Lachie Whitfield and GWS Officials Under Investigation

[Frank Gallagher]

He risked ending his career when he deliberately hid from drug testers. His Girlfriend has been open and up front about what happened.

Isn't that nice of her.

 

[Cylon7]

Isn't that nice of her.

Well who's worse, a bloke who cheats on his GF, or a GF who tries to end a blokes career?

Hell have no fury like a Skank scourned.

What exactly is a Skank 'scourned'?

Didn't she make his situation known to GWS to help his problem while she was with still him?

Why, like the Daily Telegraph, do you denigrate the informer and see no issue with the footballers?

 

[HairyO]

Isn't that nice of her.

At the time she was concerned about his drug habit and told his club.

She could have told the AFL or the media...

 

[Muggs]

ASADA has got seperate legal advice to the AFL

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-20...on-lachie-whitfield-case-20161018-gs54gm.html

Suggestions that ASADA is looking at acting independently of the AFL.

Could just be getting a second opinion but either ASADA not just leaving it to the AFL.

 

[Satan]

ASADA has got seperate legal advice to the AFL

http://www.theage.com.au/afl/afl-20...on-lachie-whitfield-case-20161018-gs54gm.html

Suggestions that ASADA is looking at acting independently of the AFL.

Could just be getting a second opinion but either ASADA not just leaving it to the AFL.

dont want to get burnt ?

 

[sonnywalters]

Illicit is code for illegal right?
Why do they get exemptions for possessing a substance anyone else would end up in court for because they are footballers?

The AFL want to present an image of a clean code. I have no issue with that.
But this whole 3rd strike policy is ridiculous. If they are testing the players and they fail or dodge a test, report them to the authorities and let them handle it.

I certainly dont disagree with you.

 

[Slartibartfast]

dont want to get burnt ?

Again!

 

[TTRRAAVVIISS]

And both men were ''allowed'' to move on to other clubs.

Interesting this follows the Bullies/Crows leak from the Herald-Sun. Competing leaks? Oh and TTRRAAVVIISS Any comments?

Always got plenty of comments. I still maintain it's an illicit drug and mental health issue. I still hold the same views I had for the ex. We'll see how it plays out.

I think ASADA and AFL are doing well at trying to pressure the 3 of them to accept a deal. I ain't seen the brief of evidence, but it doesn't change my position that this is beyond ASADA's remit. No tests conducted. Player didn't play. Paranoid that he might have ingested a banned substance. Other people may view it differently but that's my view on it.

Honestly, by all means go after those that use PED's to gain an advantage. But this is a stretch. May as well tap every players phone and computers.

Considering all Whitfield had to do to avoid this was self report to a club doctor for illicit drug use I think the AFL's policy on illicit drugs/mental health issues is basically redundant and undermines the principles of the WADA code, if ASADA end up successfully perusing this.

Going by this investigation into Whitfield anyone who self reports should be automatically tested for PED's. As the illicit drug policy is secret, I've no idea if this is the case. All Whitfield has done is fail to follow a flawed policy to avoid getting a strike. In the grand scheme of things it's really not worthy of a suspension.

 

[Slartibartfast]

Always got plenty of comments. I still maintain it's an illicit drug and mental health issue. I still hold the same views I had for the ex. We'll see how it plays out.

I think ASADA and AFL are doing well at trying to pressure the 3 of them to accept a deal. I ain't seen the brief of evidence, but it doesn't change my position that this is beyond ASADA's remit. No tests conducted. Player didn't play. Paranoid that he might have ingested a banned substance. Other people may view it differently but that's my view on it.

Honestly, by all means go after those that use PED's to gain an advantage. But this is a stretch. May as well tap every players phone and computers.

Considering all Whitfield had to do to avoid this was self report to a club doctor for illicit drug use I think the AFL's policy on illicit drugs/mental health issues is basically redundant and undermines the principles of the WADA code, if ASADA end up successfully perusing this.

Going by this investigation into Whitfield anyone who self reports should be automatically tested for PED's. As the illicit drug policy is secret, I've no idea if this is the case. All Whitfield has done is fail to follow a flawed policy to avoid getting a strike. In the grand scheme of things it's really not worthy of a suspension.

So when the next case comes up where a player has avoided a test and they had in fact doped and were hiding out of fear of being detected they will just say I shit myself, I know it was silly but I just panicked, but I didn't take anything.
Okay on your way then! Yeah right!
The system can only work if a situation like this is punished. They Were concerned he may test positive and changed his living arrangements to escape any possible test. Guilt must be assumed.

 

[Muggs]

So when the next case comes up where a player has avoided a test and they had in fact doped and were hiding out of fear of being detected they will just say I shit myself, I know it was silly but I just panicked, but I didn't take anything.
Okay on your way then! Yeah right!
The system can only work if a situation like this is punished. They Were concerned he may test positive and changed his living arrangements to escape any possible test. Guilt must be assumed.

Punish yes, but do you punish under the anti-doping code or for bringing the game into disrepute?

