Yasir Shah tests positive for banned substance

[Flem274*]

I'd still be drunk from 3 weeks ago.

lol come on of course you are. i'd hit the bottle after that frustrating series if i was tom lathams long lost older brother too.

 

[StephenZA]

Yes, I am questioning these Dr's integrity. What is the problem with that? This is a doping issue. I'm not going to rely on the integrity of doctors who have a vested interest.

It is outrageous that he was prescribed the drug in 2013 and yet there's no record of him having passed this information on to the WADA until well after the test was taken.

I have no problem with you questioning the Dr`s integrity, unfortunately there is no other professional Dr that will have his medical history and can give evidence. That it may be tainted is true and should be taken into account when making the decision. If it felt that the Dr is or shown to be lying or has lied in the past then you can discount the evidence. Obviously the board felt that the Dr could be trusted enough to take his evidence into account.

So let me get this straight.

I ask a doctor to come up with any plausible story AFTER I've failed a drug test - providing ZERO evidence before the fact - and you're happy to trust the "integrity" of my doctors?

You're a very trusting person.

There is no requirement to let the WADA or ICC know whenever you have a condition and taking medication. There is a requirement to let them know what you have taken when giving a blood sample. You can, if you are taking medication that has a prohibited substance, request an exemption if you show good reason for it. There was no need to do this because the prescribed medicine did not have a banned substance. His wife's medicine had the banned substance. And the history of his and his wife's medicine and prescriptions was given.

I am not that trusting a person, however when there is no other evidence available to contradict the story or to bring the Dr into disrepute then I would trust the Dr and witnesses involved. Additional, this story would have had to have lots of foresight and thought . Or else he is very lucky that his wife has high BP and has a prescription with the correct banned substance, and also that he has a clear family history of BP problems. So either this has been planned for a fair amount of time in case he got caught, he got lucky with his wife`s prescription etc or maybe, just maybe its actually true. I am trusting that it is actually true as I think the story has to many moving parts and people involved to last long if a lie... time will probably tell.

I get the feeling that unless there was an impartial witnesses standing in the room when he took the medication that could give evidence, you will not believe this story. I can understand that even if I disagree with it.

So completely irrelevant.

If levels of drugs in the bloodstream stayed the same over time I'd still be drunk from 3 weeks ago.

I put it down as a piece of interest having gone and looked up the masking ability of the diuretic in question, out of my personal interest. I would have been much more suspicious if the sample had come back at a level that could be masking another drug.

 

[hendrix]

I get the feeling that unless there was an impartial witnesses standing in the room when he took the medication that could give evidence, you will not believe this story. I can understand that even if I disagree with it.

Correct. I don't trust people who have a clear vested interest, particularly from a board that has shown in the past that it cares less about the truth and more about saving face - just look at all of their initial responses to match-fixing allegations or responses to any level of criticism: the first port of call is always to attempt to sweep it up and only if that can't be done is there any actual honest appraisal. However, that's not unique to the PCB, it's a very common thing and we see it throughout cricket and life in general.

Hence why in these types of cases you need actual independent evidence. The onus is on YS to prove his case, and none of this evidence is unbiased.

I put it down as a piece of interest having gone and looked up the masking ability of the diuretic in question, out of my personal interest. I would have been much more suspicious if the sample had come back at a level that could be masking another drug.

Ah, well then perhaps you're not understanding how diuretics are used as masking agents.

in most cases they're not "masking", as such, they're reducing the agents concentrations to levels that are undetectable, by both flushing them out of the system and/or reducing the fluid concentration in which they can be excreted.

If you've been on steroids, you take diuretics a few days before a test (i.e. exactly like this scenario) so that the extracellular fluid becomes depleted and essentially flushed free of the agent in question. Sure if you're taking steroids on that same day then the diuretic concentration won't be high enough to flush it out in time, but if you're on a relatively low dose (i.e. for injury recovery) and you've been taking it say a few times a week...yeah. It's a very effective way of ensuring they're not detected.

 

[Jono]

Man we've been through this.



















The anti-doping laws are primarily in place to disincentivize cheating.

No they are not. They are primarily in place to ensure there is an even playing field and the integrity of the sport isn't in question. The code would not be so harsh on accidental ingestion if its purpose was to only disincentivise cheating.

