Re: Paul Aiton : Thu Aug 21, 2014 8:16 am  

I've read a few stories now. I am confused by the whole thing, presumably because only partial information is available.

What I haven't read anywhere is whether any failed tests are involved here?

Re: Paul Aiton : Thu Aug 21, 2014 10:24 am  

That's right nobody has failed any test.

Re: Paul Aiton : Thu Aug 21, 2014 11:34 am  

sgtwilko wrote:

That's right nobody has failed any test.

In which case I would expect ASADA would need a pretty overwhelming amount of other evidence to get anything to stick. With WADA (I assume ASADA have to follow similar protocols) it is not by any means impossible to get a ban without a failed test, but the case has to be very strong.

This is also quite recent (2011 is only 3 years, and the investigation has been happening for a long time). I assume most of the players in question will have been tested. As I understand it UKAD retain at least the "B" sample for 10 years (WADA accredited labs should do this), so even if they couldn't test for this at the time, they should be able to do it retrospectively.

I can't help wondering if they might have a single informant and they're hoping they can dangle a plea bargain for one of those implicated to turn whistle-blower and testify that "we were all at it and we all knew what we were being given" in order to actually have a case.

Speculation is fun.

Re: Paul Aiton : Thu Aug 21, 2014 11:55 am  

IMO If guilty it should be a 2 year ban for each and every player, "If" being the important word.

[PopTart]

Re: Paul Aiton : Thu Aug 21, 2014 12:28 pm  

Fieldheadrhino wrote:

IMO If guilty it should be a 2 year ban for each and every player, "If" being the important word.

Guilty of what?
Does it not matter whether they knew that they were being given something by the club?
Does it not matter that they have not failed a test.

Being found "guilty" can be opinion in this case, and it would imho be wrong to ban someone, in some cases from playing rugby again, unless you have water tight evidence.

Re: Paul Aiton : Thu Aug 21, 2014 12:34 pm  

PopTart wrote:

Guilty of what?
Does it not matter whether they knew that they were being given something by the club?
Does it not matter that they have not failed a test.

Being found "guilty" can be opinion in this case, and it would imho be wrong to ban someone, in some cases from playing rugby again, unless you have water tight evidence.

Spot on. It would depend very much on the circumstances. In the same way as if you punch someone in the face in the street the punishment is very different depending on the circumstances.

Re: Paul Aiton : Thu Aug 21, 2014 6:30 pm  

Fieldheadrhino wrote:

IMO If guilty it should be a 2 year ban for each and every player, "If" being the important word.

Couldn't Aiton claim his two years spent at Wakey were effectively giving up two years of his career instead?

Re: Paul Aiton : Thu Aug 21, 2014 8:57 pm  

ThePrinter wrote:

Couldn't Aiton claim his two years spent at Wakey were effectively giving up two years of his career instead?

Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha.

[Frosties.]

Re: Paul Aiton : Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:27 am  

Just for update, Aiton is one of only four player to reject admitting, which means he could face a two year ban as of the date decided, rather than being backdated.

Re: Paul Aiton : Fri Aug 22, 2014 6:37 am  

Frosties. wrote:

Just for update, Aiton is one of only four player to reject admitting, which means he could face a two year ban as of the date decided, rather than being backdated.

Link mate? The last i read was that GH said its a non story due to Aiton never being a part of the ASADA investigation? Saying the player, the club and the RFL have never been contacted.