Printable View
Today's indo says an established Premier division player is looking at a ban for not providing sufficient urine for a test before leaving the ground.
Is it the hash smoking Bohs or the junkies in inchicore?? :)
Could be anyone (heaven forbid its a Hoop ) as it is some individual Muppet that must be short of a brain...,
https://www.independent.ie/sport/soc...-38181920.html
Can't understand why he wouldn't just wait around drinking water.Quote:
Standard procedure dictates that a test should be divided into a Sample A and a Sample B.
In this instance, it's believed that the sample was not large enough for a split - which prevented an effective test being carried out.
The player left the ground without providing the sufficient amount and both his representatives and the testers have made submissions on the circumstances around the details of that.
I wonder did he provide enough for one sample to be tested, and if so was it tested and what were the results.
Ex Rovers player.Quote:
Originally Posted by sbgawa
Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtndvn
Well if its Pats that covers 50% of their players :)
Good few ex hoops scattered around the league...
nailed it.
Bad publicity for the league, whoever it is. Will likely get more coverage in the Indo than any on -field LOI story.Quote:
Originally Posted by mrtndvn
they should just test the A sample, see what the results are and if it's clean, then there's no issue.
The B sample is only required when the A sample is a positive. So, if there's an issue - the player can waive his right to appeal.
Considering he gave a sample, I'd guess 99% there's no issue, more that it was some form of administrative issue. I've heard plenty of stories of players waiting around till 3am/4am to give samples...
Rumour I saw is that it's a former Rovers player, now with Pats, who hasn't played in a while. If that's true it's not too hard to work out who it is. Haven't seen any suggestion that there was a positive test, more of a technical issue in that he didn't provide enough of a sample. Hardly crime of the century really.Quote:
Originally Posted by sbgawa
Made 7 or 8 apppearances for Pats this season? Seems a bit harsh if a smaple was given but just not enough probably for a second sample. He should know the rules but its taking the p1ss when players are dehydrated after a game. Testers could turn up to prior to training or something as it would make no difference to any trace of drugs and would be a simpler eh process
I thought it was not taking the **** that was the issue :pQuote:
Originally Posted by Nesta99
UEFA can be very strict on enforcing drugs testing rules though. Look at Rio Ferdinand getting a six month ban for genuinely forgetting about a test. (It doesn't matter whether you believe him or not; I think the argument in the end was that it didn't matter). They seem very keen to keep the image of integrity about drugs testing. And understandably too. I'd say a ban could be on the way anyway
Possibly, but I think there is a difference between totally missing a test, where the suspicion will automatically be that he "forgot" on purpose, and providing a test, but just not in sufficient quantity. As someone else said, I don't know why they just don't test the A sample anyway. Yes, he should have stayed around, but I think anything more than a slap on the hand would be harsh, unless there's more to it than we know.Quote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
The whole point of requiring minimum volumes for two samples is that "1%", it's unclear from the article today whether the sample that was obtained was tested or if it was clean or not, as far as I know if both samples are not obtained then the test is void.Quote:
Originally Posted by elatedscum
If it's not enforced then you have open season of cheating players doing what this established player did deliberately not providing a full sample and then claiming their cheating cannot be proven without a sample B
A Peterborough player got banned recently by the FA for 4 years. He evaded a drugs test when testers randomly called to his house for a sample and he was off his head on coke the days previously so knew he was going to fail and he wrongly thought he would only get banned for 3 months for evading. The evasion aspect added significantly to his ban, even with a clean subsequent result evasion will be treated very harshly and rightly so in my bookQuote:
Originally Posted by pineapple stu
There's a difference, for sure. And I think a similar punishment would be very harsh based on what we know. I don't know what the instance of false positives is, for example - how important is the second sample for proving the result of the first one? If there's any prospect of false positives, then UEFA have to clamp down on it unfortunatelyQuote:
Originally Posted by TonyD
Edit - total hoofball said it better than me two posts up
I thought “B” sample was only used (and therefore required) if sample “A” proved positive ? Effectively a defence for a player IF “A” proved positive (or contaminated) ?
If the guy left without providing a proper sample he may not be guilty of taking drugs but he is sure as he'll guilty of being a feckin eejit.
Dalymountthrower is 100 % fight the media will blow this up into a big story
The efforts to make sure there are no false positives means there are a lot of false negatives so tbh its a better option to chance a test if there is some dodgy conduct than ensure a ban by skipping off. There are stats that up to 50% of athletes tested could be false negatives (5 out of 11 I read somewhere in the past). The margin of error on false positives is aimed at about .01% so hence such care not to faslely accuse an individual means that false negatives are more common than we'd like to think The labs have to test for specific performance enhancing compounds or illegal drugs and there is a chance that they may not test for the specific trace of a drug like Its unlikely that they would test for say LSD or heroin as an extreme example so a false negative could happen. There is still a question mark over positive nandralone results due to the naturally forming hormone. Its when the the concentration levels are significantly elevated that alarm bells ring. But each indicidual is different so what is within the norms for one my not be the norm for another - wasnt there an English boxer who successfully challanged this. Ironically heavy training load can elevate nandralone.
