Re: Ryan Bailey : Sat Jan 06, 2018 4:31 am  

Cop out and very clever by Bailey using his previous mental health to make out he had no idea as to the ramifications of not providing a test.

That they came back 2 days later and he did a 'clear' test is meaningless, a drug such as cocaine has a pretty short 'half-life' IF an athlete had taken it even the day before or two days before, refused a test and dope testers come back 2 days later there's a very high chance that it would be clear especially if the user was doing it infrequently.

The outcome is laughable and the panel swallowed it hook line and sinker.

Re: Ryan Bailey : Sat Jan 06, 2018 1:16 pm  

It still baffles me at how some players are getting themselves in a position where they could fail a test. For anything recreational it is very easy to make sure you never test positive.

Re: Ryan Bailey : Sat Jan 06, 2018 3:04 pm  

I don’t understand how difficult it can be to conduct a pee test.


Tester - Hi Mr. Bailey, you’ve been chosen can you please pee in this bottle?

Bailey - No. I don’t like the look of that bottle it’s unsealed and could contaminate the result.

Tester - Oh sorry about that, my mistake. That’s okay we have another 12 sealed bottles in the van. I will just get one, you stay there please.

Bailey - Ok thanks!

Re: Ryan Bailey : Sat Jan 06, 2018 3:41 pm  

So now Bailey's a genius who can not only think quickly on his feet but also fool not 1, but 2 psychiatrists into misdiagnosing him. It's also worth remembering that the tribunal operated under essentially the same conditions and rules of a UK Court and the panel consisted of a QC who is a Deputy High Court Judge, a qualified Dr who has been involved in elite sport for over 20 years and a solicitor who is a former professional footballer who also sits as an expert of the FA Judicial Panel, not just some blokes dragged in off the street. People really should go and read the judgement https://www.ukad.org.uk/assets/uploads/ ... Bailey.PDF A few facts from the judgement: Point 40 dismisses any justification for refusing to take the test on the basis that the bottles may have been tampered with: "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." Point 47 rules out a dismissal of the case based on the procedural irregularities highlighted by his defence. 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 he was facing. However, they also found 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 expanded on but they appear to be based on the evidence of 2 psychiatrists, virtually all of which is redacted in the published judgement - I will not speculate on that evidence but if you do read the judgement some of the phrases used may lead you to form an opinion as to what those circumstances may be.

So now Bailey's a genius who can not only think quickly on his feet but also fool not 1, but 2 psychiatrists into misdiagnosing him. It's also worth remembering that the tribunal operated under essentially the same conditions and rules of a UK Court and the panel consisted of a QC who is a Deputy High Court Judge, a qualified Dr who has been involved in elite sport for over 20 years and a solicitor who is a former professional footballer who also sits as an expert of the FA Judicial Panel, not just some blokes dragged in off the street. People really should go and read the judgement https://www.ukad.org.uk/assets/uploads/ ... Bailey.PDF A few facts from the judgement: Point 40 dismisses any justification for refusing to take the test on the basis that the bottles may have been tampered with: "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." Point 47 rules out a dismissal of the case based on the procedural irregularities highlighted by his defence. 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 he was facing. However, they also found 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 expanded on but they appear to be based on the evidence of 2 psychiatrists, virtually all of which is redacted in the published judgement - I will not speculate on that evidence but if you do read the judgement some of the phrases used may lead you to form an opinion as to what those circumstances may be.

Re: Ryan Bailey : Sat Jan 06, 2018 4:04 pm  

MattyB wrote:

I don’t understand how difficult it can be to conduct a pee test.


Tester - Hi Mr. Bailey, you’ve been chosen can you please pee in this bottle?

Bailey - No. I don’t like the look of that bottle it’s unsealed and could contaminate the result.

Tester - Oh sorry about that, my mistake. That’s okay we have another 12 sealed bottles in the van. I will just get one, you stay there please.

Bailey - Ok thanks!

Apparently it was a bottle of water he was given to drink not the sample bottle

Re: Ryan Bailey : Sat Jan 06, 2018 5:23 pm  

wildshot wrote:

Wrong there are at least 2:

1. You think you will fail the test.

2. You think the test is unfair/contaminated/sabotage.

Nope there is one. Your second example is laughable.

Regards

King James

Re: Ryan Bailey : Sat Jan 06, 2018 9:03 pm  

Mr Dog wrote: So now Bailey's a genius who can not only think quickly on his feet but also fool not 1, but 2 psychiatrists into misdiagnosing him. It's also worth remembering that the tribunal operated under essentially the same conditions and rules of a UK Court and the panel consisted of a QC who is a Deputy High Court Judge, a qualified Dr who has been involved in elite sport for over 20 years and a solicitor who is a former professional footballer who also sits as an expert of the FA Judicial Panel, not just some blokes dragged in off the street. People really should go and read the judgement https://www.ukad.org.uk/assets/uploads/ ... Bailey.PDF A few facts from the judgement: Point 40 dismisses any justification for refusing to take the test on the basis that the bottles may have been tampered with: "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." Point 47 rules out a dismissal of the case based on the procedural irregularities highlighted by his defence. 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 he was facing. However, they also found 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 expanded on but they appear to be based on the evidence of 2 psychiatrists, virtually all of which is redacted in the published judgement - I will not speculate on that evidence but if you do read the judgement some of the phrases used may lead you to form an opinion as to what those circumstances may be. There were no exceptional nor defendable circumstances to not allow the test to go ahead as admitted and it's classified as a failure, the judgement is a laughable nonsense. This makes a mockery of the system, well done to Bailey and his cohorts.

