Not sure how to read this news but methinks it is the AFL trying to spin that what GWS is not that bad ..... them again I just might be cynical

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/seven-afl-clubs-fined-for-breaking-doping-rules-in-2016-about-players-whereabouts-20161109-gslklv.html

" Seven AFL clubs broke the league's anti-doping rules in 2016, but the league has found they did so unintentionally.

The AFL announced on Wednesday Hawthorn, West Coast, Geelong, Collingwood, Essendon, the Western Bulldogs and St Kilda had all failed to do so on one more more occasions this year.

But none of the players involved missed a test and the failures were found to be of an administrative nature, not intentional."

Just remembered one of the radio commentators saying that today with the US election it was a perfect day to release news that you wanted buried!!

 

  On 09/11/2016 at 08:18, Diamond_Jim said:

Not sure how to read this news but methinks it is the AFL trying to spin that what GWS is not that bad ..... them again I just might be cynical

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/seven-afl-clubs-fined-for-breaking-doping-rules-in-2016-about-players-whereabouts-20161109-gslklv.html

" Seven AFL clubs broke the league's anti-doping rules in 2016, but the league has found they did so unintentionally.

The AFL announced on Wednesday Hawthorn, West Coast, Geelong, Collingwood, Essendon, the Western Bulldogs and St Kilda had all failed to do so on one more more occasions this year.

But none of the players involved missed a test and the failures were found to be of an administrative nature, not intentional."

Just remembered one of the radio commentators saying that today with the US election it was a perfect day to release news that you wanted buried!!

 

Not sure they are making GSW look any better, these other clubs had administrative oversights, not blatant braindead coverups. they should be suspended for a mininum of 2 years for sheer stupidity.

  On 09/11/2016 at 09:00, Deecisive said:

Not sure they are making GSW look any better, these other clubs had administrative oversights, not blatant braindead coverups. they should be suspended for a mininum of 2 years for sheer stupidity.

Who, the AFL? Agree.

Looks like the AFL has done what it does best - struck a deal! http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/afl/demons-coach-goodwin-impressed-with-jesse-hogans-attitude/news-story/324b0735d10834ee945bd3a66e57100d

"... the AFL executive and ASADA ... believes it can charge Whitfield, ...Graeme Allan and ...Craig Lambert with bringing the game into disrepute...'' 

The Australlian understands: 'that a six-month ban on Whitfield...and one-season suspensions to Allan and Lambert would be seen as appropriate by ASADA if the trio were found guilty'.  These penalties would more than likely avert any further action from Australia’s anti-doping body in the form of show-cause notices".

So the AFL slaps a drug code breach level penalty on a 'Disrepute' charge!  BTW, I don't see how GWS can escape a penalty for the sins of its staff as per Crows (Tippett storm in a tea cup), MFC (not tanking), EFC (the 34 drug cheats).  If there is one it will be a fine, not draft sanctions.  Gets the AFL out of a sticky situation with their baby, GWS!

I do think the penalties are fair but it is the manipulation of the charges that gets me:  They breached the drug code or they didn't!!  If they did - apply the rules.  If they didn't let them go.  Simple!

That ASADA would allow an innocuous charge of 'Disrepute' be brought over the far more serious charge of drug code breaches is just astounding! 

  On 09/11/2016 at 20:24, Lucifer's Hero said:

Looks like the AFL has done what it does best - struck a deal! http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/afl/demons-coach-goodwin-impressed-with-jesse-hogans-attitude/news-story/324b0735d10834ee945bd3a66e57100d

"... the AFL executive and ASADA ... believes it can charge Whitfield, ...Graeme Allan and ...Craig Lambert with bringing the game into disrepute...'' 

The Australlian understands: 'that a six-month ban on Whitfield...and one-season suspensions to Allan and Lambert would be seen as appropriate by ASADA if the trio were found guilty'.  These penalties would more than likely avert any further action from Australia’s anti-doping body in the form of show-cause notices".

So the AFL slaps a drug code breach level penalty on a 'Disrepute' charge!  BTW, I don't see how GWS can escape a penalty for the sins of its staff as per Crows (Tippett storm in a tea cup), MFC (not tanking), EFC (the 34 drug cheats).  If there is one it will be a fine, not draft sanctions.  Gets the AFL out of a sticky situation with their baby, GWS!

