The Roar
The Roar

AFL
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement

Rioli involved in second ASADA bombshell

Willie Rioli has been involved in a second ASADA controversy. (AAP Image/Tony McDonough)
24th September, 2019
85
5325 Reads

Embattled West Coast forward has become embroiled in controversy once more, after ASADA today notified the AFL of a positive test for a metabolite of cannabis following the Eagles elimination final victory over Essendon.

Cannabis is an in-competition prohibited substance under ASADA code.

Rioli is already facing a four-year ban after it was revealed two weeks ago that an out-of-competition doping test in August returned an Adverse Analytical Finding for a urine substitute.

The 24-year-old was stood down immediately by the AFL following the revelations ahead of West Coast’s eventual semi-final loss to Geelong. Earlier today, WAFL arbitrator Brendan Taylor told The West Australian it was likely ASADA would appeal against any reduced sentence over the urine substitution.

The latest news, however, puts serious doubt over a return to the AFL for the small forward.

The AFL’s official statement reads as follows;

“The AFL has confirmed that William Rioli of the West Coast Eagles has been notified of a further Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) and a potential violation of the Australian Football Anti-Doping Code (Code) in respect of a test conducted by ASADA on September 5, 2019.

“The test was conducted following the West Coast Eagles’ elimination final against Essendon.

“The September 5, 2019 sample has tested positive for a metabolite of cannabis, which is an In-Competition Prohibited Substance under the Code.

Advertisement
Advertisement

“On September 11, 2019 Rioli was notified of an Adverse Analytical Finding for Urine Substitution being a Prohibited Method under the Code following an Out-of-Competition doping control test on 20 August 2019.

“The West Coast Eagles have been made aware of this finding and will continue to provide support for Rioli.

“It is important that Rioli be provided a fair process. As a result, the AFL will not be providing further detail on this case at this time.”