Nope there is one. Your second example is laughable.

Regards

King James

Quote ="Mr Dog"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.'" There were no exceptional nor defendable circumstances to not allow the test to go ahead as admitted and it's classified as a failure, the judgement is a laughable nonsense. This makes a mockery of the system, well done to Bailey and his cohorts.

Quote ="Mr Dog"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.'" There were no exceptional nor defendable circumstances to not allow the test to go ahead as admitted and it's classified as a failure, the judgement is a laughable nonsense. This makes a mockery of the system, well done to Bailey and his cohorts.

The verdict is not to be sniffed at.

Hope a "line" can be drawn under this

Quote ="Mr Dog"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.'" You seem to miss the facts. He had already drank water from the cooler bag,signed the reverse of the form but was unaware he could have used his own water/drink. Or did he know! Farce for me but thats my opinion.

Quote ="Mr Dog"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.'" You seem to miss the facts. He had already drank water from the cooler bag,signed the reverse of the form but was unaware he could have used his own water/drink. Or did he know! Farce for me but thats my opinion.

Because peeing into a sealed bottle would be pretty impossible???

Surely under these circumstances they should have been given the authority to take a sample of a hair strand in the test 2 days later? As you say the detection time on Cocaine is usually around 2-3 days through a Urine or blood sample - So there is every possibility he has dodged a massive bullet there.

Im sure detection time in a hair strand is usually around 90 days from intake of the drug itself, Surely this would of been the best action to take?

Seriously though, how poor of the doping body to turn up without any sealed bottles?

Quick question.

Which current darling Club of the RFL does Bailey play for ?

Talk about paranoia....you do know that The RFL took no part in the procedure and therefore you are suggesting that the independent body overseeing the tribunal are biased or even corrupt? Maybe you should take your concerns further?

Another Leigh fan having a pop at Toronto. No doubt a reply will come stating they never mentioned Toronto.

Why are Leigh fans so bitter about Toronto?

Why are you so paranoid and obsessed with Leigh fans?

Oh Dear

Oh cheap.

A slight issue over how they originally went about building their coaching team and squad - and an argument about 'morals and ethics' I believe!

Thank you. A reasonable answer at last.

You're welcome. Should make for a tasty opening Championship fixture! Thankfully, we hardly have any of our squad left from the Rowley era, so the fixture should be 'civilised'.

Here's hoping we can emulate what HKR did last season. Good luck this time around.