Sick to death of these feather-duster punishments for such egregious crimes. They wouldn't happen in the first place if someone was made an example of! You see the same infuriating [censored] in the judiciary system.

It's not a matter of whether he took illicit drugs or not. That would only give him a "strike" under AFL rules, but unless he's a repeat offender, no suspension. As it should be.

It's whether he failed to tell ASADA of his true whereabouts for three days. Which, in his chosen occupation, is a serious breach for which there are established penalties. He either did or he didn't.

Is anybody seriously "comfortably satisfied" with the BS about the "staying-somewhere-else" was just a made-up story and he was really at home all the time? 

Sammi Nowland did the right thing throughout by taking it to the club in the first place, and it seems that it was only when she found it was being swept under the carpet that her concern for Whitfield's wellbeing pushed her to take it to where it would be (or should have been) taken seriously. If she were my daughter, I'd be proud of her. Could it be that she was "troublesome" only because she kept expressing her concern about his lifestyle?

Trying to make her the scapegoat shows the true character of these three heroes. 

I am deeply concerned about the culture of this club that the AFL created and funded. 

  On 25/10/2016 at 11:09, Satyriconhome said:

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

So you've got an opinion, which you repeat endlessly. Very impressive. Of course if you do a bit of research you might have a different opinion; but you don't so you won't. 

Welcome to the post-factual world. 

  On 25/10/2016 at 03:22, 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.

So many here are missing the point 

The Collingwood pair were caught and punished

Whitfield deliberately avoided a drug test which very clearly is well known to carry presumption of guilt and a maximum penalty 

These guys are indoctrinated on this on induction and regularly - avoid a drug test = guilty. 

  On 25/10/2016 at 19:48, Dr John Dee said:

So you've got an opinion, which you repeat endlessly. Very impressive. Of course if you do a bit of research you might have a different opinion; but you don't so you won't. 

Welcome to the post-factual world. 

I have done the research, unlike some, I don't use pack mentality to form an opinion.......as others also continually repeat their opinions, I feel free to continue to espouse mine

  On 25/10/2016 at 20:30, monoccular said:

So many here are missing the point 

The Collingwood pair were caught and punished

Whitfield deliberately avoided a drug test which very clearly is well known to carry presumption of guilt and a maximum penalty 

These guys are indoctrinated on this on induction and regularly - avoid a drug test = guilty. 

Correct.

You can't avoid a drug test and get a lesser penalty than failing a drug test. Otherwise anyone who'd taken a PED (or an illicit drug possibly laced with one) would simply avoid the test and cop the lesser penalty. 

  On 25/10/2016 at 21:03, Satyriconhome said:

I have done the research,

Where, on bomber blitz?

  On 25/10/2016 at 21:03, Satyriconhome said:

I have done the research, unlike some, I don't use pack mentality to form an opinion.......as others also continually repeat their opinions, I feel free to continue to espouse mine

No you haven't. There, that's my opinion, which I'll be happy to repeat ad nauseam.

  On 25/10/2016 at 12:57, SaberFang said:

Sick to death of these feather-duster punishments for such egregious crimes. They wouldn't happen in the first place if someone was made an example of! You see the same infuriating [censored] in the judiciary system.

Nice word egregious - very apt.

I think there are some, that make erroneous if not spurious commentary about ASADA and WADA , that might benefit from actually reading the code and gaining a better understanding about its scope, its intent and indeed its content.

Its becoming easier to pick those that have from those that haven't.

  On 25/10/2016 at 23:24, beelzebub said:

I think there are some, that make erroneous if not spurious commentary about ASADA and WADA , that might benefit from actually reading the code and gaining a better understanding about its scope, its intent and indeed its content.

Its becoming easier to pick those that have from those that haven't.

In your opinion they are spurious and erroneous, doesn't necessarily equate that they are wrong

I have an issue with those accepting every single thing that both ASADA and WADA spout, so I could say they err in their acceptance

  On 26/10/2016 at 00:28, Satyriconhome said:

In your opinion they are spurious and erroneous, doesn't necessarily equate that they are wrong

I have an issue with those accepting every single thing that both ASADA and WADA spout, so I could say they err in their acceptance

where on earth did you get that idea from. I've seen plenty of posters who support asada/wada but are still prepared to criticise them when apt 

  On 26/10/2016 at 00:28, Satyriconhome said:

In your opinion they are spurious and erroneous, doesn't necessarily equate that they are wrong

I have an issue with those accepting every single thing that both ASADA and WADA spout, so I could say they err in their acceptance

have you read the code Saty ?

  On 26/10/2016 at 00:59, daisycutter said:

where on earth did you get that idea from. I've seen plenty of posters who support asada/wada but are still prepared to criticise them when apt 

I didn't say support, I said believe everything they said and it is not everybody

  On 26/10/2016 at 01:06, beelzebub said:

have you read the code Saty ?

