Willie Rioli doping tampering allegation shocks fans

Are we, as a sporting nation, outraged?

Or are we not even conflicted about what our reaction might or should be?

Take first, for example, the chief executive of Rioli's club, Craig Vozzo, whose only public reaction seems to be to explain how the West Coast Eagles are concerned for the charged player's welfare.

Now that's a nice approach but what about the small matter of Rioli massively let down his defending champion teammates twice before their biggest games of 2019? Immediately after the test an unexpected loss to the Hawks cost them a top-four place. After its revelation came a season exit on Friday night.

Tampering with a sample - during or after the collection process - is among the most serious of doping infractions.

Sure such cases are rarer than a positive test for a prohibited substance but, like refusing to provide a sample at all, tampering goes to the very heart of the anti-doping regime.

It's almost impossible to imagine that in the case of both refusal or tampering there is any argument about lack of intention - the defence most stridently and most often put by those charged with returning a positive test.

There may well be a difference between those whose actions are based on a cunning plan to thwart the system and those who act out of plain stupidity, but in the end the outcome must almost always be the same - a four-year ban.

It may help to explain what the process would have been in Rioli's case.

He was approached to undertake a doping control at training by ASADA - so it's an out-of-competition test and not related to the AFL's own illicit drugs testing program.

That's of significance firstly because Rioli would have had no notice he was to be tested nor, as in the case of a game-day test, an understanding of the possibility he could be one of those selected after the match.

Secondly, because he would have been at less risk of testing positive - for example, cocaine is not banned out-of-competition.

Unlike a competition test, an athlete would neither have an expectation to be prepared nor have time to catheterise himself - the most common way of tampering with the collection process.

In this case he would have been taken to the collection area and asked to provide a urine sample. The process is the same across all sports when a test is made by a national anti-doping agency like ASADA.

Rioli would have gone to a screened area and asked to drop his lower body attire below his knees and raise his upper body attire to his nipple line. This is to enable the attending doping control "chaperone" to clearly observe the urine sample passing from the athlete's body into the collection vessel - usually a plastic cup.

That might be confronting and an invasion of privacy for many, but is standard fare for professional sportspeople and the only way the integrity of the collection process of a serious anti-doping program can be maintained. So, if the process was followed correctly, it's hard to comprehend how any tampering might have occurred up to this point - although there are a swag of amazing stories about how it has in the past.

After the doping control officer completes some paperwork, the athlete is asked to pour the urine into the A and B sample bottles before they are sealed.

It is not unusual for the athlete to have a drink with them. Many need to drink in order to provide the sample and then continue to do so throughout the process so as not to dehydrate.

It would be relatively easy to find a moment to pour some of the drink into the still open collection vessel.

But it would be just as easy for the DCO to notice that the volume had increased or when he performed the routine test for the pH value of the sample to discover it wasn't quite in order.

Sounds like an interesting case either way - perhaps even to put Rioli in the same naughty corner as Sun.