Sport Today

by **Larry de Silv** » Tue, 18 Feb 2003 22:41:31

"Olympian" Warne would face two-year ban, says Aussie Games chief

http://SportToday.org/

SYDNEY, Sunday (AFP) - Cricket legend Shane Warne would face a two-year ban
from competition if his positive drug test was assessed under Australian
Olympic standards, according to the country's Games chief.

Champion legspinner Warne was forced home from the World Cup last week after
testing positive for a banned diuretic in a random test by the Australian
Sports *** Agency prior to the team's departure to South Africa earlier
this month.

Australian Olympic Committee (AOC) president John Coates said there was
never any excuse for using a banned substance and he was unimpressed by the
extenuating circumstances expected to be put forward by Warne in his defence
at an impending Australian Cricket Board (ACB) hearing sometime this week.

"Under the AOC's policy, which is strict liability and very limited
extenuating circumstances, Shane would have great difficulty and I would
think it would be a two-year penalty," Coates was quoted by the Sun Herald
newspaper on Sunday.

"Nothing I have read would show me there are extenuating circumstances to
make it less.

"But he is subject not to our (AOC) bylaw, he is subject to the rules of
cricket which have been approved by the (government-backed) Australian
Sports Commission."

Both The Australian national newspaper and Sydney's Daily Telegraph reported
Friday that Warne, 33, took the diet pill after being nagged by his mother
Brigitte. Warne has denied using performance-enhancing ***.

The ACB said Friday that Warne was facing a charge of using a "prohibited
method", which draws a minimum two-year ban for the first offence.

Warne faces being driven out of cricket if he cannot prove mitigating
circumstances to the ACB's anti-doping panel for taking the substance which
is used to aid weight loss but can also mask steroid use.

Coates said there was never any excuse for using a banned substance.

"It's not for me to give Shane Warne any message -- he's not one of my
athletes," he said.

"Ignorance certainly isn't an excuse with us and our athletes understand
that.

"You are responsible for what's in your body."

A leading Australian sports lawyer said Warne's vanity could prove to be his
best chance of escaping a career-threatening ban over his positive ***
test.

According to lawyer, Michael Rowe, Warne's desire to show off a trim figure
for the cameras might just get him off the hook when he pleads his case to
the ACB.

"He could argue that he took the tablet on the insistence of his mother to
aid his appearance and make himself look thinner," said Rowe, the chairman
of Tennis Australia's anti-doping committee.

"He's got this new image of himself as a fit sportsman and he wanted to help
that a little before he made his comeback," Rowe told AFP.

"That's got nothing to do with trying to improve his capacity to play
cricket, he's already proved he can take wickets when he's carrying extra
weight.

"He's known for being vain, there's no doubt about that, and I suppose it
would be ironic if that was what saved him."

by **Wayn** » Wed, 19 Feb 2003 06:43:32

Quote:

> "Olympian" Warne would face two-year ban, says Aussie Games chief

> http://SportToday.org/

[snip]

A senior Thai police minister says that Warne would face the death penalty
if the diuretic was making *** use.

Gilly

by **C.G.J** » Wed, 19 Feb 2003 06:53:01

The one differnece being that steroids is a performance enhancing drug in
most Olympic sports and hence a masking agent would be very suspicious.
However in crick steroids would be pointless especially for a spin bowler so
a masking agent is not as serious so it is not really the best comparison.

by **JohnD** » Wed, 19 Feb 2003 07:45:21

Quote:

> However in crick steroids would be pointless especially for a spin bowler
so
> a masking agent is not as serious so it is not really the best comparison.

Unless of course you happen to be trying to recover from an injury in a
limited time-frame.

by **Wayn** » Wed, 19 Feb 2003 09:01:38

Quote:

> > However in crick steroids would be pointless especially for a spin
bowler
> so
> > a masking agent is not as serious so it is not really the best
comparison.

> Unless of course you happen to be trying to recover from an injury in a
> limited time-frame.

And that is why the rules need to be changed.

There should be nothing wrong with using medication to recover from an
injury. If he took cough syrup to recover from the flu, or antibiotics to
recover from an infection, he is doing the same thing, taking medication to
recover from an illness that would otherwise keep him out of the game.

Gilly

by **Ken Higg** » Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:17:19

Quote:

> > > However in crick steroids would be pointless especially for a spin
> bowler
> > so
> > > a masking agent is not as serious so it is not really the best
> comparison.

> > Unless of course you happen to be trying to recover from an injury in a
> > limited time-frame.

> And that is why the rules need to be changed.

> There should be nothing wrong with using medication to recover from an
> injury. If he took cough syrup to recover from the flu, or antibiotics to
> recover from an infection, he is doing the same thing, taking medication to
> recover from an illness that would otherwise keep him out of the game.

> Gilly

Ah,
the old 'Warney did nothing wrong' excuse again.
Shades of the bookie affair.

Regardless of whether you feel he did nothing wrong, he violated the rules as
they stand today.

I hope you're not going to call him a hero

Higgsy

by **Wayn** » Wed, 19 Feb 2003 10:12:22

Quote:

> > > > However in crick steroids would be pointless especially for a spin
> > bowler
> > > so
> > > > a masking agent is not as serious so it is not really the best
> > comparison.

> > > Unless of course you happen to be trying to recover from an injury in
a
> > > limited time-frame.

> > And that is why the rules need to be changed.

> > There should be nothing wrong with using medication to recover from an
> > injury. If he took cough syrup to recover from the flu, or antibiotics
to
> > recover from an infection, he is doing the same thing, taking medication
to
> > recover from an illness that would otherwise keep him out of the game.

> > Gilly

> Ah,
> the old 'Warney did nothing wrong' excuse again.
> Shades of the bookie affair.

> Regardless of whether you feel he did nothing wrong, he violated the rules
as
> they stand today.

> I hope you're not going to call him a hero

> Higgsy

Definitely not a hero, but he is a champion.

I am not saying he did nothing wrong because it is quite clear that he did.
My point is that it should be the case that he did nothing wrong. IMO the
rules are not relevant to the game of cricket.

Gilly

by **Phil** » Wed, 19 Feb 2003 13:49:59

Quote:

> > However in crick steroids would be pointless especially for a spin bowler
> so
> > a masking agent is not as serious so it is not really the best comparison.

> Unless of course you happen to be trying to recover from an injury in a
> limited time-frame.

The trouble with that argument is that if you read the sheet on
Moduretic you'll find that it reduces the therapeutic effect of most
*** (including steroids) if taking with them. So I don't see the
point in taking it if you're also taking medications to speed recovery
since it would cancel out their effect! Not surprising since the
masking effect of diuretics is due to increased 'flushing' of the
system. Maybe though Warne got a break, today a baseball pitcher
(somewhat overweight by all accounts) died from heat stroke while at
practise at training camp in Florida. The newschannels are saying
that he may have been taking over-the-counter weight loss medication,
there will be an autopsy tomorrow I believe.

by **jeff.** » Wed, 19 Feb 2003 17:06:47

On Tue, 18 Feb 2003 00:41:31 +1100, "Larry de Silva"

Quote:

>"Olympian" Warne would face two-year ban, says Aussie Games chief

>http://www.dailynews.lk/2003/02/17/sp04.html

>SYDNEY, Sunday (AFP) - Cricket legend Shane Warne would face a two-year ban
>from competition if his positive drug test was assessed under Australian
>Olympic standards, according to the country's Games chief.

But it's not, so why stick your oar in.

jeff...

"...and I would have got away with it if it wasn't
for those meddling hobbits!"
- Sauron, F.A.1

by **The Wo** » Wed, 19 Feb 2003 19:47:05

Quote:

> The one differnece being that steroids is a performance enhancing drug in
> most Olympic sports and hence a masking agent would be very suspicious.
> However in crick steroids would be pointless especially for a spin bowler
so
> a masking agent is not as serious so it is not really the best comparison.

Except for a spin bowler that had comprehensively rooted his shoulder
immediately before a major tournament and was trying to accelerate his
recovery beyond what is humanly possible.

by **The Wo** » Wed, 19 Feb 2003 19:51:06

Quote:

> > > > > However in crick steroids would be pointless especially for a spin
> > > bowler
> > > > so
> > > > > a masking agent is not as serious so it is not really the best
> > > comparison.

> > > > Unless of course you happen to be trying to recover from an injury
in
> a
> > > > limited time-frame.

> > > And that is why the rules need to be changed.

