Ryan Bailey, he does what he wants

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/42558028

Ryan Bailey, he does what he wants

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/42558028

A couple of things:

the current 'standard' WADA tariff for a 1st time anti-doping offence is 4 years unless there are extenuating circumstances. Most who are charged with testing positive for 'cocaine' get 2 years as the time that the usage took place is deemed as out of competition - the testing laboratory are asked to confirm that their results agree with this claim. Usage in competition would almost certainly attract the full 4 year ban.

As for the Ryan Bailey case I suggest you actually go and read the judgement https://www.ukad.org.uk/assets/uploads/ ... Bailey.PDF

He did not by any stretch of the imagination as has been reported in some places successfully claim he was right to refuse to do the test

A few facts from the judgement:
Point 40 dismisses any justification for refusing to take the test on the basis that the bottles may have been tampered with:

"There was no valid reason for Mr Bailey to have not taken the test. Any concern of Mr Bailey over the water could have been catered for by doing as Mr Taylor in fact suggested, that is by making a written record of his concerns, and even retaining one of the bottles for subsequent analysis if necessary."

Point 47 rules out a dismissal of the case based on the procedural irregularities highlighted by his defence.

The conclusion clearly states that
"the anti-doping violation is established" ie the panel found him 'guilty' of the charge of failing or refusing to provide a sample he was facing. However, they also found that he bore 'no fault or negligence' due to the "truly exceptional circumstances of his case" and therefore he received no punishment. Those circumstances are not entirely clear but they appear to be based on the evidence of 2 psychiatrists, virtually all of which is redacted in the published judgement - I will not speculate on that evidence but if you do read the judgement some of the phrases used may lead you to form an opinion as to what those circumstances may be.

A couple of things:

the current 'standard' WADA tariff for a 1st time anti-doping offence is 4 years unless there are extenuating circumstances. Most who are charged with testing positive for 'cocaine' get 2 years as the time that the usage took place is deemed as out of competition - the testing laboratory are asked to confirm that their results agree with this claim. Usage in competition would almost certainly attract the full 4 year ban.

As for the Ryan Bailey case I suggest you actually go and read the judgement https://www.ukad.org.uk/assets/uploads/ ... Bailey.PDF

He did not by any stretch of the imagination as has been reported in some places successfully claim he was right to refuse to do the test

A few facts from the judgement:
Point 40 dismisses any justification for refusing to take the test on the basis that the bottles may have been tampered with:

"There was no valid reason for Mr Bailey to have not taken the test. Any concern of Mr Bailey over the water could have been catered for by doing as Mr Taylor in fact suggested, that is by making a written record of his concerns, and even retaining one of the bottles for subsequent analysis if necessary."

Point 47 rules out a dismissal of the case based on the procedural irregularities highlighted by his defence.

The conclusion clearly states that
"the anti-doping violation is established" ie the panel found him 'guilty' of the charge of failing or refusing to provide a sample he was facing. However, they also found that he bore 'no fault or negligence' due to the "truly exceptional circumstances of his case" and therefore he received no punishment. Those circumstances are not entirely clear but they appear to be based on the evidence of 2 psychiatrists, virtually all of which is redacted in the published judgement - I will not speculate on that evidence but if you do read the judgement some of the phrases used may lead you to form an opinion as to what those circumstances may be.