The Watcher read with some interest & some trepidation that Bailey has escaped a ban after refusing to take a drugs test because he believed the water being offered to him by an anti doping official may have been contaminated. You couldn't make it up could you?

The Watcher should say which Bailey he is referring to ?? So that we know !

Clearly Toronto have a better sports lawyer than we have

But, fancy another player coached by MR Morals involved in a drug scandal eh?

Surely the RFL don't want to upset the Toronto enterprise do they?

If I was a Mr Barlow I would be parked outside UKAD as I type

If I was Mr Beaumont, I'd be wondering what Toronto's lawyers had, that his don't

Quote: The Watcher "The Watcher read with some interest & some trepidation that Bailey has escaped a ban after refusing to take a drugs test because he believed the water being offered to him by an anti doping official may have been contaminated. You couldn't make it up could you?'" Except you have just made it up! The procedural failures highlighted in his defence were ruled as not being adequate to dismiss the case by the panel. The independent tribunal actually found that the anti-doping charge against him was 'established' ie he was 'guilty' of failing or refusing to provide a sample. There was no punishment because he was found to be of no fault or negligence due to 'truly exceptional circumstances'. Those actual circumstances are not disclosed but the text of the judgement implies that they are based on the evidence (virtually all of which has been redacted) of 2 psychiatrists. I suggest you actually read the judgement not some lazy journalist's report. https://www.ukad.org.uk/assets/uploads/ ... Bailey.PDF

Quote: The Watcher "The Watcher read with some interest & some trepidation that Bailey has escaped a ban after refusing to take a drugs test because he believed the water being offered to him by an anti doping official may have been contaminated. You couldn't make it up could you?'" Except you have just made it up! The procedural failures highlighted in his defence were ruled as not being adequate to dismiss the case by the panel. The independent tribunal actually found that the anti-doping charge against him was 'established' ie he was 'guilty' of failing or refusing to provide a sample. There was no punishment because he was found to be of no fault or negligence due to 'truly exceptional circumstances'. Those actual circumstances are not disclosed but the text of the judgement implies that they are based on the evidence (virtually all of which has been redacted) of 2 psychiatrists. I suggest you actually read the judgement not some lazy journalist's report. https://www.ukad.org.uk/assets/uploads/ ... Bailey.PDF

The Watcher suggests that Mr Dog reads his own link. Bailey refuses to give a sample because he believes the water bottles being offered to him could have been contaminated.

I'd suggest The Watcher goes back and reads it again, but just for you a few of the pertinent points that show your conclusion to be somewhat adrift from reality"There was no valid reason for Mr Bailey to have not taken the test. Any concern of Mr Bailey over the water could have been catered for by doing as Mr Taylor in fact suggested, that is by making a written record of his concerns, and even retaining one of the bottles for subsequent analysis if necessary." [/i

Point 47 rules out a dismissal of the case based on the procedural irregularities highlighted by his defence.

The conclusion clearly states that
"the anti-doping violation is established" 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 specified but appear to be medical reasons 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 on what those circumstances may be.

What are the truly exceptional circumstances? Sounds like absolute nonsense, no one should be above the law.

I don’t understand why someone can’t pee in a bottle?

There are none,hence Mr Dog cannot speculate.

The Watcher is sad to say that his own club Leigh may be in the spotlight soon regarding doping. The Watcher hopes its all sorted amicably before it hits the press.

Is that why the Donny game got called off?

No game off cause of few injuries and jukes did not want to risk the half’s

Sensible precaution, put like that. Although I wonder how we are going to protect them through a long Championship season, and (hopefully) 'Middle 8's'?