Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 35

Thread: LOI Premier division player faces drugs ban.

  1. #1
    Seasoned Pro
    Joined
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,007
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    85
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    362
    Thanked in
    264 Posts

    LOI Premier division player faces drugs ban.

    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...,

  2. #2
    International Prospect osarusan's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2004
    Location
    Limerick for now.
    Posts
    7,315
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,116
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,528
    Thanked in
    839 Posts
    https://www.independent.ie/sport/soc...-38181920.html


    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.
    Can't understand why he wouldn't just wait around drinking water.

    I wonder did he provide enough for one sample to be tested, and if so was it tested and what were the results.

  3. #3
    Reserves mrtndvn's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    270
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    17
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    14
    Thanked in
    12 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by sbgawa View Post
    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...,
    Ex Rovers player.
    MD

  4. #4
    Seasoned Pro
    Joined
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,007
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    85
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    362
    Thanked in
    264 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by mrtndvn View Post
    Ex Rovers player.

    Well if its Pats that covers 50% of their players
    Good few ex hoops scattered around the league...

  5. #5
    Reserves mrtndvn's Avatar
    Joined
    Sep 2007
    Location
    Derry
    Posts
    270
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    17
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    14
    Thanked in
    12 Posts

    Thumbs up

    nailed it.
    MD

  6. #6
    First Team
    Joined
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    1,650
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    24
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    280
    Thanked in
    171 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by mrtndvn View Post
    nailed it.
    Bad publicity for the league, whoever it is. Will likely get more coverage in the Indo than any on -field LOI story.

  7. #7
    Youth Team
    Joined
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    214
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    4
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    111
    Thanked in
    62 Posts
    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...

  8. Thanks From:


  9. #8
    First Team TonyD's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    Planet Football
    Posts
    1,803
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    93
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    163
    Thanked in
    106 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by sbgawa View Post
    Well if its Pats that covers 50% of their players
    Good few ex hoops scattered around the league...
    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.
    Out for a spell, got neglected, lay on the bench unselected.

  10. #9
    Seasoned Pro Nesta99's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    3,671
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    883
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    718
    Thanked in
    478 Posts
    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

  11. #10
    First Team TonyD's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    Planet Football
    Posts
    1,803
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    93
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    163
    Thanked in
    106 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Nesta99 View Post
    but its taking the p1ss when players are dehydrated after a game.
    I thought it was not taking the **** that was the issue
    Out for a spell, got neglected, lay on the bench unselected.

  12. Thanks From:


  13. #11
    Biased against YOUR club pineapple stu's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2002
    Location
    In the long grass
    Posts
    30,374
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,366
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,666
    Thanked in
    1,660 Posts
    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

  14. #12
    First Team TonyD's Avatar
    Joined
    May 2004
    Location
    Planet Football
    Posts
    1,803
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    93
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    163
    Thanked in
    106 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple stu View Post
    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.
    Out for a spell, got neglected, lay on the bench unselected.

  15. Thanks From:


  16. #13
    Reserves
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    580
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    208
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    154
    Thanked in
    88 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by elatedscum View Post
    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...
    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.

    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
    Last edited by total hoofball; 05/06/2019 at 9:30 PM.
    The Leinster Senior League needs a strong Bohemians

  17. Thanks From:


  18. #14
    Reserves
    Joined
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    580
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    208
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    154
    Thanked in
    88 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by pineapple stu View Post
    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
    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 book
    The Leinster Senior League needs a strong Bohemians

  19. #15
    Biased against YOUR club pineapple stu's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2002
    Location
    In the long grass
    Posts
    30,374
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,366
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    2,666
    Thanked in
    1,660 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by TonyD View Post
    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.
    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 unfortunately

    Edit - total hoofball said it better than me two posts up

  20. #16
    Seasoned Pro marinobohs's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2009
    Location
    in the bar celebratingl
    Posts
    3,547
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    357
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    629
    Thanked in
    415 Posts
    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) ?

  21. #17
    Seasoned Pro
    Joined
    Aug 2016
    Location
    Dublin
    Posts
    3,007
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    85
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    362
    Thanked in
    264 Posts
    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

  22. #18
    Seasoned Pro Nesta99's Avatar
    Joined
    Jul 2007
    Posts
    3,671
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    883
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    718
    Thanked in
    478 Posts
    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/
    Last edited by Nesta99; 06/06/2019 at 12:39 AM.

  23. Thanks From:


  24. #19
    Seasoned Pro marinobohs's Avatar
    Joined
    Mar 2009
    Location
    in the bar celebratingl
    Posts
    3,547
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    357
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    629
    Thanked in
    415 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by sbgawa View Post
    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
    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.

  25. #20
    First Team seand's Avatar
    Joined
    Aug 2003
    Location
    D'Shed
    Posts
    1,447
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    413
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    445
    Thanked in
    215 Posts
    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.

  26. Thanks From:


Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    Last Post: 03/12/2018, 9:50 PM
  2. LOI player has failed drugs test
    By Dunny in forum Premier & First Divisions
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: 22/10/2015, 12:31 PM
  3. Spanish player on drugs.
    By tricky_colour in forum Ireland
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 15/06/2012, 8:05 PM
  4. Limerick Premier Division Player of the Year 2006/07
    By young-guns in forum Junior League
    Replies: 28
    Last Post: 15/05/2007, 5:05 PM
  5. Everton player done for drugs
    By paul_oshea in forum Off Topic
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 16/05/2005, 9:45 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •