Super Rugby News
-
-
@nzzp said in Super Rugby News:
Wonder why that release is out now, when they knew in November.
Not impressed.
Media get shit for releasing stories early based on heresay just for a few clicks then get shit for releasing something far too late for @nzzps liking. They just can't win.
-
@nzzp said in Super Rugby News:
Wonder why that release is out now, when they knew in November.
Not impressed.
Media get shit for releasing stories early based on heresay just for a few clicks then get shit for releasing something far too late for @nzzps liking. They just can't win.
@MN5 said in Super Rugby News:
@nzzp said in Super Rugby News:
Wonder why that release is out now, when they knew in November.
Not impressed.
Media get shit for releasing stories early based on heresay just for a few clicks then get shit for releasing something far too late for @nzzps liking. They just can't win.
The media isn't releasing anything here. It's a joint statement by the union and player's association about something they were aware of months ago. They've released this statement because a media outlet has reported it. What bit of that confuses you?
-
@nzzp said in Super Rugby News:
Wonder why that release is out now, when they knew in November.
Not impressed.
Media get shit for releasing stories early based on heresay just for a few clicks then get shit for releasing something far too late for @nzzps liking. They just can't win.
@MN5 said in Super Rugby News:
Media get shit for releasing stories early based on heresay just for a few clicks then get shit for releasing something far too late for @nzzps liking. They just can't win.
Not the media I am having a crack at here. NZRU knew he failed a test last year, sent him home, and blew it off as 'personal reasons'. Now we get a press release, when Super is about to start? FFS, he was provisionally suspended - that you have to tell people about.
There better be a good story behind activley misleading us punters (and the media by the look)
-
@MN5 said in Super Rugby News:
@nzzp said in Super Rugby News:
Wonder why that release is out now, when they knew in November.
Not impressed.
Media get shit for releasing stories early based on heresay just for a few clicks then get shit for releasing something far too late for @nzzps liking. They just can't win.
The media isn't releasing anything here. It's a joint statement by the union and player's association about something they were aware of months ago. They've released this statement because a media outlet has reported it. What bit of that confuses you?
@antipodean said in Super Rugby News:
@MN5 said in Super Rugby News:
@nzzp said in Super Rugby News:
Wonder why that release is out now, when they knew in November.
Not impressed.
Media get shit for releasing stories early based on heresay just for a few clicks then get shit for releasing something far too late for @nzzps liking. They just can't win.
The media isn't releasing anything here. It's a joint statement by the union and player's association about something they were aware of months ago. They've released this statement because a media outlet has reported it. What bit of that confuses you?
I haven't read enough to even contemplate answering that but I took the opportunity to make a quip and got an upvote out of it. Job done.
-
@MN5 said in Super Rugby News:
Media get shit for releasing stories early based on heresay just for a few clicks then get shit for releasing something far too late for @nzzps liking. They just can't win.
Not the media I am having a crack at here. NZRU knew he failed a test last year, sent him home, and blew it off as 'personal reasons'. Now we get a press release, when Super is about to start? FFS, he was provisionally suspended - that you have to tell people about.
There better be a good story behind activley misleading us punters (and the media by the look)
-
@nzzp you do get the feeling there is more to it, which is why the 'personal reasons' story was given in November, if not, it will just add to the list of poor decisions made by the NZRU last year...
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby News:
@nzzp you do get the feeling there is more to it, which is why the 'personal reasons' story was given in November, if not, it will just add to the list of poor decisions made by the NZRU last year...
Yep, but it better be a good story.
There is a massive difference between not answering questions and actively misleading people. 'personal reasons' means give people some space. Provisionally suspended means that shit better be talked about publicly, and people best be honest.
I'm pretty disappointed with NZRU based on that press release.
-
@nzzp said in Super Rugby News:
Wonder why that release is out now, when they knew in November.
Not impressed.
"Patrick is working hard to identify the source of the Specified Substance"
If you haven't identified it in two months I don't like his chances.