Personally think getting 2 years let alone 4 years for this is overkill, particularly if only a risk of taking a PED through a illicit drug possibly cut with one. We not even sure Whitford took any illicit substances or if it was a claim from the GF, GWS lawyer could not substantiate he has a drug issue.

I see going after these guys via the anti-doping code could do more harm than good, could put up further barriers between doping authorities and athletes.

Hit them with bringing the game into disrepute, talk about how it's a technical violation of the anti-doping code to send the message.

 

[GreyCrow]

I think Swan and Lambert should be a monetary fine , Whitfield a strike. Then send the message that the next instance will be suspensions.

Start off with the message that these things have a habit of getting out so don't expect to be able to cover it up. If people choose to ignore it from now on then time out of the game will occur.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Always got plenty of comments. I still maintain it's an illicit drug and mental health issue. I still hold the same views I had for the ex. We'll see how it plays out.

I think ASADA and AFL are doing well at trying to pressure the 3 of them to accept a deal. I ain't seen the brief of evidence, but it doesn't change my position that this is beyond ASADA's remit. No tests conducted. Player didn't play. Paranoid that he might have ingested a banned substance. Other people may view it differently but that's my view on it.

Honestly, by all means go after those that use PED's to gain an advantage. But this is a stretch. May as well tap every players phone and computers.

Considering all Whitfield had to do to avoid this was self report to a club doctor for illicit drug use I think the AFL's policy on illicit drugs/mental health issues is basically redundant and undermines the principles of the WADA code, if ASADA end up successfully perusing this.

Going by this investigation into Whitfield anyone who self reports should be automatically tested for PED's. As the illicit drug policy is secret, I've no idea if this is the case. All Whitfield has done is fail to follow a flawed policy to avoid getting a strike. In the grand scheme of things it's really not worthy of a suspension.

I wonder if Whitfield scored the same gear as the other two?

ie. he knew for a fact he had clembutoral in his system? And therefore did in fact commit an anti-doping breach?

For the hundreds of AFL players that use 'recreational' drugs, his reaction seems a tad extreme.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

I think Swan and Lambert should be a monetary fine , Whitfield a strike. Then send the message that the next instance will be suspensions.

Start off with the message that these things have a habit of getting out so don't expect to be able to cover it up. If people choose to ignore it from now on then time out of the game will occur.

??

As with the Essendon saga, you can't just make up anti-doping penalties as you see fit.

There are set penalties, and whether they're fair is irrelevant.

 

[Muggs]

??

As with the Essendon saga, you can't just make up anti-doping penalties as you see fit.

There are set penalties, and whether they're fair is irrelevant.

The choice to prosecute though means you can purse anti doping charges or not as you see fit.

Unless ASADA steps in the AFL does not need to take action under the AFL anti-doping policy. With this not being a clear case of a player taking a PED it's questionable if ASADA wants to be involved.

Whether penalties are anti doping polices are fair or not may play a big part into what policies are applied by the AFL.

 

[Muggs]

I wonder if Whitfield scored the same gear as the other two?

ie. he knew for a fact he had clembutoral in his system? And therefore did in fact commit an anti-doping breach?

For the hundreds of AFL players that use 'recreational' drugs, his reaction seems a tad extreme.

Just how would he know this? 4 months later, different state ?

Hundreds of AFL players use "recreational drugs"? so over a quarter of all players use do they? find that hard to believe...

 

[Randomizor]

I wonder if Whitfield scored the same gear as the other two?

ie. he knew for a fact he had clembutoral in his system? And therefore did in fact commit an anti-doping breach?

For the hundreds of AFL players that use 'recreational' drugs, his reaction seems a tad extreme.

You really believe the Collingwood boys got Clen from recreational drugs? I've got a bridge to sell you....

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Just how would he know this? 4 months later, different state ?

Hundreds of AFL players use "recreational drugs"? so over a quarter of all players use do they? find that hard to believe...

But if It's an anti-doping breach, AFL anti-doping rules apply.

And yes, I'd be shocked if less than 25% of players didn't get on the gear.

 

[Muggs]

But if It's an anti-doping breach, AFL anti-doping rules apply.

And yes, I'd be shocked if less than 25% of players didn't get on the gear.

Anti-doping rules only apply if the AFL or ASADA decide that they do. Both could simply decide its not an issue they wish to prosecute using the anti-doping policy. We seen nothing so far to suggest that ASADA is doing anything directly themselves to force the AFL to prosecute under anti-doping rules, if left up to their own devices cant see the AFL doing so via anti-doping.

If they never prosecute using anti-doping rules, they never go before a anti-doping tribunal, they never receive anti-doping penalties.

I've been caught speeding, pulled over by the police and been let of by the police with an informal warning. Broke the law but received no penalty by a cop choosing to do nothing. Same thing really.

 

[Cylon7]

A bit of an overreaction
Defence is simply- and plausibly- Whitfield was having relationship issues, lots of arguments was acting destructively, needed some time away, afraid of upsetting girlfriend-as she was 'volatile'- made up story about needing to stay at Craig's because he'd gone out and got smashed after argument and had drugs and was afraid he might be tested and need to stay at Craig's. Broke up with her soon after, as realised upon reflection he no longer wanted to be in bad relationship
Nothing to see here- move on.

