Lachie Whitfield under investigation

[SaberFang 7,151]

23 hours ago, Chris said:

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. 

What a twisted world we live in where players get to "agree" on a ban for breaching tehir code of ethics relating to performance enhancing drugs. The current management of the AFL is insufferable with their endless manipulations of truth.

[Demon Disciple 12,375]

1 hour ago, Dr evil said:

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?

Saad (suspended for 18 months for drinking an energy drink), Keeffe and Thomas (2 years for clenbuterol), all the Essendon guinea pigs (1 year for Thymosin beta-4) = all  were ignorant yet probably not deliberate in their consumption............................yet Whitfield deliberately avoids potential drug testing (breaking up with gf my @ss), and could get off with only missing potentially 7-8 games.

Corruption within the ranks of the AFL (particularly at the top), put FIFA and Sepp Blatter to shame.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Demon Disciple

[monoccular 17,614]

4 minutes ago, Demon Disciple said:

Saad (suspended for 18 months for drinking an energy drink), Keeffe and Thomas (2 years for clenbuterol), all the Essendon guinea pigs (1 year for Thymosin beta-4) = all  were ignorant yet probably not deliberate in their consumption............................yet Whitfield deliberately avoids potential drug testing (breaking up with gf my @ss), and could get off with only missing potentially 7-8 games.

Corruption within the ranks of the AFL (particularly at the top), put FIFA and Sepp Blatter to shame.

Almost makes them look like paragons of virtue.  

The AFL just don't see it, do they?   Like the political establishments in the US, UK and here - they all have their arrogant heads up somewhere unpalatable and they don't think that the public care.

Then they will whinge like hell when the dam eventually bursts, as it will:   like a certain ex-coach - "didn't see it coming".

[Dr evil 1,185]

6 minutes ago, monoccular said:

Almost makes them look like paragons of virtue.  

The AFL just don't see it, do they?   Like the political establishments in the US, UK and here - they all have their arrogant heads up somewhere unpalatable and they don't think that the public care.

Then they will whinge like hell when the dam eventually bursts, as it will:   like a certain ex-coach - "didn't see it coming".

The AFL needs to understand that an attack on the rules is an attack on them, they're so concerned with any loss of revenue that all integrity of the game has gone totally out the window! 

They need stronger leadership and a willingness to sit back and be neutral and punish things for what they are, rather than trying to find loop holes and play games to look after their mates.

6 months is a disgrace for someone who has actively avoided a drug test ( assuming that all that has been reported is accurate )

[monoccular 17,614]

1 minute ago, Dr evil said:

The AFL needs to understand that an attack on the rules is an attack on them, they're so concerned with any loss of revenue that all integrity of the game has gone totally out the window! 

They need stronger leadership and a willingness to sit back and be neutral and punish things for what they are, rather than trying to find loop holes and play games to look after their mates.

6 months is a disgrace for someone who has actively avoided a drug test ( assuming that all that has been reported is accurate )

even more so with only a few of those to be served in season.  Imagine had the player in question been from one of the 'feeder clubs', and not from the love child club!  

[Dr evil 1,185]

Just now, monoccular said:

even more so with only a few of those to be served in season.  Imagine had the player in question been from one of the 'feeder clubs', and not from the love child club!  

If this was a Dees player they'd have copped 2 years, i have little doubt of that. 

I wouldn't rule out ASADA deciding 6 months is a bit soft and going in really hard at this one.  

[Lucifers Hero 40,490]

On 10 November 2016 at 9:27 AM, 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.

Yes, hard to believe but it may just happen: 'Whitfield, Allan and Lambert all want assurances from ASADA and theWorld Anti-Doping Agency that they would not face separate charges under the anti-doping code if they pleaded guilty to the conduct unbecoming charge".  

GWS face loss of draft picks over Lachie Whitfield affair

Its a slippery slope when ASADA start doing deals like this.  To my mind it is one thing for ASADA to deal on penalties related to an anti-doping violation and a totally different thing for them to substitute lesser non anti-doping charges to avoid applying their rules.  As I've said above - if they were guilty apply the regulated penalties, if not let them go scott free.

BTW - not sure where 'conduct unbecoming' came from - Is that a watered down version of 'bringing the game into disrepute'?  Sounds like the convoluted wording the MRP comes up with when it suits them.  Just very sad if ASADA/WADA would be a party to this.

