Shoaib, Asif test positive again?

[IndianByHeart]

story just breaking

I found this part particularly fishy:

Salim Altaf, director operations, PCB, said that Shoaib and Asif are selected subject to clearance in the dope tests of which results are expected during the first week of March. "We will cross that bridge once the results come in," said Altaf of what happens if they do test positive again.


Eh ?!?
Dope test results comming in 3 weeks from now ?!? Are their urine samples headed to another city by bullock cart ?

They are being sent to Kuala lumpur , Malaysia, not sure how long they take to conduct the tests.

 

[silentstriker]

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/pakistan/content/current/story/280243.html

 

[Fusion]

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/pakistan/content/current/story/280243.html

So let's say that PCB have not conducted any "secret" tests. There is still a very real possibility that both Shoaib and Asif have traces of the banned substance in their bodies from last time. Since PCB will be conducting tests on all players again, Shoaib and Asif can test positive for a 2nd time, thus risking a life ban. I think the most prudent thing to do is to not include either player in the WC roster.

 

[silentstriker]

Well since the first ban was overturned, this would be treated as the first ban I think.

 

[GIMH]

I wouldn't have thoguht so, as the ban was wiped out, ratehr than the offence. AFAIK (and do correct me if I'm wrong) the offences still stand but they weren't punished due to their ignorance plea.

 

[silentstriker]

But the offense didn't stand through inquiry. The appeal said the inquiry under which they were found guilty was up to mark. It is as if they never failed.

Either way, I think the best course of action would be if Asif was suspended for a year. It would remove the cloud over him and the PCB. Akhtar I don't care what happens, but I want to see Asif for a long time to come.

 

[Ikki]

I think the precedence set by Warne's doping makes life ban too harsh a punishment.
Oh and before someone comes up with the whole 'but it was diuretic-what-can-a-spinner-gain' nonsense, i would like to say that banned drugs are banned drugs, regardless of their role in being banned. I am not aware that there are any 'levels' of drug offences - its all bout how many times you do it, not what you did.
I'd say a 1-2 year ban from all forms of cricket would be a good decision.

That'd surely wreck Shoaib's career but assuming that Asif doesnt lose his speed drastically ( he has picked up some pace after his debut- i am hoping it isnt due to drugs), he still has a long and fruitful career ahead of him even if he were to be banned for 1-2 years. He simply is too good to just waste away in his mid 20s.Fast bowling is,fortunately a discipline where lack of matchplay affects you minimally - you don't need to play at the highest level to keep sharp and international quality- all you need is a set of stumps and a coach behind you observing you bowl.
Ofcourse, it'd mean Asif would be rusty when he came back but it'd be nowhere close to the effect of a batsman or wicketkeeper out of competetive cricket for 2 years.

Let's weigh things up. Steroids or Anti-diuretic...steroids or Anti-diuretic...steroids or....

He was also cleared by the courts, after testing, that no masking was done also.

 

[silentstriker]

Let's weigh things up. Steroids or Anti-diuretic...steroids or Anti-diuretic...steroids or....

He was also cleared by the courts, after testing, that no masking was done also.

I don't want to get into this debate again, but Warne was injured. And he came back from that injury suspiciously fast. In my opinion, he was definitely on something to speed his recovery. What you're saying is if Asif/Akhtar had taken that anti-diuretic to mask the nandrolone, it would be OK?

 

[Scaly piscine]

It'd be highly amusing if Asif and Shoaib test positive and get longer sentences than last time (obviously Asif would get longer because 2 years is the minimum).

 

[PY]

I'll say it now, slanging matches won't be allowed to happen AGAIN. This thread shalt from this day forward be on a short leash.

Keep it clean, don't be mean.

 

[BoyBrumby]

I think the precedence set by Warne's doping makes life ban too harsh a punishment.
Oh and before someone comes up with the whole 'but it was diuretic-what-can-a-spinner-gain' nonsense, i would like to say that banned drugs are banned drugs, regardless of their role in being banned.

