Missed no-ball robs Warne

[Richard]

no balls called electronically may also allow umpires to concentrate more on the point where the ball is around the pad/bat and therefore make better decisions on lbw and catches.

I think everyone hopes that... not totally as certain myself as some seem to be, but certainly it can't do any harm.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Ben Johnson was PROVEABLE doping with anabolic steroids whereas no such thing ever happened to Warnie. They only ever found diuretic-like stuff in his urine and nothing else. You can believe what you want but you've actually got no idea if you're right or not.

I suspect you are wrong, though; if Warnie was taking any growth hormones/'roids, he'd have been a LOT bigger. Take it from a (former) professional chemist.

I'll bow in deference to your professional expertise, but I'd contend he was probably only taking the 'roids short-term to fix a particular problem.

Warney sometimes plays up to his "loveable div" persona, but he's obviously no fool. Certainly not a big enough one to take a prohibited substance simply to look slim on telly. His excuse just doesn't have the ring of verisimilitude.

Unfortunately it set a precedent; he got 12 months instead of a possible 24. Cricket, like all sports IMHO, needs a "strict liability" policy. Bans should be mandatory, not discretional.

 

[Top_Cat]

I'll bow in deference to your professional expertise, but I'd contend he was probably only taking the 'roids short-term to fix a particular problem.

'roid metabolites are easy to pick up because they don't resemble other compounds in the body and you need them in high concentrations. That's why no-one is stupid enough to use them anymore.

Warney sometimes plays up to his "loveable div" persona, but he's obviously no fool. Certainly not a big enough one to take a prohibited substance simply to look slim on telly. His excuse just doesn't have the ring of verisimilitude.

I agree as far as the 'my Mum gave them to me' but I don't think it's inconceiveable that he deliberately took dieuretics because, as I said, if he was taking HGH's or any other mass-building drugs, he'd be getting BIGGER, not smaller particularly considering his body type (he'd likely put muscle on in the shoulders and arms first).

Unfortunately it set a precedent; he got 12 months instead of a possible 24. Cricket, like all sports IMHO, needs a "strict liability" policy. Bans should be mandatory, not discretional.

Now this I've never been a fan of. A mandatory sentence means that for a (relatively) minor infraction, someone might get a heavy sentence. I personally think there hould always be room for discretion so that mitigating and aggravating factors can be presented equally. Theoretically, someone could be banned for two years for drinking a lot of coffee (of course they would be warned but still.....). Mandatory sentencing seems to go against the ideal of natural justice in the sense that no matter what factors explaining your situation are present, you get the same sentence. So not only will you get people punished heavily for relatively minor offences, you'd also get people who really should be banned for life only getting two years.

 

[BoyBrumby]

Now this I've never been a fan of. A mandatory sentence means that for a (relatively) minor infraction, someone might get a heavy sentence. I personally think there hould always be room for discretion so that mitigating and aggravating factors can be presented equally. Theoretically, someone could be banned for two years for drinking a lot of coffee (of course they would be warned but still.....). Mandatory sentencing seems to go against the ideal of natural justice in the sense that no matter what factors explaining your situation are present, you get the same sentence. So not only will you get people punished heavily for relatively minor offences, you'd also get people who really should be banned for life only getting two years.

That's precisely why I'm in favour of a mandatory ban. If there is room for discretion there will always be the "me mum gave it to me" or a Dennis Mitchell-esque "I was shagging the missus & had four beers last night, so my testosterone levels were preternaturally high" c0ck & bull stories trotted out.

These guys are professional sportsmen &, moreover, adults. The ultimate responsibility for what goes in their bodies is their own. If you knew you might lose your means of support for two years (or one year, the length of the ban isn't as important as its uniformity) I reckon you'd be extra careful.

 

[Top_Cat]

These guys are professional sportsmen &, moreover, adults. The ultimate responsibility for what goes in their bodies is their own. If you knew you might lose your means of support for two years (or one year, the length of the ban isn't as important as its uniformity) I reckon you'd be extra careful.

Yeah look, I can't disagree with that at all. These guys are well appraised of the risks they need to avoid but I'm just not a fan of mandatory penalties in general. As far as I'm concerned, they are just as much open to manipulation as discretionary penalties.

