Brandon Miele Banned For Two Years

Unable to provide a drug test sample back in April.

https://www.sportireland.ie/anti-dop...d-the-football

Statement from Miele here: https://twitter.com/PFAIOfficial/sta...184193/photo/1

I find it interesting that he is choosing not to appeal - even just on the length of the ban - as it would appear there are some mitigating circumstances and two years seems excessive. The guy is at the prime of his career and to lose two years from that must be a particularly tough pill to swallow. I draw the conclusion that there may be some additional information behind this decision that we are not privy to.

With that said, if everything is as appears, is there a reason why a sample has to be given directly after the game? I feel like i should know this! But it would seem to me that reporting somewhere to provide a sample later that night or the next morning might have been reasonable in the circumstances...

On the basis of the information in Miele's statement, it is very strange that the ban is so severe and that he is not appealing that severity.

Something doesn't add up here. A two year break from football, at age 25, isn't something that will kill his career, but will have a really bad impact. If it is as his statement says, and this was accepted by the panel, then an appeal or at least some manner of continuing legal options has to be pursued.

The lines about not knowing the consequence seems strange to me: would the person tasked with obtaining the sample not have advised him of what could happen if he choose to leave the testing environment? Is he saying that didn't happen?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

I find it interesting that he is choosing not to appeal - even just on the length of the ban - as it would appear there are some mitigating circumstances and two years seems excessive. The guy is at the prime of his career and to lose two years from that must be a particularly tough pill to swallow. I draw the conclusion that there may be some additional information behind this decision that we are not privy to.

With that said, if everything is as appears, is there a reason why a sample has to be given directly after the game? I feel like i should know this! But it would seem to me that reporting somewhere to provide a sample later that night or the next morning might have been reasonable in the circumstances...

---

I presume it is to avoid an offender from doing or taking something that will impact the results of the test. As far as I am aware, the subject must be supervised until a sample is produced.

The full judgement is here: https://www.sportireland.ie/sites/de...ndon-miele.pdf

TBH, I think they got this about right. He said he thought his daughter was in hospital but went home, and they were willing to take the sample at the hospital and he refused. All very messy.. but testing in the league is a joke as it is and people can't just not give samples.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NeverFeltBetter

I presume it is to avoid an offender from doing or taking something that will impact the results of the test. As far as I am aware, the subject must be supervised until a sample is produced.

---

Yeah, that definitely is the most obvious reason but i would have thought (probably incorrectly) that testing would have advanced to a point where it could detect traces of substances after the fact as well as being able to test for any possible masking substances. But I understand that as advanced as testing might be, all the dopers have to do is stay one step ahead. Cheers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mr A

The full judgement is here: https://www.sportireland.ie/sites/de...ndon-miele.pdf

TBH, I think they got this about right. He said he thought his daughter was in hospital but went home, and they were willing to take the sample at the hospital and he refused. All very messy.. but testing in the league is a joke as it is and people can't just not give samples.

---

Yeah, that is definitely not on (I should have clicked on the full judgement). The ban still seems quite severe.

I heard that he was hoovering up the coke.

Thank you.

It's probably a deterrent to other people who have an "excuse" to head on.

Rio Ferdinand was banned for 8 months for this -

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by wiki

Ferdinand had left after training to go shopping, only to remember and attempt to return, only to be told it was too late. He did undergo testing the following day and passed, and also offered to have a hair follicle test, which would provide results for the previous six months, but the FA turned down the offer.

---

2 years does sound quite severe, but missing a drugs test is taken quite seriously, and I'm fairly sure anybody liable to be tested for drugs has been told this many times quite clearly, so at least there's some consistency.

Well written statement by Miele and the PFAI. But then he did hand in his resignation to Pats 6/7 weeks after the incident and then he doesn't appeal the severe ban so looks to all parties concerned that the appropriate punishment was handed out today

This is always damn messy. Half-life of more modern PEDs, if a player is smart they are out of the system in a day post match. Hair follicle tests have shown both false positives and negatives. I'd like to think testing postmatch is due to diligence but it is as likely to be down to convenience for the testers. There isnt the money involved for serious and not easily detected PEDs so recreational drug use is the scourge. Stupid for anyone who actually cares about their career. The Ferdinand case above and Grimes' case when at Drogheda were well punished for what were more 'innocent' drug fails, in Grimes case JD3 added to the banned list a few weeks before using itand not keeping up to date. Nothing to be taken without club doctor prescribing! 2 years seems about right and usually reduced on appeal with mitigation but no appeal here which says plenty.

Anyone who has any interest in doping in sport should watch 'Icarus' on Netflix, or even if not particularly interested its a serious eye opener.

Now "Who's taken the p!ss?" - best tabloid headline on any doping scandal in Irish sporting history!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pineapple stu

It's probably a deterrent to other people who have an "excuse" to head on.

Rio Ferdinand was banned for 8 months for this -



2 years does sound quite severe, but missing a drugs test is taken quite seriously, and I'm fairly sure anybody liable to be tested for drugs has been told this many times quite clearly, so at least there's some consistency.

---

I suppose if the punishment for missing a test was way more lenient than the punishment for failing a test, people would just choose to miss them and take the lesser punishment.

Shouldn`t his club be sanctioned for his failure to comply? A points deduction might bring the odds down on Pats winning the league!

You'd have thought they could backdate i to his last appearance for Pats , he effectively has a 2.5 year ban.

If you read the judgement & the players statement there are inconsistencies between the two. I think the player was given every opportunity to comply with the testing procedure. They even offered to go with him until such time he was able to provide a sample & he refused.
There's no smoke without fire here.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SkStu

I find it interesting that he is choosing not to appeal - even just on the length of the ban - as it would appear there are some mitigating circumstances and two years seems excessive. The guy is at the prime of his career and to lose two years from that must be a particularly tough pill to swallow. I draw the conclusion that there may be some additional information behind this decision that we are not privy to.

With that said, if everything is as appears, is there a reason why a sample has to be given directly after the game? I feel like i should know this! But it would seem to me that reporting somewhere to provide a sample later that night or the next morning might have been reasonable in the circumstances...

---

Athletes take performance enhancing substances to improve their performance whilst competing.

All sports appear to ask for samples immediately, or shortly after, they've competed. Which suggest that the substances are taken in time to reach a peak during performance, and that their body will start to metabolise/breakdown/get rid of them immediately afterwards. I would've though this was pretty obvious.

In short - if someone is cheating, the longer you leave it to get a sample the harder it will be to find evidence of that.

I'm not saying that Miele has taken anything btw, as I just don't know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Nesta99

This is always damn messy. Half-life of more modern PEDs, if a player is smart they are out of the system in a day post match. Hair follicle tests have shown both false positives and negatives. I'd like to think testing postmatch is due to diligence but it is as likely to be down to convenience for the testers. There isnt the money involved for serious and not easily detected PEDs so recreational drug use is the scourge. Stupid for anyone who actually cares about their career. The Ferdinand case above and Grimes' case when at Drogheda were well punished for what were more 'innocent' drug fails, in Grimes case JD3 added to the banned list a few weeks before using itand not keeping up to date. Nothing to be taken without club doctor prescribing! 2 years seems about right and usually reduced on appeal with mitigation but no appeal here which says plenty.

Anyone who has any interest in doping in sport should watch 'Icarus' on Netflix, or even if not particularly interested its a serious eye opener.

Now "Who's taken the p!ss?" - best tabloid headline on any doping scandal in Irish sporting history!

---

Icarus was amazing.