Bath

[Bill W]

FACT There was a rumpus in and outside of a pub in Fulham.

FACT As a result Bath held an internal inquiry

FACT As a result four players no longer play for Bath.

[me2]

The biggest disappointment to me is that out-of-season testing is not instituted. This is when considerable drug abuse can take place, not of the recreational variety, but anabolic or growth preparations, and their associated masking agents. These enable considerable training loads to be undertaken as they massively shorten recovery periods. This is routine in some sports (see RL for sports details and TV wrestling for extreme manifestations) and manifests itself as severe connective tissue injuries in season, severe muscle tears and unexplained deaths from heart failure.

Out of season testing is instituted, from the GP rules and regulations
"In season 2006/07 a total of 414 tests were carried out on rugby players in England under the RFU’s testing programme, with over 50% conducted out of competition with no advance notice."

That said it does not sound many tests.

'Out of competition' doesn't necessarily mean Out of Season.

My guess is that it refers to testing done during the season but outside of the match window.

After each match, a couple of players are required to give urine samples. Those tests would be classed as "in competition". I would assume that random tests outside of matchdays but still during the playing season would be what constitutes "out of competition" testing.

[TigrisLeicesteris]

As I live in the SW, coverage is all over the news. According to Points West tonight the three have issued a legal challenge regarding the reason in whuch they left, the club accusing them of missing drugs tests, the players disputing that

[soggytiger]

Have to say starting to get a bit uneasy on this one -the trial by media/supporters is not the way ahead. I agree with Bill that those are the only facts as known( I would add that both Bath RFC and the respective parties have issued a statement) but everything else is simple speculation. My opinion is that the issue of what may or may not have occured during the timespan in question is now secondary to the issue of what procedures were followed during the internal investigation. The second issue may also prove more expensive in a tribunal/court. particularly depending on what evidence either side actually has.

I reckon this one will run until Christmas at least.

[Dave W]

Guilty or not, Dean Ryan will probably sign them up..

[Bill W]

Guilty or not, Dean Ryan will probably sign them up..

Ah but for which club?

[TigrisLeicesteris]

He's starting a new club in his back garden, so instead of the 'Shed Heads' to contend with he has the 'Garden Shed Heads' aka the gnomes to deal with

[Bill W]

He's starting a new club in his back garden, so instead of the 'Shed Heads' to contend with he has the 'Garden Shed Heads' aka the gnomes to deal with

Is his back garden in Zurich?

If so they would be "the gnomes of Zurich" and could have as their theme tune Elgar's Cockaigne overture!

Sorry.

I'll get my coat.

[Ben the Tiger]

He's starting a new club in his back garden, so instead of the 'Shed Heads' to contend with he has the 'Garden Shed Heads' aka the gnomes to deal with

Is his back garden in Zurich?

If so they would be "the gnomes of Zurich" and could have as their theme tune Elgar's Cockaigne overture!

Sorry.

I'll get my coat.

[Bill W]

Ask Kinny to explain it!!!

[TigrisLeicesteris]

Or not

[G.K]

Bath Rugby Statement
1 June 2009, 5:15 pm
By Tim Davies
Bath Rugby have issued the following statement.
"Michael Lipman, Alex Crockett and Andrew Higgins had been required to appear at an internal disciplinary hearing today to address the failure on three occasions to take a drugs test following allegations surrounding player conduct on Sunday May 10. Immediately before the hearings were due to take place the players resigned from the Club with immediate effect.

The Club regards this as an internal matter and intends to make no further comment"

R Calleja, CEO Bath Rugby

[mol2]

I doubt there'll be a court case.

Players will be required to submit evidence under oath.
Why refuse a test if you are clean?

There may be a bit of brinkmanship to try & get a financial settlement out of Bath & save face.

Will the players' legal advisors advise them to go to court? They may well be forced to disclose things which will then get into the public domain. Telling porkies under oath is a whole lot more serious than losing your job, so the truth will out unless they have very smart lawyers.

By resigning they may well avoid bans for missed tests (if they were instigated by the club rather than the RFU). if they were tests instigated by the RFU (or whoever they delegate testing to) then if they avoided them they are likely to be banned. Missing unnofficial tests may well look bad but probably doesn't prove guilt of use of banned substances.

[Qbec]

On a brighter side for Bath Rugby I hear that they have sorted the issue with the Rec ground re: capacity etc.