Bath

[Duncan B]

I seriously dont think this is very funny or something to be gloating about guys

[TigrisLeicesteris]

I wouldn't be surprised if they took legal action against the club due to defamation of character, no one's going to want to touch them with a barge pole

[Hull Fan]

Agreed Duncan B, i did post earlier that i hope it's not rife etc, it was just a thought that ran through my mind. No offence ment and i hope all concern can sort out whatever problems they may have.

[Tiger_in_Birmingham]

Just released on Bath's site.

"

I wouldn't be surprised if they took legal action against the club due to defamation of character, no one's going to want to touch them with a barge pole

Where is the defamation of character? It reads to me as Bath stating facts.

[Bill W]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_u ... 055662.stm

Oh dear! Dirty linen well and truly washed in public.

[TigrisLeicesteris]

The part about the drugs tests, it is likely to prevent them from getting employment, hence the defaming of character, they failed to appear for drugs tests yes, but they were not statuatory/legal.

Football is having the same argument with WADA, about the 'Whereabouts' rule, stating players should not be tested 365 days a year 24/7, as I understand it, footballers have cause for legal action, therefore so would rugby players

[tigerburnie]

Their careers are over,who would touch them now,certainly never going to win any caps,you'd think big clubs would educate the players about the pit falls.
Money coming too fast and youth,never a happy mix,sadly this will unlikely to be the end of this saga.
Rugby has been tainted by this,the whole sport,sadly.

[tigerfeet13]

The part about the drugs tests, it is likely to prevent them from getting employment, hence the defaming of character, they failed to appear for drugs tests yes, put they were not statuatory/legal.

Without knowing all of the fine print on their individual contracts I suspect that only the players and the Club's lawyers will know whether the the test were legal.

Though I would be shocked if there was not a clause requiring players submit themselves for drug test in or out of competition.

[TigrisLeicesteris]

I'd disagree Tigerburnie, yes I agree it leaves a sour taste in the mouth, but I'm sure it will galvanize the rugby community to take a much more active stance, and hopefully come out of this better than we went in

[Ben the Tiger]

From the way that I look at it there is no other way that bath culd have handled this other than the way in which they have done to be perfectly honest with you. If the players had just been released then the club would have had some serious questions to answer and it would seem very strange that they have been released or left on their own right when these investigations were taking place and the results were about to be published. If they had kept hold of them for another season or risked it just for the pre-season then they would have published the findings of this investigation and then the players would have been suffering a ban from the RFU or the IRB which would have looked very bad on Bath's behalf. IMHO they have handled this as best that they could have done.

[TigrisLeicesteris]

I believe this is where the issue stemmed from Tigerfeet, it was an extra non-contractual test, asking them to submit to test outside their club requirements.

I'm happy to be put right. As stated I believe their are proceedings in the courts being taken against WADA for similar rules

I agree Ben, this is the best way to handle it, I just stated there is likely to be a legal challenge by the aformentioned players

[Ben the Tiger]

Sorry for double post, I believe this is where the issue stemmed from Tigerfeet, it was an extra non-contractual test, asking them to submit to test outside their club requirements. I'm happy to be put right. As stated I believe their are proceedings in the courts being taken against WADA for similar rules

As I understand the on-going dispute with roundy ball the argument is over the proposal from WADA about drug testing rather than the rules that are currently in place.

Happy to be proved wrong though ...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/football/8044785.stm

[Bill W]

I believe this is where the issue stemmed from Tigerfeet, it was an extra non-contractual test, asking them to submit to test outside their club requirements.

I'm happy to be put right. As stated I believe their are proceedings in the courts being taken against WADA for similar rules

I agree Ben, this is the best way to handle it, I just stated there is likely to be a legal challenge by the aformentioned players

Four players from Bath have asked to be released from their contracts - the club has agreed.

That is all we and the media needed to know.

Dirty linen has been washed in public, unnecesarily, IMHO.

[POSTIGER]

It's a desperately sad situation for Bath, I've been watching Bath / Tigers games since I was 4 years old and I take absolutely no pleasure in reading this. I hope very much that there isn't a 'drug culture' at Bath but it seems certain players have been misguided and I think that is unbelievable when you consider the privileged position they are in as professional sportsmen - I would give my right arm* to play Rugby for a living and I find it amazing that players would jeopardise their careers when they are so incredibly lucky

*admitedly the absence of my right arm may affect my performances!

[g]

From what I have heard their fellow team mates gave evidence against them as some of the players were getting fed up with the bad name these players were giving the club.


Can't see how these three could have carried on playing for Bath if their own team mates spoke out against them.