But radio silence is the best course of action here from Patty. Most high profile violations in the past decade have occurred by individual athletes (cycling, sprinting, tennis etc) or es mass at individuals teams and they make the mistake of coming out and making a bigger deal than necessary in the media.
If Patty is taking the NFL/MLB approach of just making as little noise as possible - good for him.
Perhaps the NZRU were a little burned about the Smith thing where they perhaps hung him out a bit too much earlier in the year.
-
and this is why transperancy is a good idea (where possible) to avoid speculation, minimise anger and frustration, which is where you hope there is a valid reason for the way it has been handled.
-
and this is why transperancy is a good idea (where possible) to avoid speculation, minimise anger and frustration, which is where you hope there is a valid reason for the way it has been handled.
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby News:
and this is why transperancy is a good idea (where possible) to avoid speculation, minimise anger and frustration, which is where you hope there is a valid reason for the way it has been handled.
From Stuff
Even now, media are being cautioned that the situation remains of a deeply personal nature and to proceed in a sensitive fashion.Just sounds weird, but there had better be a good explanation somewhere down the line.
-
This type of procedures is of a legal nature and it's confidential until a final decision has been made. In legal procedures, it's completely normal that no information is provided when they are still gathering "evidence" or other data relevant to the case.
The player, his manager or the NZR don't owe anyone information until there is a final outcome. People - particularly the lack-of-quality-NZ-media - are always jumping to conclusions, often the wrong ones, whether the parties involved say something or not. If they are genuinely looking for the source of the forbidden substance, that can take time, especially if it may be a case of contamination or medical intervention. If there is something of a "deeply personal nature" - and for now there is no reason to doubt that - then being patient should be the normal reaction. If afterwards it appears that the NZR or anyone else has unjustifiably withheld info, then deal with that afterwards.
-
OK, so I wear an anorak and surf the internet naked.
https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/wada-2015-world-anti-doping-code.pdf
Notification and reporting starting on p87 of the PDF. Looks like public disclosure is optional for NZ Rugby, and only with the permission of the athlete until they are confirmed to have broken the rules. Interesting information on 'minor' breaches though - could be the case here.
14.1.5 Confidentiality
The recipient organizations shall not disclose this
information beyond those Persons with a need
to know (which would include the appropriate
personnel at the applicable National Olympic
Committee, National Federation, and team in a
Team Sport) until the Anti-Doping Organization
with results management responsibility has
made Public Disclosure or has failed to make
Public Disclosure as required in Article 14.3.14.3 Public Disclosure
14.3.1 The identity of any Athlete or other Person who is
asserted by an Anti-Doping Organization to have
committed an anti-doping rule violation, may be
Publicly Disclosed by the Anti-Doping Organization
with results management responsibility only
after notice has been provided to the Athlete or
other Person in accordance with Article 7.3, 7.4,
7.5, 7.6 or 7.7, and to the applicable Anti-Doping
Organizations in accordance with Article 14.1.2.14.3.3 In any case where it is determined, after a hearing
or appeal, that the Athlete or other Person did not
commit an anti-doping rule violation, the decision
may be Publicly Disclosed only with the consent
of the Athlete or other Person who is the subject
of the decision. The Anti-Doping Organization with
results management responsibility shall use
reasonable efforts to obtain such consent, and
if consent is obtained, shall Publicly Disclose the
decision in its entirety or in such redacted form14.3.6 The mandatory Public Reporting required in
14.3.2 shall not be required where the Athlete
or other Person who has been found to have
committed an anti-doping rule violation is a
Minor. Any optional Public Reporting in a case
involving a Minor shall be proportionate to the
facts and circumstances of the case. -
Maybe it's just me, but when I saw the stuff headline "AB tests positive" and a photo of Paddy...
...my first thought was Tuipolotu has HIV...
