Sing a song of Yorkshire, from the Humber to the Tees Of cricket, rugby, beer, of pudding and of cheese I know no other county where the land is quite so fine England's lovely county. And I'm proud to call it mine
Where shining purple heather stretches far across the moor And the lapwing's cry above me takes the place of traffic roar And peace comes drifting gently, there's no place I'd rather be Than this land of hills and valleys, from the Pennines to the sea
So when I've done my roaming, and when my step grows slow When heart and mind assure me that the time has come to go Then let me rest in Yorkshire, for its there I want to lie 'Neath sun and wind and heather... and a gleaming Yorkshire sky
[quote="Marsdengiant"]
In your first post you said :
[b]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[/b]
That is right i do not know if it was leaked or just an oficial statement or an official statement after a leak. I will try to remember to be more careful with my choice of language next time i will write LEAKED or RELEASED. either way it seems unfair to me to publically name someone before all the evidence / judgement is available. ( similar position to naming men charged with rape before the trial).
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'?
http://www.passyourdrugtest.com/false-positives.htm is an example.
I also worked a case where a drug testing agency giving evidence in court, of a woman who had a positive drug test which was not confirmed by a subsequent test and then a hair strand test confirmed no drug use explained to the court that it was a false positive and that many false positives occur in testing. I cannot quote the figure as i cannot remember it exactly but it is a significant number.
.
[quote="Marsdengiant"]
In your first post you said :
[b]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[/b]
That is right i do not know if it was leaked or just an oficial statement or an official statement after a leak. I will try to remember to be more careful with my choice of language next time i will write LEAKED or RELEASED. either way it seems unfair to me to publically name someone before all the evidence / judgement is available. ( similar position to naming men charged with rape before the trial).
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'?
http://www.passyourdrugtest.com/false-positives.htm is an example.
I also worked a case where a drug testing agency giving evidence in court, of a woman who had a positive drug test which was not confirmed by a subsequent test and then a hair strand test confirmed no drug use explained to the court that it was a false positive and that many false positives occur in testing. I cannot quote the figure as i cannot remember it exactly but it is a significant number.
[b]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[/b]
That is right i do not know if it was leaked or just an oficial statement or an official statement after a leak. I will try to remember to be more careful with my choice of language next time i will write LEAKED or RELEASED. either way it seems unfair to me to publically name someone before all the evidence / judgement is available. ( similar position to naming men charged with rape before the trial).
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'?
http://www.passyourdrugtest.com/false-positives.htm is an example. I also worked a case where a drug testing agency giving evidence in court, of a woman who had a positive drug test which was not confirmed by a subsequent test and then a hair strand test confirmed no drug use explained to the court that it was a false positive and that many false positives occur in testing. I cannot quote the figure as i cannot remember it exactly but it is a significant number.
.
So you don't know a thing re the leak / non leak. I do see that. It comes through loud and clear.
Other than rape cases people who are charged are named! there is often a huge time lag between a person being charged and a trial.
The well established procedures for sport are clear that a +ve 'a' sample that is challenged by the athete leads to a b sample and a 'tribunal'. The athlete is suspended pending the 'tribunal'. Naming the athlete while the b test is pending is standard practice and not a leak.
And I see you have no evidence that sports drugs tests are 'notoriously unreliable' .
There will be a 'b' test and a proper 'tribunal'. Hock will go through a legally robust process.
Durham Giant wrote:
Marsdengiant wrote:
In your first post you said :
[b]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[/b]
That is right i do not know if it was leaked or just an oficial statement or an official statement after a leak. I will try to remember to be more careful with my choice of language next time i will write LEAKED or RELEASED. either way it seems unfair to me to publically name someone before all the evidence / judgement is available. ( similar position to naming men charged with rape before the trial).
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'?
http://www.passyourdrugtest.com/false-positives.htm is an example. I also worked a case where a drug testing agency giving evidence in court, of a woman who had a positive drug test which was not confirmed by a subsequent test and then a hair strand test confirmed no drug use explained to the court that it was a false positive and that many false positives occur in testing. I cannot quote the figure as i cannot remember it exactly but it is a significant number.
.
So you don't know a thing re the leak / non leak. I do see that. It comes through loud and clear.
Other than rape cases people who are charged are named! there is often a huge time lag between a person being charged and a trial.
The well established procedures for sport are clear that a +ve 'a' sample that is challenged by the athete leads to a b sample and a 'tribunal'. The athlete is suspended pending the 'tribunal'. Naming the athlete while the b test is pending is standard practice and not a leak.
And I see you have no evidence that sports drugs tests are 'notoriously unreliable' .
There will be a 'b' test and a proper 'tribunal'. Hock will go through a legally robust process.
This seems to confirm that so it certainly seems as if these kind of cases, involving drugs not associated with medical conditions and more of recreational or enhancing variety, are dealt with in this way normally. Whether that is the right thing to do is another matter but it seems Wigan haven't done anything unusual with their treatment of the player or reporting of the incident.
IIRC Penkwyicz was banned pending a second test and hearing when he got done for the 'roids.
This seems to confirm that so it certainly seems as if these kind of cases, involving drugs not associated with medical conditions and more of recreational or enhancing variety, are dealt with in this way normally. Whether that is the right thing to do is another matter but it seems Wigan haven't done anything unusual with their treatment of the player or reporting of the incident.
why bring kids into this thread shame 
