Re: Ryan Bailey : Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:24 am  

Huddersfield1895 wrote:

For me it raises more question that answer

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

Re: Ryan Bailey : Thu Jan 04, 2018 10:37 am  

of course there are two trains of thought here,

1 he thought he would fail so refused the test and made a good excuse about water being tampered with.

2 he is right to refuse a test due to the water provided not being sealed. which it should be.

obviously the governing body and ukad went with the available evidence and agreed with number 2. that combined with a clean test taken a couple of days later. so i am sure if ukad thought there was any funny business they still would have upheld a ban.

i suppose only the player knows which is the correct response.

this seems a bit simmiler to the Diane modahl case 20 years ago, where she sued the anti doping authority for failing to stop contamination of samples.

Re: Ryan Bailey : Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:17 am  

bramleyrhino wrote:

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

I may well be wrong but the way I read the article suggests that it was drinking water that was unsealed, not the sample bottles

Re: Ryan Bailey : Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:22 am  

Very important not to get the two confused!

Re: Ryan Bailey : Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:36 am  

PrinterThe wrote:

Awww are you upset because he didnt join the Leeds Rhinos Forner Champions retirement home at the Wildcats like so many others?

FFS man, you're becoming seriously tedious and obsessed.
This thread has nothing to do with Trinity and is about a pro RL player avoiding a drugs ban.
Possibly quite a clever defence on his part but, it will be interesting whether his defence sticks.

Re: Ryan Bailey : Thu Jan 04, 2018 11:43 am  

PrinterThe wrote:

Awww are you upset because he didnt join the Leeds Rhinos Forner Champions retirement home at the Wildcats like so many others?

Who are the 'Wildcats'? If you mean Wakefield Trinity that would be Ben Jones Bishop and Baldwinson then

Re: Ryan Bailey : Thu Jan 04, 2018 1:43 pm  

rollin thunder wrote:

of course there are two trains of thought here,

1 he thought he would fail so refused the test and made a good excuse about water being tampered with.

2 he is right to refuse a test due to the water provided not being sealed. which it should be.

obviously the governing body and ukad went with the available evidence and agreed with number 2. that combined with a clean test taken a couple of days later. so i am sure if ukad thought there was any funny business they still would have upheld a ban.

i suppose only the player knows which is the correct response.

this seems a bit simmiler to the Diane modahl case 20 years ago, where she sued the anti doping authority for failing to stop contamination of samples.

Except you are completely wrong - you should actually try reading the judgement and also look up as to how these cases are decided. It was neither UKAD nor The RFL that made the decision to not suspend him (in fact UKAD believed his actions warranted a 4 year ban) but an independent panel.

- the case was not dismissed because of any procedural irregularities (although some were noted)
- he was actually found to have committed an anti-doping violation ie failing or refusing to take a test
- he received no suspension because of 'very exceptional circumstances'

I will not speculate on those circumstances but they did rely on the evidence of 2 psychiatrists and much of the sections of the judgement dealing with that evidence has been redacted.

Re: Ryan Bailey : Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:03 am  

There is only one reason that you would refuse a test. One.

Regards

King James

Re: Ryan Bailey : Fri Jan 05, 2018 3:24 pm  

Lebron James wrote:

There is only one reason that you would refuse a test. One.

Regards

King James

Wrong there are at least 2:

1. You think you will fail the test.

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

Re: Ryan Bailey : Fri Jan 05, 2018 4:14 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.

Yet the panel ruling on this particular case didn't believe 2 was actually a valid reason to find Mr Bailey of no fault or negligence

To quote from the judgement:
"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."

(nor do they think that 1 is true either)