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

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.

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

Very important not to get the two confused!

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!

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 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.