Lipman & Crockett

[Bill W]

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!

[harry_rocks_yes_he_does]

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]

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.

[Richard]

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)

[Bill W]

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.

[known as eric at work]

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]

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.

[bluntiger]

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.

[Duncan B]

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

[Bill W]

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.

[bluntiger]

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?

[Bill W]

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.

[bluntiger]

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?

[Duncan B]

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]

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????!!!!!!