Rioli involved in second ASADA bombshell

The substitution is a different offence. Being in or out of competition makes no difference. Three strikes applies only to recreational drugs out of competition. From memory, that is beyond WADA which gives the AFL that discretion.

It’s not about what I believe, it’s about the processes that Rioli agreed to when he signed a contract to become a professional athlete. If he wants to hang out with his mates and smoke weed then that’s upto him, but he can’t be a professional athlete. So if he was caught with meth in his system would you be saying it’s not performance enhancing?

Jack I agree with everything you have written in this thread. Sadly your thoughts are grounded in common sense, rationality and humanity, none of which are applied in these type of institutional situations. It is just too hard for institutions to apply a principle-based approach when a rule-based approach is safer from litigation and easier for people to understand. I am an Eagles fan and loved watching Willie play. It is so sad for him and his fans. But he’ll be lucky to play elite sport again and I fear for his future. There are Catch-22s all over this story, but if there was a genuine problem he should not have been allowed on the field after the first drug test - and if there isn’t a genuine problem, there isn’t a genuine problem. Modern society has a lot of wowsers, politically correct people and compliance clipboarders.

Common sense tells me that if allowed Saad that put, then every athlete in the world who wanted to cheat would just have to go to 7-11 every day to build an alibi.

No, the Collingwood players were banned for eating a dodgy steak in New Zealand. :silly:

The sample substitution was a different test not on game day, so it would have been a strike only, assuming it was only recreational drugs he was trying to hide.

"Three strikes" only applies to out of competition non-performance enhancing drugs. This was a game day test, so very much in-competition and WADA has cannibas as a prohibited substance.

Think of Fyfe’s corporate sponsors - they must be quite upset about it.

Pharmaceutical drugs are far more dangerous than cannabis. But they can be patented which is why they are allowed to be taken ($$$$). You mention muscle and pain relaxation - that’s recovery enhancement (out of game), not performance enhancing (in-game). Taking pot on game day will not increase the athletes performance, quite the opposite.

Do you believe that Rioli was taking steroids? IE a genuine performance enhancing drug? Do you believe that cannabis is a performance enhancing drug for an AFL player? I’m not defending Rioli’s actions. I’m proposing a better process. I don’t think that you understand or agree that there is a better solution. I’m proposing: 1. If the tester observes tampering he eg takes another urine sample, and/or a blood and hair sample. If the second urine sample, and the blood and hair sample has traces of a genuine performance enhancing drug (not weed) the player receives the appropriate ban for the prohibited substance (not the tampering). If the samples come back clean the player is fined and/or banned for a few months for the act of tampering (not banned for taking a drug that he can’t be proven that he took). 2. If the tester does not observe tampering, but the lab tests pick it up then the tampering ban should be more severe than being caught with a genuine performance enhancing drug in the system. That would be a much fairer process and all parties get the best of both worlds ie it’s fairer and common sense is applied.

“The ONLY reason anybody tampers with their sample is that they think they are going to fail the test.” Maybe, maybe not. IF Rioli ONLY had traces of cannabis in his system he would have received a slap on the wrist. IF that was his reason for tampering then a 4 year ban would be over the top, and unnecessary. I understand why the tampering penalty is harsher. I don’t think that you understand or agree that there is a better solution. 1. If the tester observes tampering he eg takes another urine sample, and/or a blood and hair sample. If the second urine sample, and the blood and hair sample has traces of a genuine performance enhancing drug (not weed) the player receives the appropriate ban for the prohibited substance (not the tampering). If the samples come back clean the player is fined and/or banned for a few months for the act of tampering (not banned for taking a drug that he may not have taken). 2. If the tester does not observe tampering, but the lab tests pick it up then the tampering ban should be more severe than being caught with a genuine performance enhancing drug in the system. That would be a much fairer process and all parties get the best if both worlds. No-one knows for sure, but I suspect that Rioli probably feared getting caught with cannabis in his system and if that’s the reason, then a 4 year ban is way over the top for the crime of tampering because the system is flawed as I keep stating. Sadly, ASADA didn’t take another sample, or a blood and hair sample so we will never know and that in itself isn’t good - if the aim is to catch genuine cheats.

The league does show compassion when it comes to drugs, in fact you get 3 chances. Not to mention every club has doctors, psychologists and countless other resources a player can turn to where everything will be kept confidential. This idea about marijuana not being performance enhancing is wrong, it can be used for muscle relaxation, reduction in pain, decrease anxiety and tension, while increasing focus and risk-taking behaviours. If you're willing to jeopardise your career, then at least try to be smart about it and know how long the stuff stays in your system. Fail a drug test during the week and you get 1 strike against your record, get caught on game day and it'll get classified as performance enhancing and you'll miss 2-4 years.

Whether its 'simple' or not doesn't make it right. That's one of the key arguments here on this issue. I.e. Dope is not performance enhancing and remains in the urine long after ingestion. Also who hasn't made a mistake when they were young? Some compassion wouldn't go astray here.

This is dominating sports news in WA. How sad. We have a role model champion winning his second Brownlow, a positive & great story. And on the other hand we have a 2nd year footballer who just broke the rules. Rediculous.

I tend to agree there, sports doping rules shouldbe limited to perfoamance enhancing and substances whose enhancement properties are as yet unknown. But the rules are there and plain. In event, it is prohibited. It is very unfortunate that Rioli may well have not taken any enhancing substance, and if found guilty on both charges faces 4-8 years; basically end of career.

"Everything they did for Rioli prior to drafting him"? Rioli was playing at Glenelg immediately before getting drafted. He wasn't at some hill billy club in the stix that doesn't have a high standard (but not quite AFL) playing and training regime, and support mechanisms!

“Or two, under ASADA protocols as he was transporting that canister to a bench where he splits it under provisions into an A and B sample. He tipped it out, there was gatorade sitting around, that’s common practice when you are trying to hydrate for a drugs test, tipped it out and replaced it with gatorade.” Direct quote from your linked article. so he produced a sample and then willingly poured it out and replaced it with Gatorade and your still trying to defend the indefensible.

So if Willie's first excuse for tampering was because he was frustrated at not being able to produce a sample, you now expect Asada to wait around until he can produce that sample? Who conducted the test that cleared his B sample that he allegedly wasn't able to produce? As far as I'm aware both the A & B sample come from the same urine they are just put in separate containers? Stands to reason that there would be no B sample as it would also be tampered with. The mythical blood test theory that's been circulated is interesting too, I've never seen this released as official AFL news, first reporting was by The West Australian newspaper which is a sponsor of the West Coast Eagles. Happy to be corrected.

It is ridiculous that testing for marijuana uses the same methodology as testing for alcohol. Dope can remain in urine for days long after it has had any impact. Be better to do a saliva test which measures it only for few hours like alcohol. Needs to be legalised in any case.

Exactly