I do think the penalties are fair but it is the manipulation of the charges that gets me:  They breached the drug code or they didn't!!  If they did - apply the rules.  If they didn't let them go.  Simple!

That ASADA would allow an innocuous charge of 'Disrepute' be brought over the far more serious charge of drug code breaches is just astounding! 

Not unhappy with those penalties for the individuals involved but ultimately the club is responsible for it's employees and should be punished as well, slap a decent fine on the AFL giants and suspensions to those involved and move on imo

  On 09/11/2016 at 20:38, Abe said:

Not unhappy with those penalties for the individuals involved but ultimately the club is responsible for it's employees and should be punished as well, slap a decent fine on the AFL giants and suspensions to those involved and move on imo

As I said I think the penalties are fair (but overkill for an 'In Dispute' charge). 

It is ASADA's apparent agreement to the 'In Dispute' charge that is the issue here.  They either broke the code or they didn't.  Punish them or let them off.  ASADA may find such a compromise (if in fact they did/do) will come back and bite them, big time!

  On 09/11/2016 at 02:29, Vogon Poetry said:

There's always next year.

VP. This is the year that GWS are invested in four or five high quality academy selections and they've positioned themselves in a way they can use selection #2 to get McCluggage or McGrath. Draft sanctions would be a complete disaster this year but next year they might not be so well placed. Hence, a delay (already 19 months after the incident in question took place) is going to be very helpful for them and more so for the AFL.

As the Poet Laureate of the Vogon nation once opined:

"Justice delayed is Justice denied."

 

 

  On 09/11/2016 at 20:24, Lucifer's Hero said:

Looks like the AFL has done what it does best - struck a deal! http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/afl/demons-coach-goodwin-impressed-with-jesse-hogans-attitude/news-story/324b0735d10834ee945bd3a66e57100d

"... the AFL executive and ASADA ... believes it can charge Whitfield, ...Graeme Allan and ...Craig Lambert with bringing the game into disrepute...'' 

The Australlian understands: 'that a six-month ban on Whitfield...and one-season suspensions to Allan and Lambert would be seen as appropriate by ASADA if the trio were found guilty'.  These penalties would more than likely avert any further action from Australia’s anti-doping body in the form of show-cause notices".

So the AFL slaps a drug code breach level penalty on a 'Disrepute' charge!  BTW, I don't see how GWS can escape a penalty for the sins of its staff as per Crows (Tippett storm in a tea cup), MFC (not tanking), EFC (the 34 drug cheats).  If there is one it will be a fine, not draft sanctions.  Gets the AFL out of a sticky situation with their baby, GWS!

I do think the penalties are fair but it is the manipulation of the charges that gets me:  They breached the drug code or they didn't!!  If they did - apply the rules.  If they didn't let them go.  Simple!

That ASADA would allow an innocuous charge of 'Disrepute' be brought over the far more serious charge of drug code breaches is just astounding! 

Drug charge: mandatory 4 year penalty

Disrepute: make up the penalty. Negotiate as required.

Now ... which one seems more in line with AFL house philosophy?

 

It seems ASADA have come under the spell of the AFL like every other institution in Oz. This is so obviously a drug related issue. The people who have brought the AFL into disrepute are the execs at AFL house.

  On 09/11/2016 at 21:41, Whispering_Jack said:

"Justice delayed is Justice denied."

Gil has a motivational poster on his office wall with those exact words on it.

six months?..... would that start now meaning that two thirds would be served in the off season ??

  On 09/11/2016 at 21:58, Diamond_Jim said:

six months?..... would that start now meaning that two thirds would be served in the off season ??

"The one year penalty imposed on Whitfield is a strong message from the AFL. Our commitment to a drug free competition means that this six month penalty will be served in competition. For this reason, this two month penalty will be served partly during the off season. It is expected that this two week penalty will send a strong message to any players or clubs who may wish to undermine the AFL's determination to eradicate drugs in sport. Accordingly, Whitfield's suspended two-day penalty has already been served."

  On 09/11/2016 at 20:24, Lucifer's Hero said:

Looks like the AFL has done what it does best - struck a deal! http://www.theaustralian.com.au/sport/afl/demons-coach-goodwin-impressed-with-jesse-hogans-attitude/news-story/324b0735d10834ee945bd3a66e57100d

"... the AFL executive and ASADA ... believes it can charge Whitfield, ...Graeme Allan and ...Craig Lambert with bringing the game into disrepute...'' 

The Australlian understands: 'that a six-month ban on Whitfield...and one-season suspensions to Allan and Lambert would be seen as appropriate by ASADA if the trio were found guilty'.  These penalties would more than likely avert any further action from Australia’s anti-doping body in the form of show-cause notices".

So the AFL slaps a drug code breach level penalty on a 'Disrepute' charge!  BTW, I don't see how GWS can escape a penalty for the sins of its staff as per Crows (Tippett storm in a tea cup), MFC (not tanking), EFC (the 34 drug cheats).  If there is one it will be a fine, not draft sanctions.  Gets the AFL out of a sticky situation with their baby, GWS!

I do think the penalties are fair but it is the manipulation of the charges that gets me:  They breached the drug code or they didn't!!  If they did - apply the rules.  If they didn't let them go.  Simple!

That ASADA would allow an innocuous charge of 'Disrepute' be brought over the far more serious charge of drug code breaches is just astounding! 

I don't believe it when they say "These penalties would more than likely avert any further action from Australia’s anti-doping body in the form of show-cause notices". I seem to remember them saying very similar things in the EFC case only for ASADA to turn around and slap them with the appropriate action anyway. I get the very strong feeling statements like this are put out there by the AFL to ensure it looks as if ASADA are the bad guy and that they have been the ones to back flip. What the AFL don't realise is that ASADA don't care if they are the bad guy, they care only for upholding the code.

  On 09/11/2016 at 22:27, Chris said:

I don't believe it when they say "These penalties would more than likely avert any further action from Australia’s anti-doping body in the form of show-cause notices". I seem to remember them saying very similar things in the EFC case only for ASADA to turn around and slap them with the appropriate action anyway. I get the very strong feeling statements like this are put out there by the AFL to ensure it looks as if ASADA are the bad guy and that they have been the ones to back flip. What the AFL don't realise is that ASADA don't care if they are the bad guy, they care only for upholding the code.

What it will mean is that this will again be delayed, pending ASADA then maybe WADA and Geneva to allow GW$ to safely secure their draft picks, Whitfield to play in next year's finals etc etc.     Classic AFL obfuscation. 

  On 10/11/2016 at 01:18, monoccular said:

What it will mean is that this will again be delayed, pending ASADA then maybe WADA and Geneva to allow GW$ to safely secure their draft picks, Whitfield to play in next year's finals etc etc.     Classic AFL obfuscation. 

I agree, especially when you look at what the AFL has been saying, firstly they said it would be announced within the week, that was a few weeks back, now they are saying it is ASADA's hands, yet ASADA have said they are waiting on the AFl to provide all the required info, now they are saying a deal is all but done that ASADA will be happy with. 

I recall during the four years of the EFC debacle pretty much all of that being said before, even when none of it was actually right. Seems the AFL have not learnt one thing from the EFC episode, next thing will be all the past players and people just removed from the AFL calling for the AFL to walk away from WADA, it is already being hinted at in various articles. 

All I ask is that we have someone competent and with integrity running the comp. The current group fall so far short on both counts it isn't even funny anymore. 

  On 10/11/2016 at 03:11, Chris said:

I agree, especially when you look at what the AFL has been saying, firstly they said it would be announced within the week, that was a few weeks back, now they are saying it is ASADA's hands, yet ASADA have said they are waiting on the AFl to provide all the required info, now they are saying a deal is all but done that ASADA will be happy with. 

I recall during the four years of the EFC debacle pretty much all of that being said before, even when none of it was actually right. Seems the AFL have not learnt one thing from the EFC episode, next thing will be all the past players and people just removed from the AFL calling for the AFL to walk away from WADA, it is already being hinted at in various articles. 

All I ask is that we have someone competent and with integrity running the comp. The current group fall so far short on both counts it isn't even funny anymore. 

They would love to do that. The NFL and I think the EPL are examples of major sports that operate their own drug codes outside WADA.

The problem is that the Australian Federal Government have made it a condition of sports grants that the code signs up to WADA. Many clubs have received significant Federal grants with the revamp of Whitten Oval being one example.

  On 10/11/2016 at 03:30, Diamond_Jim said:

They would love to do that. The NFL and I think the EPL are examples of major sports that operate their own drug codes outside WADA.

