• Please read this post on the rules on BigFooty regarding posting copyright material, including fair dealing rules. Repeat infringements could see your account limited or closed.

Lachie Whitfield and GWS Officials Under Investigation

Remove this Banner Ad

Frank Gallagher said:
Was Gubbys job to protect one of his players, WTF was he supposed to do when the kid asked for his help, lag him in?
Click to expand...
Youd be great high up in the church during the pedo rings.
Job is to protect the reputation of the church - what you going to do - lag a priest in ?

Allan is a paid AFL stooge. He owes the AFL everything. There is a difference between 'lagging' and a a bumbling amateur attempt at a cover up. It isnt his job to be 'mates' with players.

The guy is simply thick as planks and the AFL need to stop protecting this guy. No idea why you are sticking up for him. I am sure you can do better.
 
master bate said:
But there was no intention to test him at the time. He wasn't hiding from ASADA as far as we know.

If there was a raft of players dodging tests then they'd be chased down I'm sure.

I'd have to look it up or even consult an expert but I'm pretty sure there's a difference between failing to update your address details and failing to be available for testing and that difference comes down to whether you are selected to be tested or not.

ASADA can't go handing out 1 year bans to every athlete they find out wasn't where they said they would be.
Click to expand...

Well they can actually and have. He was obviously hiding.

I dont particularly care about players doing illicit drugs and I dont think they should be tested for them.
BUT
Once the rules are in place then that is what is in place - if you dont like them well write a submission on it. Dont unilaterally decide you arent going to follow the rules because you dont personally agree with them. It isnt for the likes of half wits like Allan to be running their own vigilante justice and deciding what is right or not. He shouldnt be getting involved. Just a flog act. If Allan doesnt like AFL policy - dont accept AFL pay cheques. Simple mate. You cant have it both ways. Flog.
 
Last edited:
FAT T0NY said:
It will be swept under the carpet just like everything else that may cause the AFL to take a hit to their reputation. The AFL is worse that FIFA.
Click to expand...
They tried to do that six weeks ago when it first emerged, no more sweeping now.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Reppie said:
The word scandal seems to be used for those in seeming higher positions.
Called a crime for most of us so called citizens.
Click to expand...
The word supplement seems to be used for those involved in positions relating to the Essendon Football Club.
Called performance enhancing drugs for most of us so called citizens.
 
Frank Gallagher said:
Snorting Coke is hardly sexually molesting a child you dumb flog.
Click to expand...
Err no its not but you missed my point completely you moron.
Its not the coke. Its the cover-up. The point is people can have jobs with conflicting duties. Just saying it was 'his job to protect players' is thick as planks. His job at GWS was an AFL job. He had a duty to his employer and the code. Not just 'protecting players'. And how far would this 'protection' racket go exactly? It was amateur hour.
I dont give a shit about the coke - but is not about Allan 'lagging'. on his players. If Allan doesnt like AFL policy - dont sign a contract with the AFL then. Dont just unilaterally decide to be part of a cover-up. Allan didnt need to 'lag' but he also shouldnt be getting involved in cover-ups. It is a completely flog act.
And who you calling dumb?
Flog I can handle.
You are the half-wit defending Allan just because you think he is 'one of your tribe'.
Talk about dumb.
 
sonnywalters said:
Err no its not but you missed my point completely you moron.
Its not the coke. Its the cover-up. The point is people can have jobs with conflicting duties. Just saying it was 'his job to protect players' is thick as planks. His job at GWS was an AFL job. He had a duty to his employer and the code. Not just 'protecting players'. And how far would this protection go exactly?
I dont give a shit about the coke - but is not about Allan 'lagging'. on his players. If Allan doesnt like AFL policy - dont sign a contract with the AFL then. Dont just unilaterally decide to be part of a cover-up. Allan didnt need to 'lag' but he also shouldnt be getting involved in cover-ups. It is a completely flog act.
And who you calling dumb?
Flog I can handle.
You are the half-wit defending Allan just because you think he is 'one of your tribe'.
Talk about dumb.
Click to expand...
I think you missed the point, hardly surprising.
 
blue harvest said:
Some PEDS can be clear from your blood fairly quickly, and hair testing isn't as reliable for PEDs because some of the PEDs are naturally occurring substances.
Click to expand...
Still add the testing to a mandatory suspension and i doubt we'd see anyone else try it on, make the suspension a severe one for repeat offenders.
 
master bate said:
But there was no intention to test him at the time. He wasn't hiding from ASADA as far as we know.

If there was a raft of players dodging tests then they'd be chased down I'm sure.

I'd have to look it up or even consult an expert but I'm pretty sure there's a difference between failing to update your address details and failing to be available for testing and that difference comes down to whether you are selected to be tested or not.

ASADA can't go handing out 1 year bans to every athlete they find out wasn't where they said they would be.
Click to expand...
You're missing the point, it doesn't matter whether he was going to be tested or not.
He deliberately made himself unavailable for possible testing, that is different to not being where you said you would be because you forgot to update your details. I'm sure heaps of people get away with this sort of thing but unfortunately for him there is evidence showing it was a deliberate act.
 
mad4freo said:
Yeah but still a pussy move most players if they do drugs know that they could be being drug tested the next day and actually think about it before they take drugs. Swanny reckons he used to plan ahead months in advance.
Click to expand...
Turns out swan is smarter than some give him credit for.
How i luv ya how i luv ya
My dear ol swanny
Id walk a million miles
For one of your smiles
My Swannie.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

sonnywalters said:
Well they can actually and have. He was obviously hiding.

I dont particularly care about players doing illicit drugs and I dont think they should be tested for them.
BUT
Once the rules are in place then that is what is in place - if you dont like them well write a submission on it. Dont unilaterally decide you arent going to follow the rules because you dont personally agree with them. It isnt for the likes of half wits like Allan to be running their own vigilante justice and deciding what is right or not. He shouldnt be getting involved. Just a flog act. If Allan doesnt like AFL policy - dont accept AFL pay cheques. Simple mate. You cant have it both ways. Flog.
Click to expand...
I just don't believe they were hiding him from the ASADA testers and ASADA never went looking for him. The only way ASADA are involved in all of this is because it's become public and they've been forced to investigate. As there's no evidence he had taken or intended to take performance enhancing drugs I think his punishment from ASADA should be the same as people who don't update their addresses, not the same as people who hide to avoid ASADA tests.

His punishment from the AFL under the illicit drug rules is another matter. That should be a strike.

If we take the AFL at their word that the illicit drug policy is a health care policy designed to make sure players don't end up with drug abuse problems then Gubby's actions in sending the kid to the welfare manager - whilst probably outside the scope of his job and recommended protocol - isn't really a terrible decision.

Put yourself in Allan and Lambert's shoes. A kid comes to you saying he's worried after taking drugs. What are the possible outcomes:

Best case management: Get him checked over by the doctor. Update his ASADA details so he isn't dodging their testing. Send him to stay with the welfare manager where he can be monitored until he feels better. Contact the AFL medical department to self report a strike against the illicit drug code.

Worst case management: Attempt to deny knowledge of it ever happening, send him home alone, worried and freaking out about a bad life choice with the possibility he does something stupid or dangerous.

Sounds like Gubby was in between the best and worst scenario. Then there's obviously been a cover up which is - as often is the case - worse than the crime itself.

The only complicating matter from this is the Collingwood players getting busted for PED's in their recreational drugs, but I think that was a terrible tragedy and I feel so bad for those boys. But if ASADA weren't trying to test Whitfield and there's no link between whatever he took and PED's then I think that's largely irrelevant. I know in some ways it's one and the same but I truly belief he was hiding from the AFL drug testers and not out to dupe ASADA.
 
