Lipman & Crockett

Forum to discuss everything that is Tigers related

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

tigerburnie
Super User
Super User
Posts: 7008
Joined: Thu Aug 28, 2008 8:46 pm
Location: angus , scotland

Re: Lipman & Crockett

Post by tigerburnie » Mon Aug 03, 2009 6:25 pm

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.
There's a bit of a party atmosphere around Bath this afternoon - but you wouldn't get that at Leicester if we finished ninth." Richard Cockerill 7/5/16

alex_111
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 373
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 9:54 pm

Re: Lipman & Crockett

Post by alex_111 » Mon Aug 03, 2009 6:28 pm

sky sports say 9 months

Hull Fan
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1509
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 8:43 am
Location: Hull

Re: Lipman & Crockett

Post by Hull Fan » Mon Aug 03, 2009 6:48 pm

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.
But they didn't take any drugs!
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"

importunate
New Member
Posts: 7
Joined: Sun Jun 21, 2009 11:02 pm

Re: Lipman & Crockett

Post by importunate » Mon Aug 03, 2009 6:57 pm

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!

Dave W
Gold Member
Gold Member
Posts: 1414
Joined: Tue Mar 22, 2005 9:30 pm
Location: Rainworth

Re: Lipman & Crockett

Post by Dave W » Mon Aug 03, 2009 7:21 pm

Silly bunch of Charlie's.....
Never move faster than your guardian angel can fly...

alex_111
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 373
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2005 9:54 pm

Re: Lipman & Crockett

Post by alex_111 » Mon Aug 03, 2009 7:22 pm

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.

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 » Mon Aug 03, 2009 7:43 pm

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.
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

Gate
Super User
Super User
Posts: 5523
Joined: Mon Mar 28, 2005 2:12 pm
Location: London

Re: Lipman & Crockett

Post by Gate » Mon Aug 03, 2009 8:15 pm

I dare say they'd find someone to take it on with a CFA.

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 » Mon Aug 03, 2009 8:27 pm

Gate wrote:I dare say they'd find someone to take it on with a CFA.
And I dare say you are right Gate.

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

TigerCam
Super User
Super User
Posts: 3642
Joined: Mon Dec 20, 2004 5:41 pm
Location: Cambridge

Re: Lipman & Crockett

Post by TigerCam » Mon Aug 03, 2009 8:38 pm

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

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 » Mon Aug 03, 2009 9:14 pm

TigerCam wrote:Funny how Ohuruogu missed several tests and didn't get banned? Lesson learnt by the boys I guess?
She was banned initially for a year, and she "missed" them as opposed to refused to take them!
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

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 » Mon Aug 03, 2009 9:55 pm

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.
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

westy154
Super User
Super User
Posts: 3563
Joined: Wed Feb 23, 2005 12:18 am
Location: Nottingham, England

Re: Lipman & Crockett

Post by westy154 » Mon Aug 03, 2009 10:56 pm

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.
John
---
He is able to lift up a heavy object when that heavy object says "lift me now".

g
Super User
Super User
Posts: 5340
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 6:14 pm
Location: Chesterfield

Re: Lipman & Crockett

Post by g » Mon Aug 03, 2009 11:13 pm

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.

TigerAlex
Silver Member
Silver Member
Posts: 628
Joined: Wed Mar 18, 2009 9:20 pm

Re: Lipman & Crockett

Post by TigerAlex » Mon Aug 03, 2009 11:25 pm

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.
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.

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.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: JP14, JPC1983, Leicestertinytiger, Mark62, RagingBull, rdracup, richie1880, RunTigerRun, speedski, TigerFeetSteve, trendylfj, willowens227 and 2 guests