Refused a test

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/42558028

Refused a test

www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/42558028

For me it raises more question that answer

For me it raises more question that answer

So now Bailey's a genius who can not only think quickly on his feet but also fool not 1, but 2 psychiatrists into misdiagnosing him. It's also worth remembering that the tribunal operated under essentially the same conditions and rules of a UK Court and the panel consisted of a QC who is a Deputy High Court Judge, a qualified Dr who has been involved in elite sport for over 20 years and a solicitor who is a former professional footballer who also sits as an expert of the FA Judicial Panel, not just some blokes dragged in off the street.

People really should go and read the judgement https://www.ukad.org.uk/assets/uploads/ ... Bailey.PDF

A few facts from the judgement:
Point 40 dismisses any justification for refusing to take the test on the basis that the bottles may have been tampered with:

"There was no valid reason for Mr Bailey to have not taken the test. Any concern of Mr Bailey over the water could have been catered for by doing as Mr Taylor in fact suggested, that is by making a written record of his concerns, and even retaining one of the bottles for subsequent analysis if necessary."

Point 47 rules out a dismissal of the case based on the procedural irregularities highlighted by his defence.

The conclusion clearly states that "the anti-doping violation is established" ie the panel found him 'guilty' of the charge of failing or refusing to provide a sample he was facing. However, they also found that he bore 'no fault or negligence' due to the "truly exceptional circumstances of his case" and therefore he received no punishment. Those circumstances are not expanded on but they appear to be based on the evidence of 2 psychiatrists, virtually all of which is redacted in the published judgement - I will not speculate on that evidence but if you do read the judgement some of the phrases used may lead you to form an opinion as to what those circumstances may be.

So now Bailey's a genius who can not only think quickly on his feet but also fool not 1, but 2 psychiatrists into misdiagnosing him. It's also worth remembering that the tribunal operated under essentially the same conditions and rules of a UK Court and the panel consisted of a QC who is a Deputy High Court Judge, a qualified Dr who has been involved in elite sport for over 20 years and a solicitor who is a former professional footballer who also sits as an expert of the FA Judicial Panel, not just some blokes dragged in off the street.

People really should go and read the judgement https://www.ukad.org.uk/assets/uploads/ ... Bailey.PDF

A few facts from the judgement:
Point 40 dismisses any justification for refusing to take the test on the basis that the bottles may have been tampered with:

"There was no valid reason for Mr Bailey to have not taken the test. Any concern of Mr Bailey over the water could have been catered for by doing as Mr Taylor in fact suggested, that is by making a written record of his concerns, and even retaining one of the bottles for subsequent analysis if necessary."

Point 47 rules out a dismissal of the case based on the procedural irregularities highlighted by his defence.

The conclusion clearly states that "the anti-doping violation is established" ie the panel found him 'guilty' of the charge of failing or refusing to provide a sample he was facing. However, they also found that he bore 'no fault or negligence' due to the "truly exceptional circumstances of his case" and therefore he received no punishment. Those circumstances are not expanded on but they appear to be based on the evidence of 2 psychiatrists, virtually all of which is redacted in the published judgement - I will not speculate on that evidence but if you do read the judgement some of the phrases used may lead you to form an opinion as to what those circumstances may be.