Its a strict liability code. Cop it on the nut and stop having a Yasir SWahhh

 

[hendrix]

No they are not. They are primarily in place to ensure there is an even playing field and the integrity of the sport isn't in question. The code would not be so harsh on accidental ingestion if its purpose was to only disincentivise cheating.

Its a strict liability code. Cop it on the nut and stop having a Yasir SWahhh

He's not actually having a wahh though.

I'm the one having a wah at the ridiculously light sentence and outrageous acceptance of mitigating factors made up by the very sports doctors who were probably responsible for putting him on PEDs in the first place.

 

[Jono]

Yeah but he's having a Yasir SWahh at you having a Yasir SWahh at the WAAAAAAAAAAAAHDA code.

Lot of Wahhs

 

[hendrix]

I have no problem with you questioning the Dr`s integrity, unfortunately there is no other professional Dr that will have his medical history and can give evidence. That it may be tainted is true and should be taken into account when making the decision. If it felt that the Dr is or shown to be lying or has lied in the past then you can discount the evidence. Obviously the board felt that the Dr could be trusted enough to take his evidence into account.

There is no requirement to let the WADA or ICC know whenever you have a condition and taking medication. There is a requirement to let them know what you have taken when giving a blood sample. You can, if you are taking medication that has a prohibited substance, request an exemption if you show good reason for it. There was no need to do this because the prescribed medicine did not have a banned substance. His wife's medicine had the banned substance. And the history of his and his wife's medicine and prescriptions was given.

I am not that trusting a person, however when there is no other evidence available to contradict the story or to bring the Dr into disrepute then I would trust the Dr and witnesses involved. Additional, this story would have had to have lots of foresight and thought . Or else he is very lucky that his wife has high BP and has a prescription with the correct banned substance, and also that he has a clear family history of BP problems. So either this has been planned for a fair amount of time in case he got caught, he got lucky with his wife`s prescription etc or maybe, just maybe its actually true. I am trusting that it is actually true as I think the story has to many moving parts and people involved to last long if a lie... time will probably tell.

Don't you get it? I doubt his wife even has that prescription.

The reason they're saying it's his wife's medication now is because they initially ****ed up by saying atenolol rather than the one with the diuretic in it. So they had to backtrack and attribute it to his wife.

The story has been fabricated from the points of events. It's like drawing a monster from two dotted lines.

 

[StephenZA]

Correct. I don't trust people who have a clear vested interest, particularly from a board that has shown in the past that it cares less about the truth and more about saving face - just look at all of their initial responses to match-fixing allegations or responses to any level of criticism: the first port of call is always to attempt to sweep it up and only if that can't be done is there any actual honest appraisal. However, that's not unique to the PCB, it's a very common thing and we see it throughout cricket and life in general.

Hence why in these types of cases you need actual independent evidence. The onus is on YS to prove his case, and none of this evidence is unbiased.

He is not trying to prove his innocence, he has the drug in his system. He is providing an explanation as to why the drug was in his system. The ICC has accepted the explanation and sentenced accordingly. You do not believe his story and think he was cheating/doping.

Ah, well then perhaps you're not understanding how diuretics are used as masking agents.

in most cases they're not "masking", as such, they're reducing the agents concentrations to levels that are undetectable, by both flushing them out of the system and/or reducing the fluid concentration in which they can be excreted.

If you've been on steroids, you take diuretics a few days before a test (i.e. exactly like this scenario) so that the extracellular fluid becomes depleted and essentially flushed free of the agent in question. Sure if you're taking steroids on that same day then the diuretic concentration won't be high enough to flush it out in time, but if you're on a relatively low dose (i.e. for injury recovery) and you've been taking it say a few times a week...yeah. It's a very effective way of ensuring they're not detected.

My understanding was (bolded above) it decreases the concentration levels of the other drug because you produce more fluid. It has much less of an effect clearing the system of other drugs but that is drug dependent and where in the body it is sitting. But you still need enough of the diuretic in your system to produce adequate additional fluid. But like you say none of this changes things, my only comment was if it was higher then I would be more suspicious.

Don't you get it? I doubt his wife even has that prescription.

The reason they're saying it's his wife's medication now is because they initially ****ed up by saying atenolol rather than the one with the diuretic in it. So they had to backtrack and attribute it to his wife.

