Lipman & Crockett
Moderators: Tigerbeat, Rizzo, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster
-
- Super User
- Posts: 8346
- Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 8:46 pm
- Location: Scotland
Re: Lipman & Crockett
Bet they've already sounded out some French or maybe even southern hemisphere teams,just in case.Can't see any of the PRL clubs hiring them,or Magners for that matter.
If it is 9 months,that's a fair time with no wages,so a bit more than a slap on wrist for refusing blood tests,still a deterant,all be it a fairly smallish one.
If it is 9 months,that's a fair time with no wages,so a bit more than a slap on wrist for refusing blood tests,still a deterant,all be it a fairly smallish one.
"If you want entertainment, go to the theatre," says Edinburgh head coach Richard Cockerill. "Rugby players play the game to win.15/1/21.
Re: Lipman & Crockett
sky sports say 9 months
Re: Lipman & Crockett
But they didn't take any drugs!g wrote:The Bath unoffy seem to think they have got ONLY 9 months. If this is the case then it's a joke as it will give any player who takes drugs the opportunity to refuse to take a test knowing they will only get a slap on the wrists.
We have to believe this or they would of been charged with it and banned accordingly.
The East Yorkshire Branch
Coalville RFC - "It's in the blood"
Coalville RFC - "It's in the blood"
-
- New Member
- Posts: 7
- Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 11:02 pm
Re: Lipman & Crockett
I do not understand the logic that because the pra has made a statement the players are not unable to sue... The pra are just an organisation, legally their opinion means nothing.
If you were asked to take a drugs test as work, if it was not in your contract it would be unreasonable to convene a disiplinary because you refused. I would therefore say that the players have a good chance of getting damages. People seem to think that because the RFU have handed out a ban this vindicates bath, it does not!
The players have not been changed with anything which is proveable! The drugs charge was dropped - they were then merely chanrged with not doing exactly what they were told by their employers out of season!
Personally I feel very sorry for the players. I hope they do three things. 1) Sue bath and get big payouts, 2) Appeal the ban and have it removed or placed or reduced to something like 2 weeks, 3) Get great contracts at a new club and go onto to win the Heineken Cup!
I know I am going to get slaughtered but that is what i think. The RFU have just done what we all knew they would do - taken the easy route! These players may have taken drugs, but you cannot prove it so must assume that they did not!
If you were asked to take a drugs test as work, if it was not in your contract it would be unreasonable to convene a disiplinary because you refused. I would therefore say that the players have a good chance of getting damages. People seem to think that because the RFU have handed out a ban this vindicates bath, it does not!
The players have not been changed with anything which is proveable! The drugs charge was dropped - they were then merely chanrged with not doing exactly what they were told by their employers out of season!
Personally I feel very sorry for the players. I hope they do three things. 1) Sue bath and get big payouts, 2) Appeal the ban and have it removed or placed or reduced to something like 2 weeks, 3) Get great contracts at a new club and go onto to win the Heineken Cup!
I know I am going to get slaughtered but that is what i think. The RFU have just done what we all knew they would do - taken the easy route! These players may have taken drugs, but you cannot prove it so must assume that they did not!
Re: Lipman & Crockett
Silly bunch of Charlie's.....
Never move faster than your guardian angel can fly...
Re: Lipman & Crockett
whatever the verdict i still dont understand why if you hadn't taken drugs you would refuse a drugs test, in the same situation i would jump at the chance to take the test to clear my name beyond any doubt.
whatever else is said im not sure they're clean.
whatever else is said im not sure they're clean.
Re: Lipman & Crockett
The Rugby Football Union's disciplinary panel took into consideration their "good character and concerns about the advice they received".
Such concerns likely centre around the fact that they were advised they did not need to take a drugs test.
They would be ill advised to rack up even more egal bills sueing for damages, because, contrary to the belief of some on here, the request by their employer that they submit for drugs testing was reasonable.
Such concerns likely centre around the fact that they were advised they did not need to take a drugs test.
They would be ill advised to rack up even more egal bills sueing for damages, because, contrary to the belief of some on here, the request by their employer that they submit for drugs testing was reasonable.
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
MJLTAW 2007
MOPAW 2007
Re: Lipman & Crockett
I dare say they'd find someone to take it on with a CFA.
Re: Lipman & Crockett
And I dare say you are right Gate.Gate wrote:I dare say they'd find someone to take it on with a CFA.
Sensible thing for them to do now though is to vanish.