Frank Gallagher said:
We're not talking about PEDs here though, a message needs to be sent but it shouldn't be over the top, maybe a drug awareness course for the boy and a fine for all 3, a 12 month ban was all Jimmy got FFS.
Click to expand...

Your 2 guys didnt knowingly take PEDS. Unless you believe the coke story was made up?

He deliberately hid to avoid a test. That should be an auto long holiday.
 
If he was looking at first offence then club would have told him to take the gamble. Makes me think this guy has been caught blowing lines before and was worried about getting his third strike.

I just hope that he was blowing his lines of the arse of a 1k an hour hooker. Let's be honest, who doesn't want to be Charlie sheen for a day.
 
master bate said:
I just don't believe they were hiding him from the ASADA testers and ASADA never went looking for him. The only way ASADA are involved in all of this is because it's become public and they've been forced to investigate. As there's no evidence he had taken or intended to take performance enhancing drugs I think his punishment from ASADA should be the same as people who don't update their addresses, not the same as people who hide to avoid ASADA tests.
Click to expand...
If it was only recreational stuff, why be worried about getting tested by ASADA? It wasn't on game day, so I don't think he would face punishment from them.

If we take the AFL at their word that the illicit drug policy is a health care policy designed to make sure players don't end up with drug abuse problems then Gubby's actions in sending the kid to the welfare manager - whilst probably outside the scope of his job and recommended protocol - isn't really a terrible decision.
Click to expand...
It is, which is why the punishments are a fine (1st strike), 4 match ban (2nd strike), 12 month ban (3rd strike). If it was his first strike or even his second, hiding out is a terrible decision.

Put yourself in Allan and Lambert's shoes. A kid comes to you saying he's worried after taking drugs. What are the possible outcomes:

Best case management: Get him checked over by the doctor. Update his ASADA details so he isn't dodging their testing. Send him to stay with the welfare manager where he can be monitored until he feels better. Contact the AFL medical department to self report a strike against the illicit drug code.
Click to expand...
Explain to him that the chances of him actually being tested are low, that it will only be a strike if he is caught and he should think more about taking drugs in the future.

Worst case management: Attempt to deny knowledge of it ever happening, send him home alone, worried and freaking out about a bad life choice with the possibility he does something stupid or dangerous.
Click to expand...
At worst it could have been a third strike. If he had done enough drugs to have actually been caught twice (what are the chances), then he should have probably been excused from the team for a while and been under some rigid counselling and considering his future.

Sounds like Gubby was in between the best and worst scenario. Then there's obviously been a cover up which is - as often is the case - worse than the crime itself.
Click to expand...
It was an overreaction to hide him away, unless of course it was for something other than for "just a bit of coke."

The only complicating matter from this is the Collingwood players getting busted for PED's in their recreational drugs, but I think that was a terrible tragedy and I feel so bad for those boys. But if ASADA weren't trying to test Whitfield and there's no link between whatever he took and PED's then I think that's largely irrelevant. I know in some ways it's one and the same but I truly belief he was hiding from the AFL drug testers and not out to dupe ASADA.
Click to expand...
If he was trying to avoid ASADA testers for using recreational drugs, then maybe there was more to it? If we give players a free pass for any bullshit excuse they come up with for missing a test or 'hiding out', then we may as well just scrap the whole system.
 
Anyone else lol and roll their eyes when they read 'integrity unit' ?

Has to be the most farcical part of AFL house, should be called. 'Damage Control and Cover Up' unit.
 
Muggs said:
Doping charges still on the cards

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...s/news-story/cc8c9e53bbe59de5046ef382da1f9b8a

Two high-profile club officials and GWS star midfielder Lachie Whitfield face serious penalties after the AFL received a damning brief of evidence alleging that they deliberately breached anti-doping rules.

Collingwood’s head of football Graeme Allan, Brisbane’s player welfare boss Craig Lambert and Whitfield face the serious disciplinary charges which carry penalties of up to four-year bans after the AFL and ASADA considered a report from the league’s integrity team.