One English club is under the microscope for the incredible level of intensity the play at for a full games in a heavy schedule and their players are tested more than at other clubs and are managed by a chap who previously had his teams in Germany scrutinised closely for the same reason also but nothing showed up in the players tests. At one stage blood tests were requested but permission was denied. The strength and conditioning and dietry people were at both clubs and I feel it is their expertise that has a team super fit rather than a Michele Ferrari or Chechini.
The half life of a substance in urine is a lot less than blood products, and its the only method to test accurately but its a bit extreme to request athletes give blood samples. The tech of testing is always playing catchup with performance enhancment developments.
Anyways at least it wasnt 2 sample of pure whiskey given, or someone nicking the smaples out of a lab. I doubt the resources are in LoI to have a serious problem with undetectable substances either. It's generally going to be players that were having a good time in a nightclub or lack of knowledge on the like of jack3d being added to a banned list eg. Though thats no defence when every players should only take anything via the club doctors instructions.
Its this website I read about the stats but cant find the specific article.
https://sportsscientists.com/sitemap/
Given the history of evasion across many sports, failure to provide a proper sample is usually treated as a failed sample. Unfortunate if a genuine mistake but likely to have serious consequences.Quote:
Originally Posted by sbgawa
I don't really understand how the player in question didn't just drink water until he was ready to produce enough sample. Was he told by the club or tester he'd done enough? Did he just decide himself he wasn't arsed hanging around? Even assuming he had nothing to hide it looks like the player or club were at best willfully negligent.
I always feel a bit sorry for the guy who gets suspended if it was for social non performance enhancing stuff (Hash/Coke) as it always seems strange to me that Tony Adams / Paul Merson / Paul McGrath etc etc can drink 10 pints and be tested and be "clean" but a guy who smokes a joint or sniffs a line of Coke on a night out is banned.
I know the argument is that its illegal but if i was caught with a line of coke the impact on me and my job would be zero but for a footballer it is catastrophic.
Bit liberal for an old right winger like me but punishment fitting crime etc
Given the damage drugs have wrecked across many sports and the inherent unfairness to genuine sports people depending on their talent, I would have zero tolerance. If it’s on the banned list it’s off the agenda, end of.Quote:
Originally Posted by sbgawa
Always remember coming across a current prominent Gaa player off his face in Ibiza and thinking it wasn't a good look!
Sure you have to be on something to play GAA 😁Quote:
Originally Posted by joey B
Alcohol has wrecked more lives in Ireland than drugs, but hey, each to their own.Quote:
Originally Posted by marinobohs
I have to agree, any leeway is likely to encourage more to take the risks and zero tolerance is something of a deterrant. Coke is stimulant so could be classed as sort of perfromance enhancing esspecially for making shapes on the dancefloor. Anecdotal evidence exists that weed is an antiinflamatory, and pain reliever so it could be argued that it could help. Hemp type supplements with minimal THC can still show up and it has therapeutic effects. Again every players should know they need an excemption form filled in by the club doctor as with Ventolin for asthmatics. Looking through the banned list and some seem completely daft. Aspirin is on the list for some sports due to the risck of bleeding so should be in a not a good idea category rather than on a doping list. Also how is training at altitude not considered perfromance enhancing when it causes the very same effect as blood doping/haemoglobin enriched transfusion prior to competition. But I digress - it sounds careless by the player and club rather than malicious, well I hope it was just stupidity and he doesnt get slapped with a punitive ban. He's just at the age where a 3 or 4 year ban would end his pro career before the supposed peak at 27. Sense should prevail and he does another unannounced test, if thats clean, then fine him and leave him be!!Quote:
Originally Posted by marinobohs
yeah im inclined to agree with you and thus disagree with myself (schizophrenic or what)
I'm in the borderline feeling sorry for a guy using social drugs who loses his job because he is a footballer but if he was a plumber would just carry on with life, it just seems unfair.
But your right its a slippery slope and if its not black and white then people will drive a coach and horses through it.
Maybe a 3-6 month ban for social (not particularly performance enhancing stuff) and long bans for Steroids or stuff where the benefit is clear.
I was of the opinion that the drug testers can't leave the persons side until a sample has been produced....so maybe the tester erred in his/her duties by allowing the player to leave, so no case to answer surely !
They aren't the guards in fairness, they can't detain someone. If this player wasn't going to stick around, all they could was explain the potential consequences and let him go.
Considering the extent to which LOI players are household names and role models and icons, can you imagine the reactions to a positive test for either PEDs or recreational drugs.
"Who?"
:D. It's funny cos it's true.Quote:
Originally Posted by osarusan
Personally wouldn't disagree with your view on use of recreational drugs (not performance enhancing) but there is already slippage around 'necessary medication' and some other sports (blood pressure tablets, heart stimulants, beta blockers etc).Quote:
Originally Posted by sbgawa
Unfortunately, the best (only) option is, if its on the banned list steer clear.
My understanding is that the athlete (in this case footballer) is solely responsible for ensuring the test is completed correctly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Brusher
Darts and snooker are filthy sports for the abuse of exemptions - who knew that dart and snooker players had disporportionate cardica arrythmias and need beta blockers!Quote:
Originally Posted by marinobohs
Well finally there is an explanation for why this player was never on the teamsheet nor reported injured.