> > > There should be nothing wrong with using medication to recover from an
> > > injury. If he took cough syrup to recover from the flu, or
antibiotics
> to
> > > recover from an infection, he is doing the same thing, taking
medication
> to
> > > recover from an illness that would otherwise keep him out of the game.

> > > Gilly

> > Ah,
> > the old 'Warney did nothing wrong' excuse again.

i.e. the exact opposite of what Gilly said.

Quote:

> > Shades of the bookie affair.

i.e. the exact opposite of what ANYBODY said.

Quote:

> > Higgsy

Of course

by **kenhigg** » Thu, 20 Feb 2003 06:50:11

Quote:

> > > > > > However in crick steroids would be pointless especially for a spin
> bowler
> so
> > > > > > a masking agent is not as serious so it is not really the best
> comparison.

> > > > > Unless of course you happen to be trying to recover from an injury
> in
> a
> > > > > limited time-frame.

> > > > And that is why the rules need to be changed.

> > > > There should be nothing wrong with using medication to recover from an
> > > > injury. If he took cough syrup to recover from the flu, or
> antibiotics
> to
> > > > recover from an infection, he is doing the same thing, taking
> medication
> to
> > > > recover from an illness that would otherwise keep him out of the game.

> > > > Gilly

> > > Ah,
> > > the old 'Warney did nothing wrong' excuse again.

> i.e. the exact opposite of what Gilly said.

No.
He clarified in his 2nd post.
I wonder why you snipped that......

Quote:

> > > Shades of the bookie affair.

> i.e. the exact opposite of what ANYBODY said.

Really?
IIRC, plenty of people made the excuse that in the bookie affair,
Warne had actually done nothing wrong.
I don't expect you to accept that, your view of things has always been
remarkably selective.....

Quote:

> > > Higgsy

> Of course

Of course, one has to take most of your repleis with a grain of salt,
you having a seperate agenda, after all

Higgsy

by **Colin Lor** » Thu, 20 Feb 2003 09:53:26

Quote:

> > The one differnece being that steroids is a performance enhancing drug
in
> > most Olympic sports and hence a masking agent would be very suspicious.
> > However in crick steroids would be pointless especially for a spin
bowler
> so
> > a masking agent is not as serious so it is not really the best
comparison.

> Except for a spin bowler that had comprehensively rooted his shoulder
> immediately before a major tournament and was trying to accelerate his
> recovery beyond what is humanly possible.

But the point is he isn't trying to cheat by achieving a higher level than
he is capable of when healthy. Return to health as opposed to exceeding
natural maximums are very different situations. The problem is drug testing
can't tell which the athlete is doing, which causes the problems. If testing
could, then athletes would be allowed to uses many of the banned substances
in recovery without penalty. Unfortunately the drug testers catch the cheats
and know to release medical users so there can be no difference in penalty.
Warney's done the crime, he has little or no mitigating evidence (unlike
Tune).

by **Prakash Melwan** » Thu, 20 Feb 2003 10:44:12

Quote:

>>> The one differnece being that steroids is a performance
>>> enhancing drug
> in
>>> most Olympic sports and hence a masking agent would be
>>> very suspicious.
>>> However in crick steroids would be pointless especially for a spin
> bowler
>> so
>>> a masking agent is not as serious so it is not really the best
> comparison.

>> Except for a spin bowler that had comprehensively rooted
>> his shoulder
>> immediately before a major tournament and was trying to
>> accelerate his
>> recovery beyond what is humanly possible.

> But the point is he isn't trying to cheat by achieving a
> higher level than
> he is capable of when healthy. Return to health as opposed
> to exceeding
> natural maximums are very different situations. The
> problem is drug testing
> can't tell which the athlete is doing, which causes the
> problems. If testing
> could, then athletes would be allowed to uses many of the
> banned substances
> in recovery without penalty. Unfortunately the drug
> testers catch the cheats
> and know to release medical users so there can be no
> difference in penalty.
> Warney's done the crime, he has little or no mitigating
> evidence (unlike
> Tune).

But Shame does say that his mother forced him :-)

Though I do note that the chairman of the World Anti-Doping Agency,***
Pound, was unimpressed with Warne's explanation.

"Poisoned by his mother? It is good, very good. It ranks up there with
the one, 'I got it from the toilet seat'," Pound said.

Prakash

--
Direct access to this group with http://SportToday.org/
http://SportToday.org/