Page 11 of 13

Re: Zak's return?

PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 9:22 pm
by brodie123
Zac will get two years. It's alledged he had the same issues at Leeds, they can take their time to disclose the punishment, simply he's not going anywhere shortly. Why would the best full back in RL leave the most successful club in super league the best supported club in super league where the supporters idolised him unless he did something wrong, why have we got to give him another chance, he will not learn . The only defence he has is that he is stupid and thinks he won't get caught until the next time. He had more written warnings at Leeds than anyone else at the club. The guy doesn't learn he has nothing between his ears. No sympathy for anyone taking drugs, he should be kicked out of the club as an example to young kids that drugs don't belong in our sport.
Ryan Bailey totally different he was given bottles of water with the seal broken, would you drink water from bottles with seals broken, he took another test a couple of days later and they was clear. A drug cheat would have failed his second test.
The footballer total different story yes he got away with it but would be banned if caught a second time, Zac did not have any of these issues so let's not assume he did. Zac should be sacked and he needs to get a proper job like the rest of us and learn that you should never kill the goose that lays the golden egg.

Re: Zak's return?

PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 9:50 pm
by Casmoley
brodie123 wrote:Zac will get two years. It's alledged he had the same issues at Leeds, they can take their time to disclose the punishment, simply he's not going anywhere shortly. Why would the best full back in RL leave the most successful club in super league the best supported club in super league where the supporters idolised him unless he did something wrong, why have we got to give him another chance, he will not learn . The only defence he has is that he is stupid and thinks he won't get caught until the next time. He had more written warnings at Leeds than anyone else at the club. The guy doesn't learn he has nothing between his ears. No sympathy for anyone taking drugs, he should be kicked out of the club as an example to young kids that drugs don't belong in our sport.
Ryan Bailey totally different he was given bottles of water with the seal broken, would you drink water from bottles with seals broken, he took another test a couple of days later and they was clear. A drug cheat would have failed his second test.
The footballer total different story yes he got away with it but would be banned if caught a second time, Zac did not have any of these issues so let's not assume he did. Zac should be sacked and he needs to get a proper job like the rest of us and learn that you should never kill the goose that lays the golden egg.


he left Leeds to get away from personal life in England. I won't post details on here and I'm not defending what he has done at Cas as it's peed me off also. He mentioned in His interview pre season with Eddie the reasoning. Look back for it if you want but I'm sure any one of us wouldn't deal with the news he got well.

Re: Zak's return?

PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 10:06 pm
by old cas lass
Casmoley wrote:
brodie123 wrote:Zac will get two years. It's alledged he had the same issues at Leeds, they can take their time to disclose the punishment, simply he's not going anywhere shortly. Why would the best full back in RL leave the most successful club in super league the best supported club in super league where the supporters idolised him unless he did something wrong, why have we got to give him another chance, he will not learn . The only defence he has is that he is stupid and thinks he won't get caught until the next time. He had more written warnings at Leeds than anyone else at the club. The guy doesn't learn he has nothing between his ears. No sympathy for anyone taking drugs, he should be kicked out of the club as an example to young kids that drugs don't belong in our sport.
Ryan Bailey totally different he was given bottles of water with the seal broken, would you drink water from bottles with seals broken, he took another test a couple of days later and they was clear. A drug cheat would have failed his second test.
The footballer total different story yes he got away with it but would be banned if caught a second time, Zac did not have any of these issues so let's not assume he did. Zac should be sacked and he needs to get a proper job like the rest of us and learn that you should never kill the goose that lays the golden egg.


he left Leeds to get away from personal life in England. I won't post details on here and I'm not defending what he has done at Cas as it's peed me off also. He mentioned in His interview pre season with Eddie the reasoning. Look back for it if you want but I'm sure any one of us wouldn't deal with the news he got well.


Thing his he’s back with that same person.

Re: Zak's return?

PostPosted: Wed Jan 03, 2018 10:30 pm
by Casmoley
he is indeed.

Re: Zak's return?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:49 am
by princeka01
I am getting bored of the Zak chat on if he should go or stay etc.., i for one have no sympathy at all... its laughable that people say "he needs help" ... fact is he doesn't.. hes a young lad that goes out all the time gets drunk with mates outside of rugby etc ...he shares everything he does on social media and you have to be an idiot to not tell the difference between he enjoys a drink and going out all the time to he needs help...

A lot of fans are happy to welcome him back with open arms and say ' well we all make mistakes' ...
In the real world that doesn't happen in my job i get random tests i know the severity of what would happen if i was to take a banned substance... In the real world i would not get a second chance and would get laughed at if i said 'im sorry its a mistake' .... no matter what state you get in you are still in control and you know what you are doing and what consequences there are... its like cheating .. people say its a mistake but they know what they are doing and take the risk.

For me as a club get rid move on because we have fallen for the im sorry i will not do it again with previous players and as a result suffered..

30+ other squad members know the rules its not hard... take his contract and give it to someone who takes the job serious and wants to play for the badge

Re: Zak's return?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 8:56 am
by tigerfeat
Im trying to understand the ryan bailey one looks like he got off because he said he was too depressed to take the test

Re: Zak's return?

PostPosted: Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:07 am
by viva brad
tigerfeat wrote:Im trying to understand the ryan bailey one looks like he got off because he said he was too depressed to take the test


Bailey has claimed that the water bottles provided by the drug testing official weren’t properly sealed and therefore could have been contaminated

Re: Zak's return?

PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2018 8:16 pm
by InTheKnow
tigerfeat wrote:Im trying to understand the ryan bailey one looks like he got off because he said he was too depressed to take the test

Contaminated water. Refused to take the test on them grounds and won the battle.

Re: Zak's return?

PostPosted: Fri Jan 05, 2018 8:47 pm
by nottinghamtiger
tigerfeat wrote:Im trying to understand the ryan bailey one looks like he got off because he said he was too depressed to take the test


Bailey’s test seems to have been a shambles with lots of procedural errors. For example, the initial contact as Bailey left the training field did not follow proper procedure, Bailey was not shown the required documentation before drinking the water provided by the Doping Officer, the Doping Officer did not ensure that there was a suitable environment for the test to take place and the water provided, which was meant to be supervised by both Doping officers at all times, was left for a significant time with only one of them.
I suspect the individuals concerned no longer undertake drug testing!

Re: Zak's return?

PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 11:15 am
by JIN JER
Just out of interest why did Bailey have to drink water, can't he relieve himself without having a drink? Or would he be dehydrated after playing?
I'm pretty sure I've read in the past of players waiting hours in the changing rooms to fill a bottle.
Looks like Bailey dodged a bullet there.

Re: Zak's return?

PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 11:19 am
by JIN JER
viva brad wrote:
tigerfeat wrote:Im trying to understand the ryan bailey one looks like he got off because he said he was too depressed to take the test


Bailey has claimed that the water bottles provided by the drug testing official weren’t properly sealed and therefore could have been contaminated

Schoolboy error if that's the case, you'd think the authorities would carry sealed water bottles if that is part of the criteria.

Re: Zak's return?

PostPosted: Sat Jan 06, 2018 7:32 pm
by casjunction
I would expect Bailey to pass a dope test and any other intelligence test, in the same way l would expect him to pass a bully test ,coward test plus ..

Re: Zak's return?

PostPosted: Sun Jan 07, 2018 3:27 pm
by Digger Dave
There is so much rubbish posted on this thread that I've felt the need to register and post some facts - many of you really need to go and look up what the anti-doping regulations and punishments actually are.

Let's start with the punishments: a 1st time anti-doping offence carries a mandatory ban of 4 years unless there are mitigating circumstances. Cocaine is regarded as a stimulant if found (well actually its metabolite Benzoylecgonine which is the substance tested for) in an 'in competition test' (that is in the period 24hrs from the start to the end of an event). All of those 'caught' so far with cocaine in their systems have had the ban reduced to 2 years because they actually took the drug 'out of competition' - the drug testing lab is asked to confirm that the results agree with this claim. I'm almost certain that if the drug had been taking during that in competition period the full 4 years ban would be applied.

As for Bailey, he did not by any stretch of the imagination, as has been reported in some places, successfully claim he was right to refuse to do the test

Some facts taken from the published judgement:
Any justification for refusing to take the test on the basis that the bottles may have been tampered with was dismissed:

"There was no valid reason for Mr Bailey to have not taken the test. Any concern of Mr Bailey over the water could have been catered for by doing as Mr Taylor in fact suggested, that is by making a written record of his concerns, and even retaining one of the bottles for subsequent analysis if necessary."

A plea for the dismissal of the case based on the procedural irregularities highlighted by his defence was rejected.

The conclusion clearly states that
"the anti-doping violation is established" ie the panel found him 'guilty' of the charge of failing or refusing to provide a sample that he was facing. However, they did find that he bore 'no fault or negligence' due to the "truly exceptional circumstances of his case" and therefore he received no punishment. Those circumstances are not recorded but they seem to be based on the evidence of 2 psychiatrists - virtually all of the summary of that evidence is redacted in the published judgement - far be it from me to speculate on that evidence but if you do read the judgement ( https://www.ukad.org.uk/assets/uploads/ ... Bailey.PDF ) some of the phrases used may lead you to form an opinion as to what those circumstances may be.

Re: Zak's return?

PostPosted: Sun Jan 07, 2018 4:30 pm
by casjunction
[quote="Digger Dave"]There is so much rubbish posted on this thread that I've felt the need to register and post some facts - many of you really need to go and look up what the anti-doping regulations and punishments actually are.
Welcome Digger Dave there is plenty of rubbish on ever topic on the forum otherwise there would be many blank pages so thank you for enlightening us but don't think that will stop further posts Happy New Year.

Re: Zak's return?

PostPosted: Sun Jan 07, 2018 8:02 pm
by nottinghamtiger
Digger Dave wrote: There is so much rubbish posted on this thread that I've felt the need to register and post some facts - many of you really need to go and look up what the anti-doping regulations and punishments actually are.
Cocaine is regarded as a stimulant if found (well actually its metabolite Benzoylecgonine which is the substance tested for) in an 'in competition test' (that is in the period 24hrs from the start to the end of an event).


Many thanks for feeling the need to register to provide accurate facts. However, I suggest that before claiming expertise you have your facts right yourself (or you might come across as a know-it-all who doesn’t know it all!)
According to UKAD, “in-competition testing is conducted in connection with a sporting event. WADA define in-competition as “the period commencing 12 hours before competition… through to the end of such competition and the sample-collection process related to such competition”, unless stated otherwise by the rules of an IF or other relevant anti-doping organisation.”
This is the website, so you can look up what the Regulations actually are:
https://ukad.org.uk/our-organisation/wh ... rogrammes/
Edit - welcome to the forum. You’ll find lots of rubbish, and plenty of people who will highlight your own inaccuracies too!