It doesn't really matter whether I have read the code or not, it will not change my opinion that the agencies are useless

  On 26/10/2016 at 02:15, Satyriconhome said:

I didn't say support, I said believe everything they said and it is not everybody

It doesn't really matter whether I have read the code or not, it will not change my opinion that the agencies are useless

I don't know that they are useless 'Sat' but there is always a degree of politics & SPIN that goes with the territory.

I can understand where your disenchantment with the system comes from but I would rather have them than not.

Could always be better but maybe it's the best we are going to get.

  On 26/10/2016 at 02:15, Satyriconhome said:

It doesn't really matter whether I have read the code or not, ........................

Whether your good self or anyone else I would have thought the most basic of fundamentals to any understanding and/or criticism of WADA and/or any of its local agencies would be to have knowledge of what the code actually states.

Your view suggests a veneer appreciation for what its actually all about. You're entitled to your opinion. It's not mine.

  On 26/10/2016 at 03:29, beelzebub said:

Whether your good self or anyone else I would have thought the most basic of fundamentals to any understanding and/or criticism of WADA and/or any of its local agencies would be to have knowledge of what the code actually states.

Your view suggests a veneer appreciation for what its actually all about. You're entitled to your opinion. It's not mine.

 

  On 26/10/2016 at 03:29, beelzebub said:

Whether your good self or anyone else I would have thought the most basic of fundamentals to any understanding and/or criticism of WADA and/or any of its local agencies would be to have knowledge of what the code actually states.

Your view suggests a veneer appreciation for what its actually all about. You're entitled to your opinion. It's not mine.

It is the sheer lack of consistency by the agencies that appalls me

2 examples of supposed stupidity

Wade Lees ex Casey player served a full 2 year ban for importing but not using a banned substance

Maria Sharapova ban reduced, and she actually failed the drug test for banned substance, maybe if Wade was pretty and blonde with high powered lawyers might have got the same

Also

How ASADA has not even gone near DOCTOR Reid at Essendon is beyond me, yet nobody asks why

When somebody dobs in, the agencies never do the leg work, out they trot with an air of triumphalism saying 'look we are doing our jobs' 

How, if ASADA are so critical of Essendon's record keeping did they not know Whitfield had not been tested

Oh that's ok somebody will dob him in down the track

  On 26/10/2016 at 04:41, Satyriconhome said:

 

It is the sheer lack of consistency by the agencies that appalls me

2 examples of supposed stupidity

Wade Lees ex Casey player served a full 2 year ban for importing but not using a banned substance

Maria Sharapova ban reduced, and she actually failed the drug test for banned substance, maybe if Wade was pretty and blonde with high powered lawyers might have got the same

Also

How ASADA has not even gone near DOCTOR Reid at Essendon is beyond me, yet nobody asks why

When somebody dobs in, the agencies never do the leg work, out they trot with an air of triumphalism saying 'look we are doing our jobs' 

How, if ASADA are so critical of Essendon's record keeping did they not know Whitfield had not been tested

Oh that's ok somebody will dob him in down the track

What record keeping? 

 

  On 26/10/2016 at 04:50, Abe said:

What record keeping? 

 

My point     surely if you turn up to a club to test a certain number of players and you are one short    you would ask why,   that's if you are doing your job properly

  On 26/10/2016 at 04:55, Satyriconhome said:

My point     surely if you turn up to a club to test a certain number of players and you are one short    you would ask why,   that's if you are doing your job properly

I have no idea what happened, but i think the Essendon Saga showed that at least one club has no issue with lying to ASADA so it's not impossible more than one has done so, it's very difficult to do an effective job if people are lying and hiding things for you. 

i think a lot of the Whitfield story is not public, so difficult to judge anyone involved at this point.

  On 25/10/2016 at 06:27, Satyriconhome said:

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

What would checking their records and seeing he wasn't tested have to do with it. He is under investigation for not telling them where he was, not actually missing a test!

Yes drugs are in all sports, and yes they are ahead of the ASADA's of the world, but without a heap more funding WADA can't catch up. 

Can you tell me again which cases have been handed to them on a plate? The EFC debacle certainly wasn't, and they did bloody well to get their man!

  On 25/10/2016 at 21:03, Satyriconhome said:

I have done the research, unlike some, I don't use pack mentality to form an opinion.......as others also continually repeat their opinions, I feel free to continue to espouse mine

Then why can you not back you opinion up with some examples, or at least an argument rather then a statement?

  On 26/10/2016 at 04:59, Chris said:

What would checking their records and seeing he wasn't tested have to do with it. He is under investigation for not telling them where he was, not actually missing a test!

Yes drugs are in all sports, and yes they are ahead of the ASADA's of the world, but without a heap more funding WADA can't catch up. 

Can you tell me again which cases have been handed to them on a plate? The EFC debacle certainly wasn't, and they did bloody well to get their man!

Oh let me think    the Russians,  Lance Armstrong so just minor misdemeanors 

  On 26/10/2016 at 05:06, Chris said:

Then why can you not back you opinion up with some examples, or at least an argument rather then a statement?

I explained some of my reasons above why I have formed my opinion about the agencies, they were examples