Drugsgate pair lose appeal.

Bill W · Post by **Bill W** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 4:39 pm

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_u ... 205086.stm

Hull Fan · Post by **Hull Fan** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 4:44 pm

What bad news! Shame they didn't extend them.

bluntiger · Post by **bluntiger** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 4:55 pm

I don't think they lost the appeal dispite the headline. I think the appeal was thrown out because the grounds under which they appealed the original ban were insufficient to warrant an appeal.

I believe they appealed on the basis that they were summond to the Bath Ground under false pretentions (damage to the clubhouse) and then asked to take the drugs test (which they went on to refuse).

Hot_Charlie · Post by **Hot_Charlie** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 4:58 pm

Hull Fan wrote:What bad news! Shame they didn't extend them.

I see in reality it's only a 6 month ban from domestic competition as they run from June 1st.

I'm sure my employer wouldn't be so kind if I refused a drugs test (of any sort).

bluntiger · Post by **bluntiger** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 5:01 pm

My guess is that they will want to play again once the ban expires so where would we expect to see them plying their trade? Who would want them with their reputation?

My guess is that they will turn up in France or even in the SH.

Bill W · Post by **Bill W** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 5:04 pm

You are quite right - their appeal was turned down. i.e. they did not win.

At the original hearing the fact that on the first occasion they were summoned to appear at the club on a pretence was presented in evidence and accepted by both Bath and the Disciplinary Officer. They then refused (to take a test) a second time.

It is difficult to see how this could constitute grounds for appeal although I have not read the transript of the appeal hearing yet.

Did not take long though (the hearing) did it.

g · Post by g » Mon Sep 07, 2009 5:40 pm

Now I expect them to follow through with there constructive dismissal. These 2 really will not rest until they get something from Bath will they?

At least Higgins was big enough to accept defeat. Pity these two eejits can't follow his example.And now call it quits.

bluntiger · Post by **bluntiger** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 5:51 pm

g wrote:Now I expect them to follow through with there constructive dismissal.

I am not an employment expert but do have some experience of employment law. I can't see any grounds to launch a case for constructive dismissal. All Bath did was ask them to take a drugs case since they had heard tales of drug abuse. A court will see that as a reasonable request.

The only thing the club did wrong was misleading them to come to the grounds under false pretences and then asking them to undergo a drugs test but I would say that is no grounds for constructive dismissal.

TnA · Post by **TnA** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 6:01 pm

Good news. I don't expect to see them in the GP again. However in 6 months time there maybe one or more teams scrapping away at the bottom of the table that may take them on to improve their squad and give it the old "they have served their suspension and deserve a second chance" argument.

Bill W · Post by **Bill W** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 6:27 pm

I expect them to surface "down under".

I share the view that Employment Tribunals are slow to side with those who resign immediately before disciplinary hearings.

We cannot, of course, know what Bath would have decided, but whatever it was they (Lipman and Crockett) would have had the right of appeal.

Whilst their lawyers will be getting richer they themselves will be getting poorer.

IMHO they have been badly advised ab initio.

Tircoeds · Post by **Tircoeds** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 7:48 pm

TnA wrote:Good news. I don't expect to see them in the GP again. However in 6 months time there maybe one or more teams scrapping away at the bottom of the table that may take them on to improve their squad and give it the old "they have served their suspension and deserve a second chance" argument.

And whilst you may not find that acceptable, I suspect many on here would find it ok for Mr Richards to be plying his trade again, as soon as he can.

Standards. Double. ?

jack · Post by **jack** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 8:34 pm

No, neither they nor Richards can be rehabilitated rapidly. It is quite possible that some struggling club will take them on when their ban ends, but I hope not.

Bill W · Post by **Bill W** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 8:41 pm

Tircoeds wrote:
TnA wrote:Good news. I don't expect to see them in the GP again. However in 6 months time there maybe one or more teams scrapping away at the bottom of the table that may take them on to improve their squad and give it the old "they have served their suspension and deserve a second chance" argument.
And whilst you may not find that acceptable, I suspect many on here would find it ok for Mr Richards to be plying his trade again, as soon as he can.

Standards. Double. ?

It is not down to me whether either Richards, Lipman or Crockett get to ply their trades in this country or another.

The charge all three faced was bringing the game into disrepute. The former was found "not guilty" but resigned when Tom Williams did a "plea bargain" with the ERC. The latter resigned rather than face a drugs test and a disciplinary hearing from their club.

Having regard to both cases I would suggest that the Drugsgate pair did indeed bring the game into disrepute and, in fact, continue to do so. RFU (for once) have equiped themselves reasonably not only placing the evidence before us but by their even handed approach. A 2 year ban would not have been unreasonable.

ERC on the other hand have not behaved reasonably and indeed they have made matters significantly worse. Their processes and procedures are open to legal challenge and thier release of evidence biased and untimely.

soggytiger · Post by **soggytiger** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 9:02 pm

They were found guilty of bringing the game into disrepute by missing/refusing a drugs test - that is all, no drug use or abuse. So that puts them in the same league as Rio Ferdinand, Christina Ohuruogu and ahead of most profesional footballers as FIFA won't sign up for WADA anyway. And to be fair they did not miss a WADA test, just one the club sprung on them under false pretences. So to even use the term drugsgate is an simplistic value judgement.

So employment tribunal beckons and procedures rather than the old boys become more important - I think an out of tribunal settlement is the likely outcome. Personal opinion only but there are still more skeletons in the Rec closet that people in that neck of the woods will want to bury. Interesting to notice the management reshuffle that took place there over the summer. Pre-emptive...?

And to answer early posters yes I would welcome them to WR with open arms when the ban has finished, as they have served their ban. Where is the difference between that and cheering Backy after a 6 month ban for bringing the game into disrepute, cheering Nebbetts after we signed him in prison on an assault charge etc. If they add something we need to the squad then please sign them asap.

Bill W · Post by **Bill W** » Mon Sep 07, 2009 9:13 pm

soggytiger wrote:beckons and procedures rather than the old boys become more important - I think an out of tribunal settlement is the likely outcome. .

Never in a million years will Andrew Brownsword agree to that.

He will go to a Tribunal, an Appeal, The House of Lords, and the European Court and still not give them 1p

Leicester Tigers

Drugsgate pair lose appeal.

Drugsgate pair lose appeal.

Re: Drugsgate pair lose appeal.

Re: Drugsgate pair lose appeal.

Re: Drugsgate pair lose appeal.

Re: Drugsgate pair lose appeal.

Re: Drugsgate pair lose appeal.

Re: Drugsgate pair lose appeal.

Re: Drugsgate pair lose appeal.

Re: Drugsgate pair lose appeal.

Re: Drugsgate pair lose appeal.

Re: Drugsgate pair lose appeal.

Re: Drugsgate pair lose appeal.

Re: Drugsgate pair lose appeal.

Re: Drugsgate pair lose appeal.

Re: Drugsgate pair lose appeal.