 10,879]

3 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Your initial post clearly showed you do NOT understand how these things work. How is a drug agency supposed to know if a player is hiding from them to avoid a test they haven't even planned because he took drugs and feared they may be laced with PED's?

Too many cheerleaders willing to forgive cheats and misdirect their anger at those who penalised them. A lot of people need to grow up and realise their footy heroes aren't infallible.

Oh I don't know,  check their records and see he wasn't tested? You're now apologizing for their consistent incompetence 

My opinion drugs are in all sports, they are always one step ahead of the agencies

They only "victories' they have is when they are handed to to them on a plate

[DeeSpencer 26,080]

1 hour ago, Gorgoroth said:

Crap. At 16 I decided to give myself the best chance at playing AFL. I stopped smoking dope and drinking alcohol. I still went out, still had fun with mates. Only in the last year (I'm 39) have I started drinking a couple of drinks regulary.

This whole peer pressure thing is a cop out. It's an out. I had Mates taking drugs, getting high etc I had plenty offered to me but all I said was "no"

Whitfield could have self reported but he tried to be clever. It's backfired.  Consequences are imminent. 

Good for you. Whitfield's hardly a party animal by the sounds of things. Elite endurance runner, no other issues with drugs or the law. Sounds like a clean living football nerd for the most part. He went out with his local mates and one time he said yes instead of no. 

2 hours ago, Bay Riffin said:

I want a clear rule, if you cover it up and avoid drug testing, the maximum penalty applies. I can't see any other way to govern this.

 

so if a Dees player does that, then bang they have to go.

How about the way we deal with all other legal issues in Australia where you are innocent until proven guilty and judges use their discretion to apply fair penalties based on the severity of the crime. 

I understand softening the laws does create less incentive to do the right thing but a 6 week or 12 week penalty would still be a strong deterrent and the 4 years would still apply for proven blatant cheats. 

The WADA laws are tough because they are designed for Olympic competition once every 4 years with geopolitical consequences and doping programs on a national level. When you have the entire Russian Olympic program doping you need tough laws. They don't have to apply so stringently to a 22 year old kid taking an illicit drug.

 

[Gorgoroth 13,016]

8 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Good for you. Whitfield's hardly a party animal by the sounds of things. Elite endurance runner, no other issues with drugs or the law. Sounds like a clean living football nerd for the most part. He went out with his local mates and one time he said yes instead of no. 

So. He tried to cheat the system, if he took illicit drug, he and the club should have self reported and copped a strike. Instead they tried to hide him, put all the blame on his ex and thought they were smart. For that reason alone I hope he cops four years.

They thought they were being clever and beating the system. Sucked in, busted chump.

[nrc73 77]

2 hours ago, rjay said:

Rub him Allen and Lambert out for 4 years, then some might get the message.

This I really agree with. Surely it's far more important to start handing out tougher penalties on managers and administrators providing dubious advice? It would only force clubs to take a much harder look at their governance. Gubby Allen most of all I hope gets 4 years. The AFL allowed shady characters like Ricky Nixon and that ilk to exist for far too long and it's time to get rid of these sorts of people from the industry.

[rjay 25,075]

35 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

Good for you. Whitfield's hardly a party animal by the sounds of things. Elite endurance runner, no other issues with drugs or the law. Sounds like a clean living football nerd for the most part. He went out with his local mates and one time he said yes instead of no. 

How about the way we deal with all other legal issues in Australia where you are innocent until proven guilty and judges use their discretion to apply fair penalties based on the severity of the crime. 

I understand softening the laws does create less incentive to do the right thing but a 6 week or 12 week penalty would still be a strong deterrent and the 4 years would still apply for proven blatant cheats. 

The WADA laws are tough because they are designed for Olympic competition once every 4 years with geopolitical consequences and doping programs on a national level. When you have the entire Russian Olympic program doping you need tough laws. They don't have to apply so stringently to a 22 year old kid taking an illicit drug.

 

6 to 12 weeks would be nothing in the scheme of thing and not deter anyone. The penalty the Collingwood kids got obviously didn't give any cause for thought.

4 years might but then again most think it will never happen to them.

...and you or I don't know if it's one time he said yes. So yes he is innocent until proven guilty but if guilty he should get the full penalty. Particularly if he was found to be part of a false story blaming his then GF, that cancels out any leniency in my view. He hasn't learned his lesson.

Remember Ben Cousins was an elite runner & a cleanskin early in his career.

 

[faultydet 7,619]

18 minutes ago, nrc73 said:

This I really agree with. Surely it's far more important to start handing out tougher penalties on managers and administrators providing dubious advice? It would only force clubs to take a much harder look at their governance. Gubby Allen most of all I hope gets 4 years. The AFL allowed shady characters like Ricky Nixon and that ilk to exist for far too long and it's time to get rid of these sorts of people from the industry.

The AFL exists to make money. They don't care who is involved, as long as they increase income.

Cannot see that ever changing, and that's why ASADA/WADA need to come over the top and enforce the full 4 year ban, on ALL parties.

My only emotion for anyone in this new saga is the poor girl who passed the info on. When will we bloody well learn to stop buck passing onto the whistle blower, and target the offenders?

[nrc73 77]

Just now, faultydet said:

My only emotion for anyone in this new saga is the poor girl who passed the info on. When will we bloody well learn to stop buck passing onto the whistle blower, and target the offenders?