The story has been fabricated from the points of events. It's like drawing a monster from two dotted lines.

What you saying, is he said Tenormin (brand name for the atenolol) but should have originally said Tenoret, the one with the atenolol and diuretic in it. Effectively admitting they would find a diuretic in his blood. Then when he (or the PCB) realized they made a mistake had to explain this by getting a prescription for his wife and create a convoluted story about how he took one of his wife`s pills. In doing this more than one Dr has to perjure himself and falsify scripts for the medicine. And at least a few high members of the PCB and team Dr has to know what is going on. For me this is to much of a conspiracy theory and would probably fall apart with a little investigation. Maybe the ICC has not done its due diligence and maybe the PCB and company is corrupt to this level. I wouldn`t know, not being involved in the organizations.But I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt that people are trying to do there jobs properly.

 

[hendrix]

What you saying.

What I'm saying is that anyone can make up a plausible story if they aren't required to provide any evidence from unbiased sources. I could come up with a million conspiracy theories involving wives, cousins, aunties, uncles and Osama Bin Laden and Barack Obama having a session on Donald Trump's lawn, given the couple of points of actual evidence we've been provided. Whether there's no collaboration, a minor or major collaboration from the board's doctors, I don't know.

But if, say, he were doping, don't you think it's likely that the sports doctors providing evidence here were the same ones to provide him his PEDs? He has to get the PEDs from somewhere.

 

[Tom Flint]

Recovery..

Recovery from what? I am sure he wasn't injured when he was tested.

 

[StephenZA]

What I'm saying is that anyone can make up a plausible story if they aren't required to provide any evidence from unbiased sources. I could come up with a million conspiracy theories involving wives, cousins, aunties, uncles and Osama Bin Laden and Barack Obama having a session on Donald Trump's lawn, given the couple of points of actual evidence we've been provided. Whether there's no collaboration, a minor or major collaboration from the board's doctors, I don't know.

It is very difficult to have unbiased sources in these sorts of claims, particularly when dealing with personal matters like medical history etc. But the credibility of those sources are also important. Have these Dr`s been under suspicion with providing drugs to other players? Have they got an exemplary record, are they respected by their peers etc. While you can claim a story of Osama Bin Lanen, Barack Obama and Trump having a tea-party with David Icke, you would probably struggle to find credible sources, biased or unbiased, to prove the story. This comes back to the due diligence of the ICC.

But if, say, he were doping, don't you think it's likely that the sports doctors providing evidence here were the same ones to provide him his PEDs? He has to get the PEDs from somewhere.

If he was/is doping then these Dr`s have likely perjured themselves for self interested gain. But consider if he is innocent of actually doping and just made a mistake, then these Dr`s are being truthful and he was just negligent. At this stage the only evidence (biased evidence, but only evidence) is for the second story where he is innocent.

If somebody comes forward contradicting any of this, a player, Dr, etc having seen or heard something or for even one of the prescriptions to be found to be false, then his entire story falls apart. But this has not happened, so I continue to believe in his story until other evidence comes to light.

 

[honestbharani]

Recovery from what? I am sure he wasn't injured when he was tested.

Nope.. he was just coming back from one.

 

[Tom Flint]

Nope.. he was just coming back from one.

But why would he risk getting caught and face a possible 2 year ban rather than wait a couple more weeks to recover naturally. I can't imagine anyone would knowingly take that risk for such a small gain

 

[Daemon]

He may have been getting away with it for a while. There's got to be others as well imo.

 

[hendrix]

But why would he risk getting caught and face a possible 2 year ban rather than wait a couple more weeks to recover naturally. I can't imagine anyone would knowingly take that risk for such a small gain

guys, why would anyone cheat?

 

[Furball]

But why would he risk getting caught and face a possible 2 year ban rather than wait a couple more weeks to recover naturally. I can't imagine anyone would knowingly take that risk for such a small gain

Why would a professional athlete seek to gain an advantage?

Now, that one's a real toughie. I might have to give that a few days thought before I come back to you.

 

[kaori]

why only Spinner ?

Why ICC only target spinners ? Regarding doping, action plus banned. Not a single Asian Indian bowler ever bans by ICC?
I suspect ICC'S ''soft corner' for BCCI.icc totally cut Pakistan with banning ajmal,yasir ,hafez .
Afridi hang around for nothing and iMad wasim in the list of injured for next half year.