TBF Warne actually did serve a year's ban tho. I'd have had no issue if the PCB had imposed the same bans on Asif & Shoaib.

& I agree about the diuretic. I know what I think it was being used to get rid off & it wasn't those unsightly pounds & inches.

 

[silentstriker]

The WADA code is idiotic (and its two years, ugh), however, a year's ban would be consistent and thats what these guys should get as well.

 

[Richard]

http://content-usa.cricinfo.com/pakistan/content/current/story/280243.html

at the display-characters! ****

 

[Slow Love™]

Let's weigh things up. Steroids or Anti-diuretic...steroids or Anti-diuretic...steroids or....

He was also cleared by the courts, after testing, that no masking was done also.

Come again? Of the many discussions of this I've either read or participated in, that's the first mention I've seen of such a thing.

Can you substantiate this claim?

 

[pup11]

Guys i really can't understand when warney takes a pill to reduce his weight[which consisted of some banned substances] then he was banned from cricket for an year. But then why the hell have asif and akthar's ban been lifted in the first place, why are there different rules and yardsticks for different players.

 

[pup11]

If these blokes test positive again then a life-ban is the only fitting punishment. I say this because they have just been allowed to play after their bans were lifted and then they get caught again[so its pretty clear that they can't perform without these drugs].

 

[Ikki]

Come again? Of the many discussions of this I've either read or participated in, that's the first mention I've seen of such a thing.

Can you substantiate this claim?

Yeah. It was on his last interview with Parkinson - the special about his retirement. Try to get a transcript of it or something. It was definitely mentioned there.

Shane specifically mentioned this when Parkinson asked him and then was asked why it's still a question to which he replied that it was just lies and people using it to question him. He said the courts saw the testing that in no way had his samples changed over his years as a cricketer and that showed no masking had been used and was dismissed by the courts.

It was this interview but this isn't where he discusses it. I find it hard to find more on the net. It is re-run on UK-TV quite a bit here.

 

[Ikki]

I don't want to get into this debate again, but Warne was injured. And he came back from that injury suspiciously fast. In my opinion, he was definitely on something to speed his recovery. What you're saying is if Asif/Akhtar had taken that anti-diuretic to mask the nandrolone, it would be OK?

The huge difference being Shane Warne was proven to take the anti-diuretic - an agent that could be used to mask, but didn't - whilst Aktar and Asif have been caught for nandrolone. I'm no expert at any of this, but it was said in the Parkinson interview.

 

[Matt79]

No way , diuretic are banned and even though they will wash off nadrolone, they would remain in the body and would result in players get banned.

Wasn't actually recommending it as a sensible cause of action...

 

[Slow Love™]

Yeah. It was on his last interview with Parkinson - the special about his retirement. Try to get a transcript of it or something. It was definitely mentioned there.

Shane specifically mentioned this when Parkinson asked him and then was asked why it's still a question to which he replied that it was just lies and people using it to question him. He said the courts saw the testing that in no way had his samples changed over his years as a cricketer and that showed no masking had been used and was dismissed by the courts.

It was this interview but this isn't where he discusses it. I find it hard to find more on the net. It is re-run on UK-TV quite a bit here.

I looked for a transcript, but to no avail, but I've found a way to download the whole thing. Might take some time though. Nevertheless, it seems like it's only been mentioned by Warne himself. To my knowledge he didn't front any courts, and I certainly don't recall any time during the process or after where it was established that his taking of the diuretics was categorically unrelated to masking any other substances. I mean, that's the point of masking agents, innit? That you won't detect what's underneath. Still, it'd useful to know if that was the case, though it has a fair whiff of bull**** about it to me, I have to say, and the part of your post I've bolded doesn't really make the case at all.

If it's just a matter of not being caught out in previous testing, that's probably not very relevant. I think the main suspicion is that Warne would have taken something to speed up his recovery from injury rather than it being a case of long term ongoing use for better performance during games (it's questionable that banned substances would greatly assist him in this regard anyway).

Anyhow, I guess I'll come back to this when I've watched the interview.