• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Can Shoaib/Asif Be Charged For The Same Offence Twice?

gunner

U19 Cricketer
Like the title says,
If they test positive again next month then why would they risk life bans?
Can they be charged for last years offence again?
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
Thing is, they weren't charged by anyone official. The PCB acquitted them.

It'd be a completely different matter if, for example, ICC\WADA did a drugs-test that came back positive.
 

Goughy

Hall of Fame Member
TBH, IMO it isnt the same offence.

Shouldnt be playing with the offending substances in them. Each failure is a different case.

If you go on a drive and get caught by 5 speed cameras then each of them is a seperate offence.
 

silentstriker

The Wheel is Forever
TBH, IMO it isnt the same offence.

Shouldnt be playing with the offending substances in them. Each failure is a different case.

If you go on a drive and get caught by 5 speed cameras then each of them is a seperate offence.
Two things - since their appeal was overturned, they cannot count it as the same offense. So they can, and should, be banned if it is found again.
 

vic_orthdox

Global Moderator
If there are still drugs in their system, they'd be stupid to play, IMO. Surely the PCB has gotten them private tests to determine whether or not there is still anything in their system. To play devil's advocate, maybe that's why Shoaib's not playing ATM.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
You'd really, really hope someone has had the sense to do that.

It'd be madness not to.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
TBH, IMO it isnt the same offence.

Shouldnt be playing with the offending substances in them. Each failure is a different case.

If you go on a drive and get caught by 5 speed cameras then each of them is a seperate offence.
That was roughly what I was trying to say.

Read Matt79 (think it's 79 - gets confusing with all these MattNumberXs)'s sig for how I feel having read that...
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
If there are still drugs in their system, they'd be stupid to play, IMO. Surely the PCB has gotten them private tests to determine whether or not there is still anything in their system. To play devil's advocate, maybe that's why Shoaib's not playing ATM.
I'd personally go so far as to say they shouldn't be allowed to play whilst they have any banned substances still in their bodies. Even if one accepts their defences as legitimate (it's a stretch, I know, but bear with me), allowing them to play on with illicit substances in their bodies is roughly akin to the coppers letting you drive home after your mates have been spiking your coke with something stronger; you might've ingested it unwittingly but it'll still have an effect.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
It's an intreguing one, that, and I'd certainly be in favour of it.

Trouble is, the analogy isn't complete: driving and playing cricket aren't quite the same thing. If something's happened that's not your fault, depriving you of playing cricket is rather a greater deprivation than that of the wheel of your car.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
It's an intreguing one, that, and I'd certainly be in favour of it.

Trouble is, the analogy isn't complete: driving and playing cricket aren't quite the same thing. If something's happened that's not your fault, depriving you of playing cricket is rather a greater deprivation than that of the wheel of your car.
I don't wanna derail the thread too much, but you're far more likely to kill someone driving whilst under the influence than bowling whilst juiced up on 'roids, so I'd disagree it is the greater deprivation.
 

Richard

Cricket Web Staff Member
You misunderstand me...

Obviously, the deprivation of a drunk from driving is a more important deprivation, but let's assume that you undertook a hit-and-run and got away with it (or, better, didn't hit anyone) - the person who has innocently been given "'roids" has lost more through something that's not his own fault than he who has lost the use of his car through drinking more 'hol than he thought he was.

Assuming, remember, that said car-user would not have ended-up in court were he to have driven.
 

BoyBrumby

Englishman
You misunderstand me...

Obviously, the deprivation of a drunk from driving is a more important deprivation, but let's assume that you undertook a hit-and-run and got away with it (or, better, didn't hit anyone) - the person who has innocently been given "'roids" has lost more through something that's not his own fault than he who has lost the use of his car through drinking more 'hol than he thought he was.

Assuming, remember, that said car-user would not have ended-up in court were he to have driven.
You clearly missed the important bit of my post.

I don't wanna derail the thread too much
 

shortpitched713

International Captain
I think if it could be proven that what was found on a hypothetical positive drug test was simply residue left over from the time of the earlier test then it would be unfair to charge them again. Obviously the ICC would need to have knowledge of the results of their previous test samples in order to make a judgement.
 

honestbharani

Whatever it takes!!!
is there anyway to determine during the tests that the amount of any illegal substance (if any) is probably the residue of wat was present earlier? Surely in that case, it is only the original offence that counts and they can defend it with whatever their defence was in the PCB drug test?


But, since the WC dope test will be done by another body, it will count as a seperate test. So maybe PCB will leave them out of the WC and avoid all this confusion.
 

Top