: Tue Jun 23, 2009 3:54 pm  

Durham Giant wrote:

Obviously now the other thread is locked you seem to be trying to pick an arguement with another poster even one from this board normally i would ignore you but hey what the hell.

Where did i call Lenegan a liar

You were the one who wanted to raise issues about Lenegan being principled. As that it is a matter of judgement rather than facts everyone can make up their own mind . Personally i think that offering a job to some one behind the incumbents back is a bit unprincipled.

maybe sack Noble and then ask for candidates is the principled way of doing it. just my opinion.


As for Drug procedures i well understand them and as far as i am aware it is not normal practice to release details on an indavidual until the B sample has been tested on the grounds that the said indavidual is now condemned before the evidence is verified. Innocent until proven guiltyis usually the basis of justice.

he could have been quietly dropped for a game until the test was carried out or even an unnamed player without releasing A the name or B the drug is usually the way.

I am not blaming Wigan because it may have been leaked by someone else which forced Wigans hand so again no blame just stating that it still appears unusual that it has all happened so quickly.

In respect of Wigan i do accept that they have responded as per the doping rules ( although i disagree with them as i make a differentiation between performance and recreational use of drugs but that is a separate discussion).

No doubt you will carry this on with the usual pattern of your behaviour on these boards, pedantic point scoring, personal abuse and then making a joke of it all before the thread gets closed down because you have derailed it again but at least it will keep you happy.

Notice the little wink for you

When someone has the audacity to disagree with you you have to see it as 'picking an argument'. Grow up.

You say you understand doping rules yet wrote:

As for Wigan dealing with it properely i find it concerning and unfair it has been leaked before his b sample has been tested

Was it leaked? Or is it standard practice to do what the RFL/Wigan have done.

Your first post on the topic was wrong - no leak - live with it.

Wow you must have the inside track at Wigan. You know for a fact that Lenegan has gone behind the back of Noble? Nobby has said in the newspaper that he will look at other options. Isn't possible IL has told Noble that he too will expore options in Oz? I guess you must have some hard facts on this otherwise you have simply made unfounded assumption about IL and concluded he is unprincipled.

No doubt you will carry on with your usual pattern of contradicting yourself and making assumptions about other people's principles and finish with a big helping of self pity.

[Durham Giant]

: Tue Jun 23, 2009 4:12 pm  

Marsdengiant wrote: As for Wigan dealing with it properely i find it concerning and unfair it has been leaked before his b sample has been tested Was it leaked? Or is it standard practice to do what the RFL/Wigan have done. .: i wont bother responding to the rest of yourpost as it is all irrelevant but the main point is relating to the information getting to the press so early. I do not know whether it was leaked but i do believe it is not normal practice to release to the press details until enquiries are concluded or until the B sample is tested and then it is pending a hearing to establish guilt. Eg the Sibbit case where the test was in june of the previous year but details did not go to the press until enquiries / decisions had been made http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/ma ... per-league. Drug testing is notoriously difficult to confirm on the basis of one test eg lots of false positives,samples being compromised etc which is why they have the A and B sample system to help counteract that possibility. Until the B sample is confirmed he is now tarnished with being a drug user when technically / legally it may not be the case.

Marsdengiant wrote: As for Wigan dealing with it properely i find it concerning and unfair it has been leaked before his b sample has been tested Was it leaked? Or is it standard practice to do what the RFL/Wigan have done. .: i wont bother responding to the rest of yourpost as it is all irrelevant but the main point is relating to the information getting to the press so early. I do not know whether it was leaked but i do believe it is not normal practice to release to the press details until enquiries are concluded or until the B sample is tested and then it is pending a hearing to establish guilt. Eg the Sibbit case where the test was in june of the previous year but details did not go to the press until enquiries / decisions had been made http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/ma ... per-league. Drug testing is notoriously difficult to confirm on the basis of one test eg lots of false positives,samples being compromised etc which is why they have the A and B sample system to help counteract that possibility. Until the B sample is confirmed he is now tarnished with being a drug user when technically / legally it may not be the case.

: Tue Jun 23, 2009 4:25 pm  

This has gone exactly the same way as it did for Flanagan at Batley, whose ban was confirmed 11th June: "The ban began in April, when the provisional notice of suspension was made." http://www.batleynews.co.uk/news/Drugs- ... 5376415.jp Given Hock is now banned I don't see how they could have done anything else and in reality this has to be standard practise. Sibbit's case is irrelevant here as he was found to have an elevated level of salbutamol as a result of over medicating for treatment of his asthma. This will be a condition the RFL will be aware of and the ban was put on hold subject to an appeal to the world doping agency. Quite a different scenario.

This has gone exactly the same way as it did for Flanagan at Batley, whose ban was confirmed 11th June: "The ban began in April, when the provisional notice of suspension was made." http://www.batleynews.co.uk/news/Drugs- ... 5376415.jp Given Hock is now banned I don't see how they could have done anything else and in reality this has to be standard practise. Sibbit's case is irrelevant here as he was found to have an elevated level of salbutamol as a result of over medicating for treatment of his asthma. This will be a condition the RFL will be aware of and the ban was put on hold subject to an appeal to the world doping agency. Quite a different scenario.