The problem is that the Australian Federal Government have made it a condition of sports grants that the code signs up to WADA. Many clubs have received significant Federal grants with the revamp of Whitten Oval being one example.

DJ, I don't think it is a problem I think it absolutely appropriate. You may be suggesting that is a problem for AFL and the NFL but seriously that is there problem, if they want government funding play by the rules and stop whinging. (AFL not you)

  On 10/11/2016 at 03:30, Diamond_Jim said:

They would love to do that. The NFL and I think the EPL are examples of major sports that operate their own drug codes outside WADA.

The problem is that the Australian Federal Government have made it a condition of sports grants that the code signs up to WADA. Many clubs have received significant Federal grants with the revamp of Whitten Oval being one example.

The NFL opperate tehir own code and it is a joke, them leaving WADA was purely money driven, they didn't want half their teams on the sidelines as it would cost them too much. They get something like 6 weeks for steroid use. Jump on the gear I say, short ban and heaps of benefit post the ban!

 

Pretty sure FIFA is signed up to the WADA code so that would cover the EPL I would have thought. 

  On 10/11/2016 at 04:39, Chris said:

The NFL opperate tehir own code and it is a joke, them leaving WADA was purely money driven, they didn't want half their teams on the sidelines as it would cost them too much. They get something like 6 weeks for steroid use. Jump on the gear I say, short ban and heaps of benefit post the ban!

 

Pretty sure FIFA is signed up to the WADA code so that would cover the EPL I would have thought. 

You are correct. They signed up in 2006 and were the last Olympic sport to do so apparently.

Interesting that the NBA is also outside WADA. Penalty for a first offence for a PED is only 10 games (In NBA that is around 3 weeks)

Strangely a "drug of abuse" gets you disqualified. Mind you there have only been 8 players caught since 1983 taking any form of PED.

Baseball is perhaps a little tougher with an 80 game penalty for taking PEDS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_in_the_United_States#United_States_Anti-Doping_Agency

  On 10/11/2016 at 06:11, Diamond_Jim said:

You are correct. They signed up in 2006 and were the last Olympic sport to do so apparently.

Interesting that the NBA is also outside WADA. Penalty for a first offence for a PED is only 10 games (In NBA that is around 3 weeks)

Strangely a "drug of abuse" gets you disqualified. Mind you there have only been 8 players caught since 1983 taking any form of PED.

Baseball is perhaps a little tougher with an 80 game penalty for taking PEDS.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doping_in_the_United_States#United_States_Anti-Doping_Agency

Looks like they have come out "trumps" then........

Just reading in the hun that Whitfield is close to agreeing to a 6 month ban. Firstly, what the f does he have to agree with, he is the perp not the bloody victim, give him what he deserves and he can deal with it. 

Secondly, the very same paper reported that ASADA were waiting for the paper work from the AFL so not sure how a deal can be close. 

Of course this all could be the AFL trying to force ASADA's hand again, will they never learn. 

How, if found guilty, is Lachie Whitfield getting off with only 7 matches??? Surely this is just as bad as the essendon players or ahmed saad and defintely worse then poor ryan crowley.

  On 10/11/2016 at 04:32, ManDee said:

DJ, I don't think it is a problem I think it absolutely appropriate. You may be suggesting that is a problem for AFL and the NFL but seriously that is there problem, if they want government funding play by the rules and stop whinging. (AFL not you)

I know right.

Like running a clean sport is such a burden.

They're not serious about drugs in sport, and the only reason they pay lip service to it is the government funding.

It's sickening.

Asada haven't started on this yet. More to come.

Funny sense of déjà vu

Saw an article saying they GWS  may lose a first and second round draft pick this year due to this. Pick 15 and 37

 

http://www.zerohanger.com/giants-set-to-lose-draft-picks-over-whitfield-scandal-8606/

 

 

  On 11/11/2016 at 08:44, olisik said:

Saw an article saying they GWS  may lose a first and second round draft pick this year due to this. Pick 15 and 37

 

http://www.zerohanger.com/giants-set-to-lose-draft-picks-over-whitfield-scandal-8606/

 

 

Won't bother them, they'll take their academy players either way.

how has Whitfield avoided a 2 year ban, surely dodging a drug test is enough for a breach?