-
OK, so I wear an anorak and surf the internet naked.
https://www.wada-ama.org/sites/default/files/resources/files/wada-2015-world-anti-doping-code.pdf
Notification and reporting starting on p87 of the PDF. Looks like public disclosure is optional for NZ Rugby, and only with the permission of the athlete until they are confirmed to have broken the rules. Interesting information on 'minor' breaches though - could be the case here.
14.1.5 Confidentiality
The recipient organizations shall not disclose this
information beyond those Persons with a need
to know (which would include the appropriate
personnel at the applicable National Olympic
Committee, National Federation, and team in a
Team Sport) until the Anti-Doping Organization
with results management responsibility has
made Public Disclosure or has failed to make
Public Disclosure as required in Article 14.3.14.3 Public Disclosure
14.3.1 The identity of any Athlete or other Person who is
asserted by an Anti-Doping Organization to have
committed an anti-doping rule violation, may be
Publicly Disclosed by the Anti-Doping Organization
with results management responsibility only
after notice has been provided to the Athlete or
other Person in accordance with Article 7.3, 7.4,
7.5, 7.6 or 7.7, and to the applicable Anti-Doping
Organizations in accordance with Article 14.1.2.14.3.3 In any case where it is determined, after a hearing
or appeal, that the Athlete or other Person did not
commit an anti-doping rule violation, the decision
may be Publicly Disclosed only with the consent
of the Athlete or other Person who is the subject
of the decision. The Anti-Doping Organization with
results management responsibility shall use
reasonable efforts to obtain such consent, and
if consent is obtained, shall Publicly Disclose the
decision in its entirety or in such redacted form14.3.6 The mandatory Public Reporting required in
14.3.2 shall not be required where the Athlete
or other Person who has been found to have
committed an anti-doping rule violation is a
Minor. Any optional Public Reporting in a case
involving a Minor shall be proportionate to the
facts and circumstances of the case.Thanks for that link and info @nzzp.
Because of all the (mis)information in the (social) media, I think it's good to highlight a few more of these WADA rules (I'm sorry if this repeats parts of NZZP's post):
-
The media release from NZR says this is a case of specified substance.
-
That rules out that anabolic agents and hormones and those stimulants and hormone antagonists and modulators so identified on the prohibited list were found in his sample.(rule 4.2.2).
-
Specified substances are substances which are more likely to have been consumed by an athlete for a purpose other than the enhancement of sport performance.(footnote to rule 4.2.2)
-
Intent, fault, negligence or knowledge of use on the athlete’s part don't have to be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation for use of a prohibited substance (rule 2.2.1). It is, however, relevant for the sanction!
-
Ineligibility (read: ineligibility to play) for the use of a prohibited substance in case of a specified substance is four years if the anti-doping rule violation has been established to be intentional. This sanction is subject to a potential reduction or suspension. (Rule 10.2.1.2)
-
If the violation was not intentional, the period of ineligibility shall be two years. (Rule 10.2.2)
-
In case "no fault or negligence" can be established by the athlete, (s)he will not be ineligible. (Rule 10.4)
-
If an athlete can establish "no significant fault or negligence" in case of an anti-doping violation involving a specified substance, the period of ineligibility shall be - at a minimum - be a reprimand and no period of ineligibility, and - at a maximum - two years of ineligibility. This depends on the degree of fault of the athlete. (Rule 10.5.1.1)
(The same applies in case of contaminated products, rule 10.5.1.2) -
A period of provisional suspension will be deducted from the ineligibility period that is eventually imposed. (Rule 10.11.3.1)
-
A mandatory part of each sanction shall include automatic publication, as provided in Article 14.3. (Rule 10.13)
-
Teams will only be penalised for anti-doping rule violations if more than two members of a team have been found to have committed such a violation during an "event period". (Rule 11.2)
-
The identity of any Athlete or other Person who is asserted by an Anti-Doping Organization to have committed an anti-doping rule violation, may be Publicly Disclosed by the Anti-Doping Organization with results management responsibility only after notice has been provided to the Athlete ... (Rule 14.3.1)
-
No later than twenty days after it has been determined in a final appellate decision under Article 13.2.1 or 13.2.2, or such appeal has been waived, or a hearing in accordance with Article 8 has been waived, or the assertion of an anti-doping rule violation has not otherwise been timely challenged ..., the Anti-Doping Organization responsible for results management must publicly report the disposition of the anti-doping matter including the sport, the anti-doping rule violated, the name of the Athlete ..., the Prohibited Substance ... and the Consequences imposed. (Rule 14.3.2)
