Schoolboy error if that's the case, you'd think the authorities would carry sealed water bottles if that is part of the criteria.viva brad wrote:Bailey has claimed that the water bottles provided by the drug testing official weren’t properly sealed and therefore could have been contaminatedtigerfeat 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
Zak's return?
Re: Zak's return?
-
- Academy Player
- Posts: 1886
- Joined: 22 Jun 2012, 16:48
- Contact:
Re: Zak's return?
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 ..
-
- New member
- Posts: 40
- Joined: 07 Jan 2018, 16:09
- Contact:
Re: Zak's return?
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.
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.
-
- Academy Player
- Posts: 1886
- Joined: 22 Jun 2012, 16:48
- Contact:
Re: Zak's return?
[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.
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.
-
- Championship Player
- Posts: 5272
- Joined: 11 Jul 2006, 16:17
- Contact:
Re: Zak's return?
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!)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).
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!
- mart0042
- Championship Player
- Posts: 6355
- Joined: 24 May 2007, 15:06
- Location: behind the table in the lab deep under Racoon City.....
- Contact:
Re: Zak's return?
So Bailey no ban because maybe he's a loon. Fancy that
-
- New member
- Posts: 40
- Joined: 07 Jan 2018, 16:09
- Contact:
Re: Zak's return?
Thankyou for pointing out my error -1s 2 s and 4s are too close together on my mini keyboardnottinghamtiger wrote: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!)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).
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!
Re: Zak's return?
How long do these cases take to come to a conclusion?
Two recent cases -- the Dewsbury player was December 2016, and just announced the ban. Bailey was May 2017 and just sorted out.
Zak -- another 6 months, or maybe longer??
Two recent cases -- the Dewsbury player was December 2016, and just announced the ban. Bailey was May 2017 and just sorted out.
Zak -- another 6 months, or maybe longer??
-
Verified
- Grand Final Winner
- Posts: 15893
- Joined: 31 Jan 2009, 03:55
- Contact:
Re: Zak's return?
Bit in here that Cas have helped Zak get a job outside of rugby league.
Good to see us helping him out despite his transgression - shows how family-like we are as a club and how supportive we are of players and their wellbeing, even when they do wrong.
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/ru ... io-1037403
Good to see us helping him out despite his transgression - shows how family-like we are as a club and how supportive we are of players and their wellbeing, even when they do wrong.
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/ru ... io-1037403
In the spirit of the final Blackadder episode - Goooodbyeee!
-
old cas lass Verified
- Grand Final Winner
- Posts: 23237
- Joined: 26 Dec 2007, 14:29
- Contact:
Re: Zak's return?
HuddsTigers wrote:Bit in here that Cas have helped Zak get a job outside of rugby league.
Good to see us helping him out despite his transgression - shows how family-like we are as a club and how supportive we are of players and their wellbeing, even when they do wrong.
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/ru ... io-1037403
Does that mean.
1) we aren’t now paying his wages.
2) there’s a way back for him after is ban.
Re: Zak's return?
Was told he’s working for 5 Star Commercial Cleaning and seen pictures of him attending tbeir Xmas do. However I was under the impression that he wasn’t allowed to work for a club sponsor ?HuddsTigers wrote:Bit in here that Cas have helped Zak get a job outside of rugby league.
Good to see us helping him out despite his transgression - shows how family-like we are as a club and how supportive we are of players and their wellbeing, even when they do wrong.
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/ru ... io-1037403
Re: Zak's return?
ShhhhRonnie wrote:Was told he’s working for 5 Star Commercial Cleaning and seen pictures of him attending tbeir Xmas do. However I was under the impression that he wasn’t allowed to work for a club sponsor ?HuddsTigers wrote:Bit in here that Cas have helped Zak get a job outside of rugby league.
Good to see us helping him out despite his transgression - shows how family-like we are as a club and how supportive we are of players and their wellbeing, even when they do wrong.