Again, another interesting choice of words ... she was 'volatile'.
It would be refreshing for footballers and their support staff to just own up to their own issues.

And please no more requests for people to 'move on' because it reflects badly on the AFL brand.

 

[TTRRAAVVIISS]

I wonder if Whitfield scored the same gear as the other two?

ie. he knew for a fact he had clembutoral in his system? And therefore did in fact commit an anti-doping breach?

For the hundreds of AFL players that use 'recreational' drugs, his reaction seems a tad extreme.

Ummm how would he know an illicit substance was laced with a PED? Keefe and Thomas were blindsided by the positive test. Which is why their lawyer was talking about NZ beef at the start.

And why would he get the same gear as two players based on Melbourne? Doubt he'd get a Melbourne based dealer to deliver to Sydney.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Anti-doping rules only apply if the AFL or ASADA decide that they do. Both could simply decide its not an issue they wish to prosecute using the anti-doping policy. We seen nothing so far to suggest that ASADA is doing anything directly themselves to force the AFL to prosecute under anti-doping rules, if left up to their own devices cant see the AFL doing so via anti-doping.

If they never prosecute using anti-doping rules, they never go before a anti-doping tribunal, they never receive anti-doping penalties.

I've been caught speeding, pulled over by the police and been let of by the police with an informal warning. Broke the law but received no penalty by a cop choosing to do nothing. Same thing really.

Obviously I was basing my comments on the assumption that he/they are charged with an anti-doping breach.

Patrick Smith seemed pretty adamant on SEN that that is what will occur based on his information.

 

[Lavender Bushranger]

Ummm how would he know an illicit substance was laced with a PED? Keefe and Thomas were blindsided by the positive test. Which is why their lawyer was talking about NZ beef at the start.

And why would he get the same gear as two players based on Melbourne? Doubt he'd get a Melbourne based dealer to deliver to Sydney.

Why would anyone hide out from potential PED tests cause they snorted coke?

 

[TTRRAAVVIISS]

So when the next case comes up where a player has avoided a test and they had in fact doped and were hiding out of fear of being detected they will just say I shit myself, I know it was silly but I just panicked, but I didn't take anything.
Okay on your way then! Yeah right!
The system can only work if a situation like this is punished. They Were concerned he may test positive and changed his living arrangements to escape any possible test. Guilt must be assumed.

I'm not sure what your point is. There has to be a test scheduled to avoid it. I'm really not sure how punishing Whitfield for something shit loads of players do because their is an Illicit drug policy in place supports the Anti Doping System. Every case is different. This one especially so. The ASADA system is in place to seek out and prevent PED cheats. Whitfield is not a doping cheat. There is no evidence of this.

Say ASADA had rocked up at his house and he avoided a test by not providing details he was at Lamberts. That's a slightly different story, one that probably leads to warning for not providing accurate whereabouts details. Hardly a massive issue.

Regardless, ASADA did not knock on his door nor did they require a test from any GWS player that week. Nor is the player being accused of ingesting a PED to improve performance.

Nothing is stopping a player or athlete from doping and taking risk minimisation tactics to reduce the chance of being tested. Risk minimisation is not necessarily an ADRV. Armstrong used every trick in the book to avoid testers. I'd expect all athletes that dope do. But just cause an athlete minimises the chance of being tested doesn't mean they are dopers.

And I bet it's common for clean athletes who take illicit drugs to reduce the possibility of having to give a sample by staying somewhere neutral for a few days till it's out of their system. No one wants people to know they are on illicit drugs. It would be common, I would have thought, for an athlete to get issued a whereabouts breach to avoid giving a sample when they know an illicit substance will show up.

And again, the AFL has an illicit drug and mental health policy that blurs the lines here. You guys keep saying it's ASADA issue and I keep saying it ain't.

This story is about failing to follow the illicit drug process not PED's, regardless about how paranoid Whitfeild was thinking he ingested a PED. There is no evidence of PED use.

Even if ASADA actually did spring a test on Whitfield there is still the possibility that he would have decided (once notified of the test) to proceed with giving a sample. As ASADA never asked him to submit to a test we will never know what his true intent was had ASADA requested a test.

ASADA offered EFC and Cronulla players 6 weeks and they knew there was a doping breach. In this instance there is no evidence of a doping breach. Just paranoia of the player. Ridiculous if anyone involved in this gets anything more than a fine. Even then I reckon that's too much.

 

[TTRRAAVVIISS]

Why would anyone hide out from potential PED tests cause they snorted coke?

Ummm I don't know ... maybe because he was having relationship problems, was stressed, maybe a little depressed, clearly paranoid, anxious and coming down off a drug.

Maybe he hadn't slept for 48 hours and was fried?

Wouldnt take much to start freaking out and somehow convince yourself "shit what if I get tested? what if it was cut with a PED? Holy shit Lambert your the welfare officer wtf do I do mate?".

 

[Slartibartfast]

There is evidence that Whitfield and club staff made efforts to circumvent player requirements in regard to drug testing.
It's simple. Does not matter if a test was scheduled or not.