For example (and I hate to throw my 'expertise' around here yet again but these days I'm a crime pattern analyst for the ***ual Crime Investigation Branch of SA Police), but say an athlete has his/her drink spiked at a bar with a steroid or another performance-enhacing drug. Now although not being administered direct into the bloodstream, you'd imagine some of it would still get there (I was a chemist so my biology isn't great and I'm not totally sure of this; Deja Moo?). Now assuming that's correct, assume a drug test happens the next day.

Who would believe the 'my drink was spiked' argument? In any investigation, previous propensity for doing this sort of thing would be taken into account (if there's no evidence that the person in question had done this before, such as used needles found in their room, that would weaken the case for a regular IV user) but in a situation with a mandatory 2-year penalty for just finding this drug in blood samples, for example, these factors would not need to be taken into account. The arbitrator would be compelled to apply the mandatory penalty no matter what the mitigating circumstances.

Now how fair is that? Given that this is a low-percentage situation and that I don't have any idea how well various performance-enhancing drugs would lend themselves towards being delivered in a drink-spiking situation, it doesn't seem totally fair to just ban someone outright when there might be evidence to indicate that they might be in the clear but which would have to be ignored in this sort of legal situation (much like several cases in the NT).

I dunno, am I talking out of my rectum people?

 

[BoyBrumby]

It's an interesting point. Now I know the square root of Fanny Adams about biology or chemistry (or physics come to that, but I digress!) so I can't debate any points about the detection of illicit substances, but if you allow mitigation for one miscreant to be equitable you'd have to allow it for all of them.

As for the "no evidence that the person in question had done this before" argument, the man I think of is Cronje. When his match-fixing first came to light he denied the allegations out of hand &, being of good character previously, was generally believed. In SA in particular there was the suggestion of an Indian plot to stitch-up the saintly Hansie. If there hadn't been the physical evidence he may very well have brazened it out.

I think the key distinction to make is between "doubt" (which arguably always exists) & "reasonable doubt".

 

[Top_Cat]

As for the "no evidence that the person in question had done this before" argument, the man I think of is Cronje. When his match-fixing first came to light he denied the allegations out of hand &, being of good character previously, was generally believed. In SA in particular there was the suggestion of an Indian plot to stitch-up the saintly Hansie. If there hadn't been the physical evidence he may very well have brazened it out.

I think the key distinction to make is between "doubt" (which arguably always exists) & "reasonable doubt".

Of course. And I think this shows where our positions are actually very similar and 'reasonable doubt' will always be taken into account by a fair arbitration. I will say that in my experience with the criminal element, there are always signs of ill behaviour before the crook is caught. Even with the ultimate churchies, there's always some indication. Hansie is exactly the same; Gary Kisten's statements in his autobiography are what I'm talking about to be specific. And there have been others too. In a court, statements such as Gary's are taken into account which raise doubt as to the purity of someone like Hansie. And as such, even with the allegations that you mention, I doubt he would have gotten off or if he had, it would have been quite a doubtful verdict in light of the anecdotal evidence or witness statements from his former team mates.

That said, I still believe those statement (as in a court of law) should be able to be taken into account when deciding the guilt or otherwise because without similar processes such as those observed in normal courts, that always leaves verdicts open to question and therefore, legal challenge. They should be able to hold up in an arbitratuon in the same way as any given court.

That said, if discretion is to be used then the maximum penalty should definitely be extended beyond two years.

 

[sirjeremy11]

Being a New Zealander I feel I should point out the following...

Warne was caught behind on 81 and given not out from what I remember. I was driving down Titirangi Rd at the time listening to it on the radio and the AUSTRALIAN commentators said it was obvious

Steve Waugh was out three times during his 2nd innings. Only once was he given out.

Gillespie was out. I do not care what anyone says.

Ian Robinson would be a little poorly recieved if he came to NZ.

And last but not least, since that wonderful test we have gone backwards, backwards, backwards as a test team.

Sad really.

 

[Jono]

I'm almost positive he was dropped at least twice anyway, so no-one can possible complain about anything.

