Ryan Bailey : Fri Jan 05, 2018 12:37 pm  

Ryan Bailey escapes a drug ban by claiming that the water that he had consumed prior to being asked to take the test, was give to him by Canadian Anti Doping Agency staff and could have been contaminated. Therefore he successfully claimed he was right to refuse to do the test.
To me this is wrong on so many levels.
Now I am not saying he is a drug cheat. I would say he was pretty lucky to get away without being banned. Simply refusing the test could be viewed with suspicion and normally results in a ban.
What is more this calls into question the integrity of the Canadian Agency, who were working on behalf of UK Anti Doping.
It does appear that Toronto may have a brilliant legal team. They may have the RFL bending over backwards for them, but they are alienating themselves to the rest of the Rugby League fraternity.
It will be interesting to see what happens if someone else who refuses to take a drugs test makes the same claim,. Will they get off?

Re: Ryan Bailey : Fri Jan 05, 2018 4:45 pm  

Sounds all a bit dodgy to me! Gives you the feeling that he had something to hide. Having been in a job where drugs testing was the norm, refusing only says one thing.

Re: Ryan Bailey : Fri Jan 05, 2018 10:34 pm  

Bostwick wrote: Ryan Bailey escapes a drug ban by claiming that the water that he had consumed prior to being asked to take the test, was give to him by Canadian Anti Doping Agency staff and could have been contaminated. Therefore he successfully claimed he was right to refuse to do the test. To me this is wrong on so many levels. Now I am not saying he is a drug cheat. I would say he was pretty lucky to get away without being banned. Simply refusing the test could be viewed with suspicion and normally results in a ban. What is more this calls into question the integrity of the Canadian Agency, who were working on behalf of UK Anti Doping. It does appear that Toronto may have a brilliant legal team. They may have the RFL bending over backwards for them, but they are alienating themselves to the rest of the Rugby League fraternity. It will be interesting to see what happens if someone else who refuses to take a drugs test makes the same claim,. Will they get off? I suggest you actually go and read the judgement as what you have written is, to be frank, hogwash https://www.ukad.org.uk/assets/uploads/ ... Bailey.PDF He did not by any stretch of the imagination successfully claim he was right to refuse to do the test A few facts from the judgement: Point 40 dismisses any justification for refusing to take the test on the basis that the bottles may have been tampered with: "There was no valid reason for Mr Bailey to have not taken the test. Any concern of Mr Bailey over the water could have been catered for by doing as Mr Taylor in fact suggested, that is by making a written record of his concerns, and even retaining one of the bottles for subsequent analysis if necessary." Point 47 rules out a dismissal of the case based on the procedural irregularities highlighted by his defence. The conclusion clearly states that "the anti-doping violation is established" ie the panel found him 'guilty' of the charge of failing or refusing to provide a sample he was facing. However, they also found that he bore 'no fault or negligence' due to the "truly exceptional circumstances of his case" and therefore he received no punishment. Those circumstances are not entirely clear but they appear to be based on the evidence of 2 psychiatrists, virtually all of which is redacted in the published judgement - I will not speculate on that evidence but if you do read the judgement some of the phrases used may lead you to form an opinion on what those circumstances may be.

Bostwick wrote: Ryan Bailey escapes a drug ban by claiming that the water that he had consumed prior to being asked to take the test, was give to him by Canadian Anti Doping Agency staff and could have been contaminated. Therefore he successfully claimed he was right to refuse to do the test. To me this is wrong on so many levels. Now I am not saying he is a drug cheat. I would say he was pretty lucky to get away without being banned. Simply refusing the test could be viewed with suspicion and normally results in a ban. What is more this calls into question the integrity of the Canadian Agency, who were working on behalf of UK Anti Doping. It does appear that Toronto may have a brilliant legal team. They may have the RFL bending over backwards for them, but they are alienating themselves to the rest of the Rugby League fraternity. It will be interesting to see what happens if someone else who refuses to take a drugs test makes the same claim,. Will they get off? I suggest you actually go and read the judgement as what you have written is, to be frank, hogwash https://www.ukad.org.uk/assets/uploads/ ... Bailey.PDF He did not by any stretch of the imagination successfully claim he was right to refuse to do the test A few facts from the judgement: Point 40 dismisses any justification for refusing to take the test on the basis that the bottles may have been tampered with: "There was no valid reason for Mr Bailey to have not taken the test. Any concern of Mr Bailey over the water could have been catered for by doing as Mr Taylor in fact suggested, that is by making a written record of his concerns, and even retaining one of the bottles for subsequent analysis if necessary." Point 47 rules out a dismissal of the case based on the procedural irregularities highlighted by his defence. The conclusion clearly states that "the anti-doping violation is established" ie the panel found him 'guilty' of the charge of failing or refusing to provide a sample he was facing. However, they also found that he bore 'no fault or negligence' due to the "truly exceptional circumstances of his case" and therefore he received no punishment. Those circumstances are not entirely clear but they appear to be based on the evidence of 2 psychiatrists, virtually all of which is redacted in the published judgement - I will not speculate on that evidence but if you do read the judgement some of the phrases used may lead you to form an opinion on what those circumstances may be.

