Lipman & Crockett

Forum to discuss everything that is Tigers related

Moderators: Rizzo, Tigerbeat, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster

Bill W
Super User
Super User
Posts: 20002
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 5:25 pm
Location: Essex

Re: Lipman & Crockett

Post by Bill W » Tue Aug 04, 2009 1:16 pm

Kinoulton wrote:Well that had me reaching for the dictionary.

I make a habit of learning one new word per day, and you've just provided it.
Pleased to be of service Kinny!
The opinion expressed above is that of the author and does not imply any acceptance of it by Leicester Football Club PLC or their agents who in no way share responsibility with the author for its publication.

MJLTAW 2007
MOPAW 2007

harry_rocks_yes_he_does
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 847
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2005 2:42 pm

Re: Lipman & Crockett

Post by harry_rocks_yes_he_does » Tue Aug 04, 2009 2:32 pm

g wrote: It makes a mockery of the disciplinery system that one player gets a 12month ban for winking, and 3 more get a slap on the wrist for being druggys.
AGREED!

Bill W
Super User
Super User
Posts: 20002
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 5:25 pm
Location: Essex

Re: Lipman & Crockett

Post by Bill W » Tue Aug 04, 2009 2:44 pm

harry_rocks_yes_he_does wrote:
g wrote: It makes a mockery of the disciplinery system that one player gets a 12month ban for winking, and 3 more get a slap on the wrist for being druggys.
AGREED!
I have some sympathy with this view.

However undoubtedly Sequins will stand by Willimas (after all ge took the rap for them). No-one will likely stand by the Bath three. Panel knew this.
The opinion expressed above is that of the author and does not imply any acceptance of it by Leicester Football Club PLC or their agents who in no way share responsibility with the author for its publication.

MJLTAW 2007
MOPAW 2007

Richard
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1286
Joined: Thu Oct 23, 2003 11:07 am
Location: Where Am I.....?

Re: Lipman & Crockett

Post by Richard » Tue Aug 04, 2009 3:54 pm

Bill W wrote:
harry_rocks_yes_he_does wrote:
g wrote: It makes a mockery of the disciplinery system that one player gets a 12month ban for winking, and 3 more get a slap on the wrist for being druggys.
AGREED!
I have some sympathy with this view.

However undoubtedly Sequins will stand by Willimas (after all ge took the rap for them). No-one will likely stand by the Bath three. Panel knew this.
Sure its not the Bath 5
Stevens 2 years (tested positive)
Plank 8 Months( took substance)
Liphigcrock 9 months (refusing tests)
the future is bright
the future is
Scarlet Green and White

Bill W
Super User
Super User
Posts: 20002
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 5:25 pm
Location: Essex

Re: Lipman & Crockett

Post by Bill W » Tue Aug 04, 2009 4:22 pm

Indeed so. And fom the RFU transcript Bath were running scared it was not the Bath 7. Hawkins and Jackson took the tests which were negative.
The opinion expressed above is that of the author and does not imply any acceptance of it by Leicester Football Club PLC or their agents who in no way share responsibility with the author for its publication.

MJLTAW 2007
MOPAW 2007

known as eric at work
Top Cat
Top Cat
Posts: 79
Joined: Mon Dec 31, 2007 10:01 am
Location: Carlton

Re: Lipman & Crockett

Post by known as eric at work » Wed Aug 05, 2009 11:59 am

Surely, if Bath where running scared, then Lipman and Co. can feel hard done by?
And again, by implication, it looks as though the Bath players felt as though they where being pressurised into something they did not feel was right, and questioning their integrity. Any chance of an ACAS tribunal on this?
After all, the players involved terminated their own contracts, possibly stating that they felt the position they found themselves in, made it as though their positions where intenable, thus counter sue for constructive dismissal.

Bill W
Super User
Super User
Posts: 20002
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 5:25 pm
Location: Essex

Re: Lipman & Crockett

Post by Bill W » Wed Aug 05, 2009 2:20 pm

known as eric at work wrote:Surely, if Bath where running scared, then Lipman and Co. can feel hard done by?
And again, by implication, it looks as though the Bath players felt as though they where being pressurised into something they did not feel was right, and questioning their integrity. Any chance of an ACAS tribunal on this?
After all, the players involved terminated their own contracts, possibly stating that they felt the position they found themselves in, made it as though their positions where intenable, thus counter sue for constructive dismissal.
There is a strong argument that it was stated in their contracts that they had to take tests in or out of season. As HHJ JB said whilst he agreed with this it was irrelevant since Bath's request was in the circumstances reasble anyway.

Lipman & Co have got off very lightly.
The opinion expressed above is that of the author and does not imply any acceptance of it by Leicester Football Club PLC or their agents who in no way share responsibility with the author for its publication.