 

[Black_Warrior]

This has to be a multi

 

[hendrix]

If he was/is doping then these Dr`s have likely perjured themselves for self interested gain. But consider if he is innocent of actually doping and just made a mistake, then these Dr`s are being truthful and he was just negligent. At this stage the only evidence (biased evidence, but only evidence) is for the second story where he is innocent.

If somebody comes forward contradicting any of this, a player, Dr, etc having seen or heard something or for even one of the prescriptions to be found to be false, then his entire story falls apart. But this has not happened, so I continue to believe in his story until other evidence comes to light.

a) they haven't perjured themselves anywhere, this is not a court of law it's a ****** surface level ICC investigation. Even if it was a court of law, there's no way to disprove them. It's a crime that's impossible to prove, hence why the doping laws explicitly place the burden of proof at the level of testing; it's the athlete's and his doctors responsibility to monitor what goes into them and if something illicit is discovered then it's guilty until proven innocent.

b) Hence the onus is not on the WADA to prove Yasir's innocence. Once he's tested positive, the onus is on him to provide legitimate evidence to prove a legitimate mistake.

It's incredibly naive to think that his sports doctors are unlikely to be involved in doping. Every doper in the world has sports doctors managing their doses. The doctors are probably more guilty than the athletes themselves, as they're not the ones facing the long term consequences of drug abuse. As we've seen on multiple occasions, entire sports boards and coaching divisions have been getting desired outcomes by doping. The US and Jamaican track and field athletes. Every Chinese weightlifter at the olympics. Sharapova. Lance Armstrong. They're all getting their drugs from their doctors.

What we're seeing here - and certainly in light of letting Andre Russell off for not even bothering with his mandatory tests - is tacit approval, or at lest CBF-ness from the ICC.

 

[StephenZA]

a) they haven't perjured themselves anywhere, this is not a court of law it's a ****** surface level ICC investigation. Even if it was a court of law, there's no way to disprove them. It's a crime that's impossible to prove, hence why the doping laws explicitly place the burden of proof at the level of testing; it's the athlete's and his doctors responsibility to monitor what goes into them and if something illicit is discovered then it's guilty until proven innocent.

b) Hence the onus is not on the WADA to prove Yasir's innocence. Once he's tested positive, the onus is on him to provide legitimate evidence to prove a legitimate mistake.

It's incredibly naive to think that his sports doctors are unlikely to be involved in doping. Every doper in the world has sports doctors managing their doses. The doctors are probably more guilty than the athletes themselves, as they're not the ones facing the long term consequences of drug abuse. As we've seen on multiple occasions, entire sports boards and coaching divisions have been getting desired outcomes by doping. The US and Jamaican track and field athletes. Every Chinese weightlifter at the olympics. Sharapova. Lance Armstrong. They're all getting their drugs from their doctors.

They have provided sworn statements (or affidavits) and prescription... all of these are legally binding documents. If you are found to have perjured yourself there can be serious legal consequence.

Again, he is not denying having the drug in his system. Think of it more as a sentencing hearing, he is providing mitigating evidence to reduce the amount of time he will be banned for....

I have never stated that sports doctors are not involved in doping, I explicitly stated that if they have lied then they would be involved. But not all sport doctors are involved in doping either...

Ultimately, you do not trust the evidence (as already discussed) and thus think the ICC is corrupt and/or incompetent and YS is a cheat and I understand this point of view fully. The difference is I am willing to give the benefit of the doubt based on the information currently provided. That`s just a difference of opinion and manner of looking at all the information currently in the public domain.

What we're seeing here - and certainly in light of letting Andre Russell off for not even bothering with his mandatory tests - is tacit approval, or at lest CBF-ness from the ICC.

Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission has passed the buck here, they should have suspended him until his hearing. However by not taking action have allowed his participation in the T20 WC. I don`t know the ICC involvement? I don`t know what they are allowed to do? If they have to wait for the hearing or if they are allowed to ban him themselves until the hearing? People forget there is normally a whole raft of legal issues involved when things like this come up, its never as simple as the ICC just saying you may not play, their is always due process.

I do not believe that the ICC is inherently corrupt and I think that there is many good people doing there jobs well. This does not mean that self-interested groups will not fight in order to get the best deal for themselves and there association. This is true for every organization.