Re: Ryan Bailey : Sat Jan 06, 2018 7:52 am  

Mr Dog, that's a very erudite post, one I suspect that will receive a curt response from NB as its; 1 not apologetic, 2 it's based upon researched fact 3 it doesn't agree with his implied opinion(Sounds all a bit dodgy to me!).

Re: Ryan Bailey : Sat Jan 06, 2018 11:55 am  

WQ, think am quite entitled to my opinion that anyone who refuses to take a drugs test does so for a reason, having been subject to regular testing myself most folk that refuse do so for a reason!
Have you read the report? The supposed bottle of water, offered to Ryan was in his words someone unknown to him who might have been a journo, why would anyone accept it, apparently it was a very hot day (max was 22 btw)
Take from it what you wish, finding excuses for refusing a test as a pro sportsman yep dodgy

Re: Ryan Bailey : Sun Jan 07, 2018 1:40 am  

Who does Bailey play for?..................Oh hang on.

Re: Ryan Bailey : Sun Jan 07, 2018 3:55 pm  

Cokey wrote:

Who does Bailey play for?..................Oh hang on.

So, you believe the Independent Panel (Sports Resolutions - made up of a QC and Deputy High Court Judge, a solicitor and a qualified doctor) who ruled on this case are, at the very least biased, and possibly corrupt? And you do realise that they (effectively) follow the same legal rules and procedures as a UK Court?

Re: Ryan Bailey : Sun Jan 07, 2018 5:01 pm  

Mr Dog wrote:

So, you believe the Independent Panel (Sports Resolutions - made up of a QC and Deputy High Court Judge, a solicitor and a qualified doctor) who ruled on this case are, at the very least biased, and possibly corrupt? And you do realise that they (effectively) follow the same legal rules and procedures as a UK Court?

Have you seen the emoji at the end? stop barking up the wrong tree.

Mind you, It is a big feck up isn't it?

Re: Ryan Bailey : Sun Jan 07, 2018 6:30 pm  

wire-quin wrote:

2 it's based upon researched fact.

and as if by magic....

northernbloke wrote:

finding excuses for refusing a test as a pro sportsman yep dodgy

The independent investigation carried out and reviewed by a team made up of a QC and Deputy High Court Judge, a solicitor and a qualified doctor is not good enough for NB, so it must be "dodgy"!

There's an old saying about not arguing with idiots WQ........it is said that if you do they will drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.......and this is another case of NB defending his stance with nothing other than opinion even though the FACTS don't side with him

Judgement made, loophole as such will be closed and won't happen again. I suspect that if they thought he was guilty of any wrongdoing he'd be tested every day for the rest of his career.......

Re: Ryan Bailey : Sun Jan 07, 2018 7:35 pm  

Get over yrself dog. I am voicing an opinion based on having spent my life where I have been subject to random drugs test, those that try to avoid it have something to hide!!
And technically am subject to RFL drugs testing now, would I ever refuse a test, no!

The facts of the case in question, it was one persons word against another on what happened on the day with reference to the said water offered. Ryan gave one account, the Canadian official gave another. Yep judgement made and he was found not to be at fault!
I stand by my statement though, anyone in a job where they know drugs testing is the norm, finding excuse not to submit to the test raises eyebrows.

Notice you never commented on bosty’s view of the incident