MJLTAW 2007
MOPAW 2007

bluntiger
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2649
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:58 pm
Location: Huntingdon

Re: Lipman & Crockett

Post by bluntiger » Wed Aug 05, 2009 2:38 pm

The only questionable thing Bath did was when they called them in for the first test they told them it was to discuss 'damage to the clubhouse'. They did this as they believed that if they asked them to come in and take a drugs test that they would have called each other and run scared.

Judge JB said they (Bath) were right to do so since the players behavior since has vindicated the deception. The players then tried to argue that they felt 'ambushed' by the clubs deception.

They then effectively ran and hid behind legal advice.

What I can't understand is that Harrison admitted guilt, co-operated and took his punishment and got 8 months, these clowns refused tests, tried to hide behind every possible excuse, dragged out a protracted hearing (and possible appeal) and yet they only get 9 months (backdated 2 months!).

What message is that giving out to player? Don't bother co-operating, deny everything, refuse tests, hide behind lawyers since the punishment is about the same either way.
Always a Tiger

Duncan B
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1490
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 6:42 pm
Location: Oxford

Re: Lipman & Crockett

Post by Duncan B » Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:17 pm

Apparently Lipman and Crockett did provide a hair sample results to the panel and they were negative, that they had doen privately.

Bill W
Super User
Super User
Posts: 20002
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 5:25 pm
Location: Essex

Re: Lipman & Crockett

Post by Bill W » Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:24 pm

Duncan B wrote:Apparently Lipman and Crockett did provide a hair sample results to the panel and they were negative, that they had doen privately.
It is relevant that Harrison pleaded guilty to taking cocaine.

It is also relevant that the private tests by "The Three" were not done under the auspices of the RFU and were done ober a month after the requested tests.

I agree that they got off lightly.
The opinion expressed above is that of the author and does not imply any acceptance of it by Leicester Football Club PLC or their agents who in no way share responsibility with the author for its publication.

MJLTAW 2007
MOPAW 2007

bluntiger
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2649
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:58 pm
Location: Huntingdon

Re: Lipman & Crockett

Post by bluntiger » Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:29 pm

Duncan B wrote:Apparently Lipman and Crockett did provide a hair sample results to the panel and they were negative, that they had doen privately.
Virtually inadmissable as evidence. Since it was done by them privately (and more than a month after the request) there is no integriry in the results. Who knows, it may even not have even been their hair samples!!

I still believe failure to take a drugs test is the same as being guilty and should carry a 2 year ban. Are we saying that if Matt Stevens had refused the drugs test that he failed, he would have got a lighter sentence?
Always a Tiger

Bill W
Super User
Super User
Posts: 20002
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 5:25 pm
Location: Essex

Re: Lipman & Crockett

Post by Bill W » Wed Aug 05, 2009 4:48 pm

bluntiger wrote:
Duncan B wrote:Apparently Lipman and Crockett did provide a hair sample results to the panel and they were negative, that they had doen privately.
Virtually inadmissable as evidence. Since it was done by them privately (and more than a month after the request) there is no integriry in the results. Who knows, it may even not have even been their hair samples!!

I still believe failure to take a drugs test is the same as being guilty and should carry a 2 year ban. Are we saying that if Matt Stevens had refused the drugs test that he failed, he would have got a lighter sentence?

Negative. Stevens test was part of the routine RFU "in season" tests. Hence the WADA rules - 2 years manatory if positive results or refused.
The opinion expressed above is that of the author and does not imply any acceptance of it by Leicester Football Club PLC or their agents who in no way share responsibility with the author for its publication.

MJLTAW 2007
MOPAW 2007

bluntiger
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2649
Joined: Fri Nov 07, 2008 3:58 pm
Location: Huntingdon

Re: Lipman & Crockett

Post by bluntiger » Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:15 pm

Bill W wrote:Negative. Stevens test was part of the routine RFU "in season" tests. Hence the WADA rules - 2 years manatory if positive results or refused.
My point exactly though Bill. There should be no 'in season', a drugs test should be the same whether 'in season' or not and the consequences should be the same. And by the way, the season had not finished when they were asked to take the test even though they had played their last game.

Are we saying that a player is permitted to refuse a test in August and only get a reduced 9 month ban?
Always a Tiger

Duncan B
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1490
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2005 6:42 pm
Location: Oxford

Re: Lipman & Crockett

Post by Duncan B » Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:17 pm

Im probably being naive in trying to see the best in people but surely a hair test result wouldnt matter how long after it was taken as long as it wasnt cut off?

soggytiger
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 329
Joined: Sun Feb 12, 2006 2:28 pm
Location: Brunssum NL

Re: Lipman & Crockett

Post by soggytiger » Wed Aug 05, 2009 5:46 pm

Amused to see the usual suspects invoking moral(double) standards

I would welcome any of the three to welford road after their bans run out.

Not like we have signed anyone in prison on a charge of ABH is it????!!!!!! :smt002

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: BG01, Rykard and 2 guests