-
In any case where it is determined, after a hearing or appeal, that the Athlete or other Person did not commit an anti-doping rule violation, the decision may be Publicly Disclosed only with the consent of the Athlete or other Person who is the subject of the decision. (Rule 14.3.3)
-
No Anti-Doping Organization or WADA -accredited laboratory, or official of either, shall publicly comment on the specific facts of any pending case (as opposed to general description of process and science) except in response to public comments attributed to the Athlete, other Person or their representatives.(Rule 14.3.5)
-
The mandatory Public Reporting required in 14.3.2 shall not be required where the Athlete or other Person who has been found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation is a Minor. (Rule 14.3.6)
This last rule is about a minor, that is, a young person under the age of majority. This has nothing to do with a anti-doping rule violation being minor.
It might be interesting to also consult the World Rugby rules against doping, but I've other things to.
-
-
Thanks for that link and info @nzzp.
Because of all the (mis)information in the (social) media, I think it's good to highlight a few more of these WADA rules (I'm sorry if this repeats parts of NZZP's post):
-
The media release from NZR says this is a case of specified substance.
-
That rules out that anabolic agents and hormones and those stimulants and hormone antagonists and modulators so identified on the prohibited list were found in his sample.(rule 4.2.2).
-
Specified substances are substances which are more likely to have been consumed by an athlete for a purpose other than the enhancement of sport performance.(footnote to rule 4.2.2)
-
Intent, fault, negligence or knowledge of use on the athlete’s part don't have to be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping rule violation for use of a prohibited substance (rule 2.2.1). It is, however, relevant for the sanction!
-
Ineligibility (read: ineligibility to play) for the use of a prohibited substance in case of a specified substance is four years if the anti-doping rule violation has been established to be intentional. This sanction is subject to a potential reduction or suspension. (Rule 10.2.1.2)
-
If the violation was not intentional, the period of ineligibility shall be two years. (Rule 10.2.2)
-
In case "no fault or negligence" can be established by the athlete, (s)he will not be ineligible. (Rule 10.4)
-
If an athlete can establish "no significant fault or negligence" in case of an anti-doping violation involving a specified substance, the period of ineligibility shall be - at a minimum - be a reprimand and no period of ineligibility, and - at a maximum - two years of ineligibility. This depends on the degree of fault of the athlete. (Rule 10.5.1.1)
(The same applies in case of contaminated products, rule 10.5.1.2) -
A period of provisional suspension will be deducted from the ineligibility period that is eventually imposed. (Rule 10.11.3.1)
-
A mandatory part of each sanction shall include automatic publication, as provided in Article 14.3. (Rule 10.13)
-
Teams will only be penalised for anti-doping rule violations if more than two members of a team have been found to have committed such a violation during an "event period". (Rule 11.2)
-
The identity of any Athlete or other Person who is asserted by an Anti-Doping Organization to have committed an anti-doping rule violation, may be Publicly Disclosed by the Anti-Doping Organization with results management responsibility only after notice has been provided to the Athlete ... (Rule 14.3.1)
-
No later than twenty days after it has been determined in a final appellate decision under Article 13.2.1 or 13.2.2, or such appeal has been waived, or a hearing in accordance with Article 8 has been waived, or the assertion of an anti-doping rule violation has not otherwise been timely challenged ..., the Anti-Doping Organization responsible for results management must publicly report the disposition of the anti-doping matter including the sport, the anti-doping rule violated, the name of the Athlete ..., the Prohibited Substance ... and the Consequences imposed. (Rule 14.3.2)
-
In any case where it is determined, after a hearing or appeal, that the Athlete or other Person did not commit an anti-doping rule violation, the decision may be Publicly Disclosed only with the consent of the Athlete or other Person who is the subject of the decision. (Rule 14.3.3)
-
No Anti-Doping Organization or WADA -accredited laboratory, or official of either, shall publicly comment on the specific facts of any pending case (as opposed to general description of process and science) except in response to public comments attributed to the Athlete, other Person or their representatives.(Rule 14.3.5)
-
The mandatory Public Reporting required in 14.3.2 shall not be required where the Athlete or other Person who has been found to have committed an anti-doping rule violation is a Minor. (Rule 14.3.6)
This last rule is about a minor, that is, a young person under the age of majority. This has nothing to do with a anti-doping rule violation being minor.
