Former ASADA boss Richard Ings has weighed into the debate surrounding West Coast’s 2006 premiership win.
Ings, who was the ASADA chief from 2005-2010, told Melbourne radio station 3AW that no Eagles players returned positive match-day tests during that season and insists the grand final was the most tested game of the year.
He also added that players were regularly tested for recreational drugs as well as performance-enhancing substances.
Ings’ comments come after claims by former Sydney Swans forward Barry Hall that the Eagles’ grand final win over Sydney was tainted.
“There would have been a significant number of tests conducted on both teams after that grand final and there were no players who were tested who returned positive tests for any banned substance,” Ings said.
“It would have been a full screen in-competition test, which means it’s not just for steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs but also for a range of illicit drugs including methamphetamine, cocaine and even heroin.”
He said ASADA also conducted “target testing” during the home-and-away season and the finals.
“There was a lot of target testing of the Eagles,” he said.
“There was a lot of intelligence coming in from various sources that suggested this was a club where some testing should take place and target testing did indeed take place of players at that club during that period.
“Well, there were no positives that came through. There were no match-day positives for illicit drugs.”
What has become evident in recent days with the release of a previously unseen 2008 report by retired Supreme Court judge William Gillard is the alleged lengths the Eagles went to, to cover-up their drug culture.
The report claimed CEO Trevor Nisbett and other club officials oversaw a six-year culture of cover-up that allowed toxic behaviour to flourish.
The Eagles will start their 2017 season on Sunday when they take on North Melbourne at Etihad Stadium.
Mickyo
Guest
I would be very surprised even going back to the 1970's if players were not using using illegal drugs. Every premiership can be tainted if you wish to find something. The Eagles with that talent assembled should have won a couple of premierships, just like when Malthouse was coaching them, the state side they had then was a great side for only 2 flags , at the end of the day drugs probably caused more problems than providing wins and premierships
King Bob
Guest
At last comments from someone who knows what they're talking about and not just making uninformed noise like Hall All clubs and the AFL are affected. Look at the evidence and don't fool yourself that the problems the Eagles was not wide spread. All clubs recorded positive strikes and still do; ask the Pies. It was only Cousins high profile and personal disaster that forced the AFL to act.
Birdman
Guest
shocked to be sitting here.....
northerner
Guest
I'd be amazed and dumbfounded if that were the case. Not.
Birdman
Guest
Makes sense to me. Could it be possible neither the club or AFL were really interested in catching the Eagles out or someone had, and was passing on testing schedules to certain players?
northerner
Guest
Okay, I admit I'm not clear on this, but while ASADA has responsibility for testing for PEDs, in and out of season, as I understand it it has no responsibility for testing for recreational drugs except on game day. So wouldn't it be the responsibility of the clubs or the AFL to do that sort of testing themselves?
Birdman
Guest
Heard Ings on the radio - pretty sure ASADA testing for illicit substances only occurred on game days (i.e. in competition) - the Weagles were clearly timing their drug use to avoid positive tests. The bigger issue was the lack of action by the footy dept. who could have referred their concerns to ASADA but conveniently chose not to dig too deep. I suspect a few of those guys (Chick, Cousins, Kerr) could have legal grounds to pursue the club for duty of care breaches even if they were also at fault.
northerner
Guest
I'm not sure that's entirely fair. ASADA would have tested for cocaine on the day of the match, and if it had been in anyone's bloodstream, that's a WADA violation. If they tested and found cocaine in someone's system in the middle of the week, it's not a WADA violation. Presumably, they would have notified the AFL and the 3 strikes-policy for recreational drug usage would have come into play.
Perry Bridge
Guest
This is a point that so many people have ignored over the journey - especially when being critical of the AFLs illicit drugs policy. The simple fact is that a reliance on ASADA testing alone would tell you next to nothing. The AFL was learning this through this period and needed something to actually work. ASADA wasn't the answer - but - was expensive and was forced upon the AFL by the 'well meaning' Howard regime for political reasons. The level of media and social ignorance around the topic at the time saw people suggest the failings of picking up Cousins at this time were the AFL illicit drugs policy - but, it had just been introduced and clearly was not a sufficient level of testing - it was a starting point and has evolved since then. And the important point is that the AFL illicit testing policy was NOT in place of ASADA testing but on top of. So - why did ASADA not find any positives? ASADA running the WADA Olympic style testing would target test in particular the top performers (no one cares about last place) - Ben Cousins was in 2006 the reigning Brownlow medalist and club 'champion' (Best & Fairest). So while superficial news coverage has focussed on the AFLs own testing (at the time only around 400 tests in total - not overly well targeted, barely worth doing) - it was the ASADA failure that I presume rang the alarm bells for those with a bit of intelligence on the subject. And less than 10 years on we got further proof of the lack of effectiveness of ASADA testing via the Essendon 'saga' along with confirmation that ASADA testing would only pick up the very ignorant or arrogant.