An AFL source confirmed to The Australian ASADA delivered its legal findings last Friday and they were discussed by the league executive yesterday morning.

It is believed all three could be found in breach of three codes or policies. They are the ASADA code, the AFL illicit drug code or, at the very least, charges of bringing the game into disrepute under AFL player rules. It is in the AFL’s hands under which code or policy it takes action under.
...

The contents of Whifield’s former partner’s email are believed to have mentioned alleged drug use. They were sent to Allan, the head of football at GWS at the time. Rather than refer the matter to the club’s senior administrators immediately, it is alleged that both Allan and Lambert took the matter into their own hands.

They decided Whitfield should be hidden at Lambert’s house and thus limit his exposure to a possible drug test, according to investigators. When this information became known to the GWS board the club’s integrity committee immediately established an inquiry to be run by a senior counsel and simultaneously referred it to the AFL.

In September last year the senior counsel reported that after a thorough investigation he could find no evidence of any drug issue with Whitfield. However, the club felt that what Allan and, to a lesser extent Lambert, had done was nothing short of cavalier.

So seems ex emailed Gubby who than hid Whitfield, even if no drug issue hiding from testers is not on.
Click to expand...
My 50c bet is on a couple more BTGIDs for the staffers, along with AFL pension plans if they shut up and play along.

For the player, I think it's a bit more line-ball. Unless he is a gun player, he's just another cut of average meat in the cabinet, so could be left high and dry - especially if he already has more than one strike.

It's looking like he probably already had at least one, otherwise the "cavallier" actions would seem like over-kill for risk-managing a first strike.

I would also read that the young lady probably was looking out for her boy at the time. She would have had some inkling if he was a repeat user and also if the club had been giving him any warnings. Where else should she have gone if she was concerned?

This would have been a much pettier matter had the two staffers followed their club process from the outset.

Edit - forgot to add that the official AFL line (this is from the Oz afterall) is still dragging ASADA in on it, after ASADA had already assessed that there was nothing here for them. What is the AFL playing at here?
 
NoAFLinmycomp said:
My 50c bet is on a couple more BTGIDs for the staffers, along with AFL pension plans if they shut up and play along.

For the player, I think it's a bit more line-ball. Unless he is a gun player, he's just another cut of average meat in the cabinet, so could be left high and dry - especially if he already has more than one strike.

It's looking like he probably already had at least one, otherwise the "cavallier" actions would seem like over-kill for risk-managing a first strike.

I would also read that the young lady probably was looking out for her boy at the time. She would have had some inkling if he was a repeat user and also if the club had been giving him any warnings. Where else should she have gone if she was concerned?

This would have been a much pettier matter had the two staffers followed their club process from the outset.

Edit - forgot to add that the official AFL line (this is from the Oz afterall) is still dragging ASADA in on it, after ASADA had already assessed that there was nothing here for them. What is the AFL playing at here?
Click to expand...

Might go for a bit more than a 50c bet on the BTGID.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread suspect its a technical breach of the anti-doping code, thus ASADA need's to be kept in the loop to ensure they happy with what is happening (to address your edit). In saying this there is no suggestion of intent to take a PED, at most fear of a PED mixed in with a illicit drugs so not sure its within the "spirit" of the anti-doping code and ASADA's role in fighting the "war" on doping in sport. So keep ASADA in the loop to ensure everything is above board, everyone is happy and no appeals are coming.

Not even sure on the illicit drugs after that article based on the GWS lawyers not finding any evidence of a drug use by Whitfield, just claims from a GF that he was using, which further makes me think not going to be done via the anti-doping policy, or maybe even illicit drug policy.

Leaving the good old catch all BTGID, with a joint statement from ASADA/AFL about how this is a breach but as it does not advance the fight against PEDs they decided not to go down this path, thus they the good guys in this.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Lachie Whitfield and GWS Officials Under Investigation

Similar threads

The_Wookie
The Andrew Wilkie Allegations
Replies
17
Views
1K
pattymalone00
pattymalone00

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top