Mr Dog wrote: So now Bailey's a genius who can not only think quickly on his feet but also fool not 1, but 2 psychiatrists into misdiagnosing him. It's also worth remembering that the tribunal operated under essentially the same conditions and rules of a UK Court and the panel consisted of a QC who is a Deputy High Court Judge, a qualified Dr who has been involved in elite sport for over 20 years and a solicitor who is a former professional footballer who also sits as an expert of the FA Judicial Panel, not just some blokes dragged in off the street. People really should go and read the judgement https://www.ukad.org.uk/assets/uploads/ ... Bailey.PDF A few facts from the judgement: Point 40 dismisses any justification for refusing to take the test on the basis that the bottles may have been tampered with: "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." Point 47 rules out a dismissal of the case based on the procedural irregularities highlighted by his defence. 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 he was facing. However, they also found 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 expanded on but they appear to be based on the evidence of 2 psychiatrists, virtually all of which is redacted in the published judgement - I will not speculate on that evidence but if you do read the judgement some of the phrases used may lead you to form an opinion as to what those circumstances may be. There were no exceptional nor defendable circumstances to not allow the test to go ahead as admitted and it's classified as a failure, the judgement is a laughable nonsense. This makes a mockery of the system, well done to Bailey and his cohorts.

Re: Ryan Bailey : Sat Jan 06, 2018 9:52 pm  

The verdict is not to be sniffed at.

Hope a "line" can be drawn under this

Re: Ryan Bailey : Sun Jan 07, 2018 1:04 am  

Mr Dog wrote: So now Bailey's a genius who can not only think quickly on his feet but also fool not 1, but 2 psychiatrists into misdiagnosing him. It's also worth remembering that the tribunal operated under essentially the same conditions and rules of a UK Court and the panel consisted of a QC who is a Deputy High Court Judge, a qualified Dr who has been involved in elite sport for over 20 years and a solicitor who is a former professional footballer who also sits as an expert of the FA Judicial Panel, not just some blokes dragged in off the street. People really should go and read the judgement https://www.ukad.org.uk/assets/uploads/ ... Bailey.PDF A few facts from the judgement: Point 40 dismisses any justification for refusing to take the test on the basis that the bottles may have been tampered with: "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." Point 47 rules out a dismissal of the case based on the procedural irregularities highlighted by his defence. 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 he was facing. However, they also found 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 expanded on but they appear to be based on the evidence of 2 psychiatrists, virtually all of which is redacted in the published judgement - I will not speculate on that evidence but if you do read the judgement some of the phrases used may lead you to form an opinion as to what those circumstances may be. You seem to miss the facts. He had already drank water from the cooler bag,signed the reverse of the form but was unaware he could have used his own water/drink. Or did he know! Farce for me but thats my opinion.

Mr Dog wrote: So now Bailey's a genius who can not only think quickly on his feet but also fool not 1, but 2 psychiatrists into misdiagnosing him. It's also worth remembering that the tribunal operated under essentially the same conditions and rules of a UK Court and the panel consisted of a QC who is a Deputy High Court Judge, a qualified Dr who has been involved in elite sport for over 20 years and a solicitor who is a former professional footballer who also sits as an expert of the FA Judicial Panel, not just some blokes dragged in off the street. People really should go and read the judgement https://www.ukad.org.uk/assets/uploads/ ... Bailey.PDF A few facts from the judgement: Point 40 dismisses any justification for refusing to take the test on the basis that the bottles may have been tampered with: "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." Point 47 rules out a dismissal of the case based on the procedural irregularities highlighted by his defence. 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 he was facing. However, they also found 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 expanded on but they appear to be based on the evidence of 2 psychiatrists, virtually all of which is redacted in the published judgement - I will not speculate on that evidence but if you do read the judgement some of the phrases used may lead you to form an opinion as to what those circumstances may be. You seem to miss the facts. He had already drank water from the cooler bag,signed the reverse of the form but was unaware he could have used his own water/drink. Or did he know! Farce for me but thats my opinion.

Re: Ryan Bailey : Mon Jan 08, 2018 11:49 am  

bramleyrhino wrote:

Chief among which, why is the Canadian doping agency asking players to pee in unsealed bottles?

Because peeing into a sealed bottle would be pretty impossible???