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/ru ... io-1037403
The measure of who we are is what we do with what we have
Vince Lombardi
Vince Lombardi
-
- League One Player
- Posts: 2191
- Joined: 08 Jul 2008, 00:20
- Location: On the brink
- Contact:
Re: Zak's return?
Good at hoovering thoughRonnie wrote:Was told he’s working for 5 Star Commercial Cleaning and seen pictures of him attending tbeir Xmas do. However I was under the impression that he wasn’t allowed to work for a club sponsor ?HuddsTigers wrote:Bit in here that Cas have helped Zak get a job outside of rugby league.
Good to see us helping him out despite his transgression - shows how family-like we are as a club and how supportive we are of players and their wellbeing, even when they do wrong.
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/ru ... io-1037403
Re: Zak's return?
Sorry... Thought I put this in the rumours thread.... Bloody sausage fingers!!tigerfeat wrote:ShhhhRonnie wrote:Was told he’s working for 5 Star Commercial Cleaning and seen pictures of him attending tbeir Xmas do. However I was under the impression that he wasn’t allowed to work for a club sponsor ?HuddsTigers wrote:Bit in here that Cas have helped Zak get a job outside of rugby league.
Good to see us helping him out despite his transgression - shows how family-like we are as a club and how supportive we are of players and their wellbeing, even when they do wrong.
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/ru ... io-1037403
-
- Academy Player
- Posts: 1676
- Joined: 20 Jun 2016, 08:47
- Contact:
Re: Zak's return?
"I want to break free...."RonnieGibbs'forearm wrote:Good at hoovering thoughRonnie wrote:Was told he’s working for 5 Star Commercial Cleaning and seen pictures of him attending tbeir Xmas do. However I was under the impression that he wasn’t allowed to work for a club sponsor ?HuddsTigers wrote:Bit in here that Cas have helped Zak get a job outside of rugby league.
Good to see us helping him out despite his transgression - shows how family-like we are as a club and how supportive we are of players and their wellbeing, even when they do wrong.
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/ru ... io-1037403
Re: Zak's return?
The money that made ZAK available to us was from the sale of Solomona i keeping having a glance to see how he is performing its a while since i have seen his name mentioned , when Solomona left some of our fans world fell apart as he been missed i think not
Re: Zak's return?
for what its worth one of the women who run the company he was working for before xmas told me they were very pleased with him hed arrived without any heirs and graces and the customers he did work for spoke well of him
The measure of who we are is what we do with what we have
Vince Lombardi
Vince Lombardi
-
Verified
- Grand Final Winner
- Posts: 15893
- Joined: 31 Jan 2009, 03:55
- Contact:
Re: Zak's return?
I've seen nothing to suggest that. The rules posted up the other day relate to - IMO parties involved with the club - e.g. such as Tigers Trust, CTSC, or the backroom staff. Not external partners.Ronnie wrote:Was told he’s working for 5 Star Commercial Cleaning and seen pictures of him attending tbeir Xmas do. However I was under the impression that he wasn’t allowed to work for a club sponsor ?HuddsTigers wrote:Bit in here that Cas have helped Zak get a job outside of rugby league.
Good to see us helping him out despite his transgression - shows how family-like we are as a club and how supportive we are of players and their wellbeing, even when they do wrong.
http://www.hulldailymail.co.uk/sport/ru ... io-1037403
In the spirit of the final Blackadder episode - Goooodbyeee!
Re: Zak's return?
Exactly so ...last thing he needs is to be do done working for somebody hes not supposed to !
The measure of who we are is what we do with what we have
Vince Lombardi
Vince Lombardi
-
- New member
- Posts: 14
- Joined: 08 Jan 2018, 22:37
- Contact:
Re: Zak's return?
That sounds promising - maybe he'll get a shorter ban on account of good customer service.tigerfeat wrote:for what its worth one of the women who run the company he was working for before xmas told me they were very pleased with him hed arrived without any heirs and graces and the customers he did work for spoke well of him
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Adsense [Bot], Beowulf, Bing [Bot], Derbyshiretiger, Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot], MrRugby123 and 166 guests