[faultydet 7,623]

I have always shaken my head at @Satyriconhome and his approach to ASADA/WADA, but if this proves to be a true story, I will need to defer to his superior assessment of the anti drugs establishment.  

Simply cannot believe ASADA will agree to this, considering what has been reported on this subject. It must be a full penalty. 4 years for all.

Edited November 11, 2016 by Whispering_Jack
removed unnecessary commentary

[beelzebub 23,388]

may I repeat..ASADA has yet to wade into this.  This is a smoke and miirrors dance by the AFL.  They dont learn a thing do they.  lol

[SaberFang 7,151]

I'm currently inclined to think this is all stage management from the AFL and ASADA have not played their cards yet. The AFL have tentacles throughout the media; for Christ's sake, anyone reporting on AFL matters has an AFL accreditation and News Corporation own more than half of the broadcast rights! Put two and two together and see what the vested interests here are.

[Chris 2,892]

Whitfield has reportedly been banned for 6 months while the two other officials got 12 months. All bans under the AFL's disrepute rules, not anti doping violations.

When will the bloody AFL learn to leave anti doping matters to ASADA and stop trying to cover things up early! Bloody embarrasing.

Will be interested to see if ASADA/WADA come in over the top again and slap the lot of them with bigger bans!

[SaberFang 7,151]

I'm done.

[faultydet 7,623]

26 minutes ago, Chris said:

Whitfield has reportedly been banned for 6 months while the two other officials got 12 months. All bans under the AFL's disrepute rules, not anti doping violations.

When will the bloody AFL learn to leave anti doping matters to ASADA and stop trying to cover things up early! Bloody embarrasing.

Will be interested to see if ASADA/WADA come in over the top again and slap the lot of them with bigger bans!

If they don't then they can't blame people for thinking they are toothless. Starts with ASADA. 

Back to you Ben.

[daisycutter 29,807]

34 minutes ago, Chris said:

Whitfield has reportedly been banned for 6 months while the two other officials got 12 months. All bans under the AFL's disrepute rules, not anti doping violations.

When will the bloody AFL learn to leave anti doping matters to ASADA and stop trying to cover things up early! Bloody embarrasing.

Will be interested to see if ASADA/WADA come in over the top again and slap the lot of them with bigger bans!

any word on draft pick restrictions on club?

[monoccular 17,614]

16 minutes ago, daisycutter said:

any word on draft pick restrictions on club?

They won't be announced until December....which OMG will be after they get to skim the cream again this year.  After all, they were very disappointed last season.

[Diamond_Jim 12,651]

six months..... the vast bulk of which is served out of season......... why am I disappointed but not surprised

I will watch with interest to see if he is paid during this period.

[DeeSpencer 26,099]

On 11/11/2016 at 10:16 PM, faultydet said:

I have always shaken my head at @Satyriconhome and his approach to ASADA/WADA, but if this proves to be a true story, I will need to defer to his superior assessment of the anti drugs establishment.  

Simply cannot believe ASADA will agree to this, considering what has been reported on this subject. It must be a full penalty. 4 years for all.

People who test positive don't even get the full 4 year ban. Sharapova anyone?

Laughable that Whitfield and co would get such a lengthy ban for dodging a test that never happened after taking a substance that was specifically against the WADA code.

The penalties are harsh enough. ASADA should thank the AFL for doing their job for them and save their resources for finding actual cheats.

[Diamond_Jim 12,651]

15 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

People who test positive don't even get the full 4 year ban. Sharapova anyone?

Laughable that Whitfield and co would get such a lengthy ban for dodging a test that never happened after taking a substance that was specifically against the WADA code.

The penalties are harsh enough. ASADA should thank the AFL for doing their job for them and save their resources for finding actual cheats.

avoiding a test has almost always had the same result as "failing" the test.

A good example is avoiding a drink driving test. Does not matter if you didn't have one drink the penalty is heavy.

If you consider it the reasons for this approach have merit.

[Chris 2,892]

45 minutes ago, Diamond_Jim said:

six months..... the vast bulk of which is served out of season......... why am I disappointed but not surprised

I will watch with interest to see if he is paid during this period.

