wire-quin wrote:
What you going on about?
Bailey refused to give a sample for anti doping testing, which is an offence for which he was charged, but Bailey contested that he believed the water provided at the Centre had been tampered with and a psychiatrist ruled that he was unable to process the information given to him when warned that his refusal was an offence for which he could be banned, meaning he has not been judged as culpable for his refusal. It's all a bit confusing, granted I know little else of the case or of bailey's circumstances of late.