I agree this is the most disgusting aspect of this - and likely the AFL are to blame for being so weak and allowing the investigation to go on for so long. You would have thought they'd learnt something from the EFC saga.

[faultydet 7,619]

1 minute ago, nrc73 said:

I agree this is the most disgusting aspect of this - and likely the AFL are to blame for being so weak and allowing the investigation to go on for so long. You would have thought they'd learnt something from the EFC saga.

Same thing with dusty Martin. Blame the sheila, because she doesn't bring people through the gate.

[Dr. Gonzo 24,274]

1 hour ago, Satyriconhome said:

Oh I don't know,  check their records and see he wasn't tested?

This doesn't even make sense, what are you talking about?

[chook fowler 19,528]

I'm sick of these spoiled brats not taking any responsibility for their actions and blaming everyone but themselves. Bust his chops.

[jnrmac 20,184]

4 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

Your initial post clearly showed you do NOT understand how these things work. How is a drug agency supposed to know if a player is hiding from them to avoid a test they haven't even planned because he took drugs and feared they may be laced with PED's?

Too many cheerleaders willing to forgive cheats and misdirect their anger at those who penalised them. A lot of people need to grow up and realise their footy heroes aren't infallible.

Yeah but they have great guns.....

[DeeSpencer 26,080]

52 minutes ago, rjay said:

6 to 12 weeks would be nothing in the scheme of thing and not deter anyone. The penalty the Collingwood kids got obviously didn't give any cause for thought.

4 years might but then again most think it will never happen to them.

...and you or I don't know if it's one time he said yes. So yes he is innocent until proven guilty but if guilty he should get the full penalty. Particularly if he was found to be part of a false story blaming his then GF, that cancels out any leniency in my view. He hasn't learned his lesson.

Remember Ben Cousins was an elite runner & a cleanskin early in his career.

 

No number of years with fully deter people taking illicit drugs. Only have to look at idiots getting hanged in South East Asia to work that one out. 

The false story stuff is worth a penalty. Taking illicit drugs shouldn't mean anything to ASADA unless they can show it had PED's in it. No different to eating a meal or drinking a sports drink. 

I used the example of Ben Cousins in relation to the illicit drug policy preventing AFL players falling in to dangerous drug abuse problems. That's all it's relevant to. Has nothing to do with an ASADA penalty.

[mdemon 266]

51 minutes ago, chook fowler said:

I'm sick of these spoiled brats not taking any responsibility for their actions and blaming everyone but themselves. Bust his chops.

Spot on - and let us not forget the very handsome salaries these guys are being paid in consideration for the sacrifices they are required to make to participate at the elite level.

[Willmoy1947 4,140]

Could ASADA be right to think that the AFL may be obfuscating this issue in an attempt to delay and thereby reduce public awareness.

This sounds like a job for The Institute of Public Affairs to me.......Up Up and away!!!

[rjay 25,075]

48 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

No number of years with fully deter people taking illicit drugs. Only have to look at idiots getting hanged in South East Asia to work that one out. 

The false story stuff is worth a penalty. Taking illicit drugs shouldn't mean anything to ASADA unless they can show it had PED's in it. No different to eating a meal or drinking a sports drink. 

I used the example of Ben Cousins in relation to the illicit drug policy preventing AFL players falling in to dangerous drug abuse problems. That's all it's relevant to. Has nothing to do with an ASADA penalty.

I was using Ben Cousins to show your point of Whitfield being an elite runner is irrelevant.

As for the number of years, you said that 6 to 12 weeks would be a deterrent....hardly.

ASADA don't have to show what was in the drug, he avoided a test and that's enough for them.

[Deecisive 1,709]

he broke the rules, he should be punished in line with others who have also broken the rules. No one likes it when the afl punishes players differently at the tribunal ever week, or on the umpires on the field favor one side over another. This is the same thing. we all want a level playing field. all 3 should be banned, and the club should be penalised for trying to cover it up. Personnally I would give them all another year on top of what ever sentence they get for gross stupidity of trying to blame this on his girlfriend who was not even in the country at the time, so tell me again who or what he was running away from when he stay away from home. Shame about his career but that will give another player who has not made those mistakes a chance to show what he can do.

[chook fowler 19,528]

1 hour ago, mdemon said:

Spot on - and let us not forget the very handsome salaries these guys are being paid in consideration for the sacrifices they are required to make to participate at the elite level.

The age of entitlement has to come to an end.

[Nasher 33,617]

Like with the Essendon thing, the BS and denial is almost more offensive to me than the actual act. At least the Bombers could blame rogue Dank, these peanuts blaming the girlfriend is nothing short of pathetic.  

[Satyriconhome 10,879]

3 hours ago, Dr. Gonzo said:

This doesn't even make sense, what are you talking about?

I have the opinion that ASADA, WADA and the rest are useless in the fight against drugs with sport, whether you like it or not, I don't care

[RalphiusMaximus 6,088]

6 hours ago, DeeSpencer said:

Good for you. Whitfield's hardly a party animal by the sounds of things. Elite endurance runner, no other issues with drugs or the law. Sounds like a clean living football nerd for the most part. He went out with his local mates and one time he said yes instead of no.

And yet his girlfriend had contacted the club a number of times to tell them about his partying ways.  Sounds to me more like he's an unsupervised kid who parties far more than he should.