Stop trying to force your stupid theory on other people. It's all well and good you ranting and raving about it, but don't try and use it as fact.

 

[Top_Cat]

Being a New Zealander I feel I should point out the following...

Warne was caught behind on 81 and given not out from what I remember. I was driving down Titirangi Rd at the time listening to it on the radio and the AUSTRALIAN commentators said it was obvious

Steve Waugh was out three times during his 2nd innings. Only once was he given out.

Gillespie was out. I do not care what anyone says.

Ian Robinson would be a little poorly recieved if he came to NZ.

And last but not least, since that wonderful test we have gone backwards, backwards, backwards as a test team.

Sad really.

Yep exactly. I mean everyone rants and raves about the 'Closest test in History' between the Australians and WI in 1992 and how Craig McDermott was 'robbed' by the dodgy caught-behind decision to give the WI a one-run win. In reality, there would have been at least 4 LBW decisions well before the end which should have finished the Test. The WI were well entitled to feel aggrieved that the result came so close to a loss for them.

The NZ example is just another; NZ would have won the Test if certain calls were correct. Warnie may feel robbed but in reality, he should probably count himself lucky that he got so close.

 

[chaminda_00]

I could be wrong but wasn't the drug that Warnie took one that hides roids in your body. I was just joking about taking the record away from him, his bowling prior to taking drugs meant he deserves the record. He was a magician back then. I still think Darell Hair has no idea when umpiring and should never have umpired a Test Match. Out of the umpires i've seen he is the worst by far.

 

[Pinkline Jones]

Chaminda,

Warne was never a magician. You would be thinking of people like David Copperfield, Roy and Sigfried. However, Warne most definitely deserves an award for outstanding service to the fast food industry.

 

[Camel56]

Yes Jonesy, you're quite right. I once interviewed warne and the subject of magic came up. I asked him what he thought about people making silly claims that he was a magician and when pressed he admitted not once had he pulled a rabbit out of his baggy green.

 

[Top_Cat]

I could be wrong but wasn't the drug that Warnie took one that hides roids in your body.

Not hide them, per se, but they assist in removing the excess 'roids and HGH's from the body by excretion. So people call it a 'masking agent' when in reality they actually mask nothing. Yet another example of a misnomer which gives the wrong connotations about something in the public eye.

 

[chaminda_00]

Not hide them, per se, but they assist in removing the excess 'roids and HGH's from the body by excretion. So people call it a 'masking agent' when in reality they actually mask nothing. Yet another example of a misnomer which gives the wrong connotations about something in the public eye.

So ur saying it could be to cover up taking 'roid anf HGH's then, or did i competely miss read that

 

[biased indian]

Not hide them, per se, but they assist in removing the excess 'roids and HGH's from the body by excretion. So people call it a 'masking agent' when in reality they actually mask nothing. Yet another example of a misnomer which gives the wrong connotations about something in the public eye.

why would some one take that drug????

 

[Top_Cat]

So ur saying it could be to cover up taking 'roid anf HGH's then, or did i competely miss read that

Nope, you didn't but dieuretics can be used for a few other things and one of them is losing weight (a dangerous way but one way nonetheless).

 

[Linda]

A legend more like a drug cheat that couldn't handle being second best and fat to boot, so he took drugs to lose 10 to 15 kgs and improve his abilty to bowl long spells. Then took some other drugs to cover the first set of drugs and then blamed his mum. A legend i don't think, unless of course u think Ben Johnson is a legend. If ben Johnson world record was taken off him then Warnie record should be taken of him. A drug cheat with a world record that just stupid.

I still say he's a legend, no matter what your theories are.

I'm almost positive he was dropped at least twice anyway, so no-one can possible complain about anything.
If anyone's taking the thing seriously they're a little delusional.

I'm certainly not taking it as seriously as you appear to be.

 

[Sehwag309]

The so-called bowler should take mamas pills to get over the lucky 99

Murali deserves 100 more than this individual

 

[Son Of Coco]

The so-called bowler should take mamas pills to get over the lucky 99

Murali deserves 100 more than this individual

He goes alright for a so called bowler. If murali ever scores 100 I'll streak this forum!