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.

The verdict is not to be sniffed at.

Hope a "line" can be drawn under this

Because peeing into a sealed bottle would be pretty impossible???