Given it isnt a doping ban he can train for the whole time too. How convenient

[Chris 2,892]

44 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

People who test positive don't even get the full 4 year ban. Sharapova anyone?

Laughable that Whitfield and co would get such a lengthy ban for dodging a test that never happened after taking a substance that was specifically against the WADA code.

The penalties are harsh enough. ASADA should thank the AFL for doing their job for them and save their resources for finding actual cheats.

If you purposely miss a test you are a cheat. The fact he wasn't due to be tested when he was hiding is irrelevant, the relevant point is he was hiding. The max ban is 4 years. 

The AFL also have not done ASADA'S job as he does not have a doping violation against his name. This is purely the AFL trying to bury the issue before ASADA do, the AFL haven't even actually allowed ASADA to do their job as they have not supplied all the info (or at least hadn't last week). What's the bet ASADA have a big pile of paper work on the desk in the morning from the AFL now the AFL have acted!

[rjay 25,215]

6 minutes ago, Chris said:

If you purposely miss a test you are a cheat. The fact he wasn't due to be tested when he was hiding is irrelevant, the relevant point is he was hiding. The max ban is 4 years. 

The AFL also have not done ASADA'S job as he does not have a doping violation against his name. This is purely the AFL trying to bury the issue before ASADA do, the AFL haven't even actually allowed ASADA to do their job as they have not supplied all the info (or at least hadn't last week). What's the bet ASADA have a big pile of paper work on the desk in the morning from the AFL now the AFL have acted!

'Chris', I think you have your head in the sand on this one.

If ASADA want to take action it is in their court, not the AFL's. If they haven't signed off on the deal then they or WADA can still ride in and take control, my guess is they have otherwise Allan wouldn't agree to the suspension.

Lets see what pans out over the next few days but it looks like ASADA have rolled on this.

Don't blame the AFL for this if ASADA has agreed to it.

[DeeSpencer 26,099]

ASADA are also a Government agency. So whilst sporting integrity is important I have no issue with them accepting 1 year bans for officials and 6 month bans for a young athlete in a team sport and moving on.

The Essendon saga would've cost us all millions as tax payers. 

I would rather they not run up another huge legal bill lining the pockets of lawyers in this situation. Too many other more important things for the Government to spend the cash on. Things that will actually affect our day to day lives!

[Chris 2,892]

6 minutes ago, rjay said:

'Chris', I think you have your head in the sand on this one.

If ASADA want to take action it is in their court, not the AFL's. If they haven't signed off on the deal then they or WADA can still ride in and take control, my guess is they have otherwise Allan wouldn't agree to the suspension.

Lets see what pans out over the next few days but it looks like ASADA have rolled on this.

Don't blame the AFL for this if ASADA has agreed to it.

If ASADA agreed to it but why would they agree to an internal AFL issue which is how this was defined by not being a doping breach. As of last week the AFL had not given ASADA all the relevant information, hence my comment. That came out when the AFL tried to pin any delay on ASADA which was promptly replied to by ASADA saying they can't finalise the investigation as the AFL were holding them up. It would surprise me if they ad come to enough of a conclusion in the matter to agree to this in such a short period of time.

[faultydet 7,623]

31 minutes ago, DeeSpencer said:

ASADA are also a Government agency. So whilst sporting integrity is important I have no issue with them accepting 1 year bans for officials and 6 month bans for a young athlete in a team sport and moving on.

The Essendon saga would've cost us all millions as tax payers. 

I would rather they not run up another huge legal bill lining the pockets of lawyers in this situation. Too many other more important things for the Government to spend the cash on. Things that will actually affect our day to day lives!

Yeah, it's money much better spent on the big ticket issues like gay marriage.

 

The AFL signed up to the WADA code under threat from the Feds, but at every single turn, do "whatever it takes" to sweep breaches of the code under a rug. This is no different from the essedon scandal.

 

Hit 'em hard WADA.

 

Edit for a question to the legal minds, from the italics highlighted.

As the LOSER of the case, wasn't essedon made to pay all of the legal costs? If that was the case, it's no impost on the taxpayer at all.

Edited November 14, 2016 by faultydet

[Sir Why You Little 37,244]

Mark Fine Teeing off hardcore to AFL/ASADA and this pathetic penalty...