It might be interesting to also consult the World Rugby rules against doping, but I've other things to.
@Stargazer good work, great summary. Wonder why this sort of factual information isn't actually being reported in the main stream media. Takes a couple of internet searches and a bit of reading.
-
-
I think he's in deep shitski here. NZRU had an annus horribilus last year from a PR point of view - I can't see any other outcome outside of completely throwing the book at, and making an example of, him.
Whether that is just or not, not for me to say.
-
I think he's in deep shitski here. NZRU had an annus horribilus last year from a PR point of view - I can't see any other outcome outside of completely throwing the book at, and making an example of, him.
Whether that is just or not, not for me to say.
@MajorRage said in Super Rugby News:
I think he's in deep shitski here. NZRU had an annus horribilus last year from a PR point of view - I can't see any other outcome outside of completely throwing the book at, and making an example of, him.
Whether that is just or not, not for me to say.
Because the breach of the anti-doping rule (if the B-sample is also positive) happened either during the Rugby Championship or the EOYT, the ruling will not be NZR's to make, but either SANZAAR's or World Rugby's. As I posted earlier, there are set penalties for this kind of violations and there are reductions that apply in case the player can establish lack of intent/knowledge/recklessness etc. What I understand from the little real information that has been published by the media, that's what PT is now working on (at the same time awaiting for that B-sample).
It's also normal practice to take into account a player's record, which - I think - is pretty clean in PT's case (especially relating to doping).
All will also depend on the additional anti-doping rules from SANZAAR/WR.
-
@MajorRage said in Super Rugby News:
I think he's in deep shitski here. NZRU had an annus horribilus last year from a PR point of view - I can't see any other outcome outside of completely throwing the book at, and making an example of, him.
Whether that is just or not, not for me to say.
Because the breach of the anti-doping rule (if the B-sample is also positive) happened either during the Rugby Championship or the EOYT, the ruling will not be NZR's to make, but either SANZAAR's or World Rugby's. As I posted earlier, there are set penalties for this kind of violations and there are reductions that apply in case the player can establish lack of intent/knowledge/recklessness etc. What I understand from the little real information that has been published by the media, that's what PT is now working on (at the same time awaiting for that B-sample).
It's also normal practice to take into account a player's record, which - I think - is pretty clean in PT's case (especially relating to doping).
All will also depend on the additional anti-doping rules from SANZAAR/WR.
@Stargazer said in Super Rugby News:
What I understand from the little real information that has been published by the media, that's what PT is now working on (at the same time awaiting for that B-sample).It's also normal practice to take into account a player's record, which - I think - is pretty clean in PT's case (especially relating to doping).
The B-Sample is only tested at the athletes request. So far PT hasn't requested that going by reports.
If he is completely befuddled and has no idea how this substance was found the first course of action would be to demand the B Sample is tested as it could have been a false positive (has happened plenty in other sports).
-
If the personal reasons are that his mum gave it to him then I'm fine with it.