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
MJLTAW 2007
MOPAW 2007
Re: Lipman & Crockett
Funny how Ohuruogu missed several tests and didn't get banned? Lesson learnt by the boys I guess?
Whoever said "one person cannot change the world' never ate undercooked bat
Re: Lipman & Crockett
She was banned initially for a year, and she "missed" them as opposed to refused to take them!TigerCam wrote:Funny how Ohuruogu missed several tests and didn't get banned? Lesson learnt by the boys I guess?
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
MJLTAW 2007
MOPAW 2007
Re: Lipman & Crockett
HHJ Jeff Blacket summed up the case quite well:
In its summing up the panel added: "If the players had nothing to fear from taking a drugs test then they would have taken them.
"The reality of the case was that at the time when asked to take a drugs test, the players believed there was a risk of positive results.
"This was either because they knew they had ingested drugs or they had drunk so much alcohol that they could not remember whether or not they had ingested drugs.
"Each of the players therefore decided to play for time, keep out of contact and then hide behind legal defence."
IMHO the sentence was very lenient.
In its summing up the panel added: "If the players had nothing to fear from taking a drugs test then they would have taken them.
"The reality of the case was that at the time when asked to take a drugs test, the players believed there was a risk of positive results.
"This was either because they knew they had ingested drugs or they had drunk so much alcohol that they could not remember whether or not they had ingested drugs.
"Each of the players therefore decided to play for time, keep out of contact and then hide behind legal defence."
IMHO the sentence was very lenient.
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
MJLTAW 2007
MOPAW 2007
Re: Lipman & Crockett
I can't say I've bothered following all the ins and outs of this case, but if the players were saying that they shouldn't have to submit a test outside of the season (or some variation of that), then they are clearly in the wrong.
A sportsman's contract is surely for 12 months. I would certainly expect a rugby players to be at least. Therefore what a player gets up to in the off season is entirely their clubs business. If they go on a drug fuelled bender, this harms the club. If they go on a food bender and put on 4 stone, unless they are a prop this will harm the club.
So if they have chosen to do what we all think they did, and then refused a test, Bath in my opinion had every right to discipline them, and eventually sack them.
A sportsman's contract is surely for 12 months. I would certainly expect a rugby players to be at least. Therefore what a player gets up to in the off season is entirely their clubs business. If they go on a drug fuelled bender, this harms the club. If they go on a food bender and put on 4 stone, unless they are a prop this will harm the club.
So if they have chosen to do what we all think they did, and then refused a test, Bath in my opinion had every right to discipline them, and eventually sack them.
John
---
He is able to lift up a heavy object when that heavy object says "lift me now".
---
He is able to lift up a heavy object when that heavy object says "lift me now".
Re: Lipman & Crockett
Bath didn't sack them. They resigned.
Watch them pop up soooner rather than later playing for an English club. 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. Whether they have been cleared or not IMO they are very much guilty of taking drugs otherwise why would you refuse to take a test if "you" have nothing to hide.
Watch them pop up soooner rather than later playing for an English club. 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. Whether they have been cleared or not IMO they are very much guilty of taking drugs otherwise why would you refuse to take a test if "you" have nothing to hide.
Re: Lipman & Crockett
Trouble is, there's a difference between your opinion and the law. Don't get me wrong, my opinion is the same as yours (I think). If I'd been deciding the sentence and legal protocol hadn't been an issue, I'd have said that refusal to take the test was an admission of guilt and they'd have got a lot longer than 9 months. However, as it is, it's innocent until proven guilty and, unfortunately, no matter what it looks like, we can't prove they're guilty without a positive test result. You can't prove they're guilty, ergo, they're innocent. Basically, it comes down to whether they're contractually obliged to take a drugs test out of season.westy154 wrote:I can't say I've bothered following all the ins and outs of this case, but if the players were saying that they shouldn't have to submit a test outside of the season (or some variation of that), then they are clearly in the wrong.
A sportsman's contract is surely for 12 months. I would certainly expect a rugby players to be at least. Therefore what a player gets up to in the off season is entirely their clubs business. If they go on a drug fuelled bender, this harms the club. If they go on a food bender and put on 4 stone, unless they are a prop this will harm the club.
So if they have chosen to do what we all think they did, and then refused a test, Bath in my opinion had every right to discipline them, and eventually sack them.
Personally, I can't believe that anyone who was clean would argue about contractual obligations to prove themselves innocent of career-threatening accusations when such a simple test is readily available.