: Tue Jun 23, 2009 4:45 pm  

Durham Giant wrote: i wont bother responding to the rest of yourpost as it is all irrelevant but the main point is relating to the information getting to the press so early. I do not know whether it was leaked but i do believe it is not normal practice to release to the press details until enquiries are concluded or until the B sample is tested and then it is pending a hearing to establish guilt. Eg the Sibbit case where the test was in june of the previous year but details did not go to the press until enquiries / decisions had been made http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/ma ... per-league. Drug testing is notoriously difficult to confirm on the basis of one test eg lots of false positives,samples being compromised etc which is why they have the A and B sample system to help counteract that possibility. Until the B sample is confirmed he is now tarnished with being a drug user when technically / legally it may not be the case. I am not surprised you could not provide any facts to support your negative assessment of IL's principles (I assume you had no facts). In your first post you said : As for Wigan dealing with it properely i find it concerning and unfair it has been leaked before his b sample has been tested Now you say: I do not know whether it was leaked You say you are concerned that the info was out before the b test AND say you understand the rules....yet the rules are clear that announcements will be made if the a test is +ve and a b test is being awaited. You do not understand the rules. The assertion about the 'notorious' nature of drug testing appears totally without evidence. Do you have any - other than anecdote - or is it another case of 'assuming something and drawing unfounded conclusions'? if you took the time to understand drug testing you would also understand the reasons for the whole a and b testing process. Somehow I think you will not bother to do so. It appears IL can be called unprincipled when there is no objective evidence but Hock is 'tarnished' when a drugs test is proven +ve. Ho hum.

Durham Giant wrote: i wont bother responding to the rest of yourpost as it is all irrelevant but the main point is relating to the information getting to the press so early. I do not know whether it was leaked but i do believe it is not normal practice to release to the press details until enquiries are concluded or until the B sample is tested and then it is pending a hearing to establish guilt. Eg the Sibbit case where the test was in june of the previous year but details did not go to the press until enquiries / decisions had been made http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/ma ... per-league. Drug testing is notoriously difficult to confirm on the basis of one test eg lots of false positives,samples being compromised etc which is why they have the A and B sample system to help counteract that possibility. Until the B sample is confirmed he is now tarnished with being a drug user when technically / legally it may not be the case. I am not surprised you could not provide any facts to support your negative assessment of IL's principles (I assume you had no facts). In your first post you said : As for Wigan dealing with it properely i find it concerning and unfair it has been leaked before his b sample has been tested Now you say: I do not know whether it was leaked You say you are concerned that the info was out before the b test AND say you understand the rules....yet the rules are clear that announcements will be made if the a test is +ve and a b test is being awaited. You do not understand the rules. The assertion about the 'notorious' nature of drug testing appears totally without evidence. Do you have any - other than anecdote - or is it another case of 'assuming something and drawing unfounded conclusions'? if you took the time to understand drug testing you would also understand the reasons for the whole a and b testing process. Somehow I think you will not bother to do so. It appears IL can be called unprincipled when there is no objective evidence but Hock is 'tarnished' when a drugs test is proven +ve. Ho hum.

[Durham Giant]

: Tue Jun 23, 2009 5:03 pm  

Danril wrote: This has gone exactly the same way as it did for Flanagan at Batley, whose ban was confirmed 11th June: "The ban began in April, when the provisional notice of suspension was made." http://www.batleynews.co.uk/news/Drugs- ... 5376415.jp Given Hock is now banned I don't see how they could have done anything else and in reality this has to be standard practise. Sibbit's case is irrelevant here as he was found to have an elevated level of salbutamol as a result of over medicating for treatment of his asthma. This will be a condition the RFL will be aware of and the ban was put on hold subject to an appeal to the world doping agency. Quite a different scenario. i am not sure the Flanagan case is the same as it seems to confirm the point i was making that his details went to the press after his hearing eg test in March, disciplinary hearing in June followed by the story going to press. As opposed to Hock tested in june, b sample still to be tested ( 30/06/09) and story in the press on 23/06/09

Danril wrote: This has gone exactly the same way as it did for Flanagan at Batley, whose ban was confirmed 11th June: "The ban began in April, when the provisional notice of suspension was made." http://www.batleynews.co.uk/news/Drugs- ... 5376415.jp Given Hock is now banned I don't see how they could have done anything else and in reality this has to be standard practise. Sibbit's case is irrelevant here as he was found to have an elevated level of salbutamol as a result of over medicating for treatment of his asthma. This will be a condition the RFL will be aware of and the ban was put on hold subject to an appeal to the world doping agency. Quite a different scenario. i am not sure the Flanagan case is the same as it seems to confirm the point i was making that his details went to the press after his hearing eg test in March, disciplinary hearing in June followed by the story going to press. As opposed to Hock tested in june, b sample still to be tested ( 30/06/09) and story in the press on 23/06/09

: Tue Jun 23, 2009 5:14 pm  

The story went to the press in April. http://www.batleybulldogs.co.uk/index.p ... &Itemid=29 Although it makes no reference in this particular article it was certainly mentioned in other articles that it was due to failing a drugs test and made reference to a cocaine derivative.

The story went to the press in April. http://www.batleybulldogs.co.uk/index.p ... &Itemid=29 Although it makes no reference in this particular article it was certainly mentioned in other articles that it was due to failing a drugs test and made reference to a cocaine derivative.

: Tue Jun 23, 2009 5:15 pm  

Mention in this match report dated 10th April. http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/r ... 5161358.jp

Mention in this match report dated 10th April. http://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/r ... 5161358.jp

: Tue Jun 23, 2009 5:22 pm  

Marsdengiant wrote:

I hope you are not allowed near children. Your need to be unseemly is lurid. But hey, maybe you are just misspelling words and do not know you are doing it. [FFS....'arbitrates' ]

i have the correct attributes to be round kids ok sugar , we have had this conversation why bring kids into this thread shame

: Tue Jun 23, 2009 5:25 pm  

I prefer square kids myself.

: Tue Jun 23, 2009 5:44 pm  

Kevin Brown's view on Hock (his brother in law) http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sp ... r-ban.html

Kevin Brown's view on Hock (his brother in law) http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sp ... r-ban.html