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.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.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.
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.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 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.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.
You clearly missed the important bit of my post.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.
I don't wanna derail the thread too much
Mate, how is making relevant comments derailing the thread?You clearly missed the important bit of my post.
How'd you know justice wasn't done in the two being completely exonerated?Fingers crossed justice is done in the end, despite the PCB's best efforts.
I don't, but can anyone honestly say they believe the two are innocent? Surely nobody is that naive.How'd you know justice wasn't done in the two being completely exonerated?
Personally I do.I don't, but can anyone honestly say they believe the two are innocent? Surely nobody is that naive.