|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Board Member | 9565 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2002 | 22 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Dec 2019 | Dec 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
fonds noir/Buzz Lightyear.gif
:fonds noir/Buzz Lightyear.gif |
|
|
ASADA wrote into the admissions that the players "unknowingly" took prohibited substances. As far as can be told the evidence against the players wasn't particularly strong, but the deal they were offered was simply too good to turn down, particularly with the wording enabling them to say that it wasn't their fault and the possibility of long bans following months more of not knowing the outcome.
The head of ASADA was interviewed yesterday and said that WADA had been involved every step of the way and were well aware of the offers made to players. Suggestions that WADA might come in over the top and increase the bans are probably wide of the mark.
As for Aiton, I suspect the simple issue is that the investigation has been undertaken by ASADA, an Australian agency. After well over a year they finally got round to offering deals to the Sharks within the last week. They would have no authority in the UK, so at best they'll forward the same information to their UK equivalents to make the offer to Aiton at some stage. Given the snail-like pace of these bureacracies it wouldn't surprise me if Aiton doesn't get issued with anything this season.
In fact his safest bet might be to return to Aus in the off-season and get the same offer from ASADA whilst here, then take the short ban and go back to england for the start of next year.
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Coach | 4420 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Apr 2004 | 20 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Apr 2020 | Oct 2017 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
9387.gif
Challenge Cup
1923/24, 1928/29, 1947/48, 1950/51, 1957/58, 1958/59, 1964/65, 1984/85, 1987/88, 1988/89, 1989/90, 1990/91, 1991/92, 1992/93, 1993/94, 1994/95, 2002, 2011, 2013
World Club Challenge
1987/88, 1991/92, 1993/94
Championship/SL
1908/09, 1921/22, 1925/26, 1933/34, 1945/46, 1946/47, 1949/50, 1951/52, 1959/60, 1986/87, 1989/90, 1990/91, 1991/92, 1992/93, 1993/94, 1994/95, 1995, 1998, 2010, 2013
Charity Shield
1985/86, 1987/1988, 1991/92, 1995/96
Regal Trophy
1982/83, 1985/86, 1986/87, 1988/89, 1989/90, 1992/93, 1994/95, 1995/96
Lancashire Cup
1905/06, 1908/09, 1909/10, 1912/13, 1922/23, 1928/29, 1938/39, 1946/47, 1947/48, 1948/49, 1949/50, 1950/51, 1951/52, 1966/67, 1971/72, 1973/74, 1985/86, 1986/87, 1987/88, 1988/89, 1992/93
Lancashire League
1901/02, 1908/09, 1910/11, 1911/12, 1912/13, 1913/14, 1914/15, 1920/21, 1922/23, 1923/24, 1925/26, 1945/46, 1946/47, 1949/50, 1951/52, 1958/59, 1961/62, 1969/70
As Well as other comps that won't fit:9387.gif |
|
| Quote: Levrier "The issue is not performance enhancing in totality, otherwise pasta would be banned, but illegal performance enhancing substances. That is a judgement call by the powers not the individual. New substances and practices have to be banned before they are illegal. On school of thought is that if a player is liable for any substance in their system why not allow all substances an make the player the ultimate arbiter. I am not in favour of that for a lot of boring reasons but the readers of Spiked magazine possibly would be.'"
One I've often wondered about is Kris Radlinski in the 2002 Challenge Cup final. It is well know that he was pumped up with drugs. They were administered by legitimate doctors and it was all above board but did those injections give him an unfair advantage over other players? |
