Super Rugby News
-
@MajorRage said in Super Rugby News:
Who is that guy in the brown suit? Seen him on a few things related to the clan, but never known who he is.
Sam Casey. I'll leave my opinions about him to myself...
@Smudge said in Super Rugby News:
@MajorRage said in Super Rugby News:
Who is that guy in the brown suit? Seen him on a few things related to the clan, but never known who he is.
Sam Casey. I'll leave my opinions about him to myself...
Cheers ... although it still sort of leaves the question unanswered. Who is he? Just a fan, or does he have another actual role there?
-
-
Drug Free Sport representative apparently on radio (second hand) saying Patrick T is either out for 4 years if drug taken deliberately, or 2 years if inadvertent.
I can't validate as I didn't hear it, but if that's on the radio, then it sounds legit.
-
If it's from inadvertently taking something banned then that would be a pretty devastating blow to the big man. Yeah you can say he should be more careful, but having his professional sporting career ruined by a genuine mistake would be tough to take.
-
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.
What that Drugfree Sport NZ rep (apparently) said is confirming what I wrote about the WADA Rules (I didn't hear the interview). Regarding the length of a possible ban, see the first 9 bullets of my summary of those rules that I posted earlier. Particularly, pay attention to what it says about the type of substance detected, and intent/fault/negilgence/knowledge :
@Stargazer said in Super Rugby News:
-
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)
Obviously, if the substance is not a specified substance but a sports performance enhancing substance (anabolic agent, hormone, stimulant etc), the sanction will be more severe and a ban will be longer.
-
-
What that Drugfree Sport NZ rep (apparently) said is confirming what I wrote about the WADA Rules (I didn't hear the interview). Regarding the length of a possible ban, see the first 9 bullets of my summary of those rules that I posted earlier. Particularly, pay attention to what it says about the type of substance detected, and intent/fault/negilgence/knowledge :
@Stargazer said in Super Rugby News:
-
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)
Obviously, if the substance is not a specified substance but a sports performance enhancing substance (anabolic agent, hormone, stimulant etc), the sanction will be more severe and a ban will be longer.
So, following that, does it stand to reason that any suspension would start from end of year tour time 2016 (where my understanding is that is when the provisional suspension was put in place?)
-
-
So, following that, does it stand to reason that any suspension would start from end of year tour time 2016 (where my understanding is that is when the provisional suspension was put in place?)
@gt12 said in Super Rugby News:
So, following that, does it stand to reason that any suspension would start from end of year tour time 2016 (where my understanding is that is when the provisional suspension was put in place?)
That's what I would understand.
Back online now - my mate that reported it was clear that the bloke from Drug Free Sport was saying that the only question was basically a 2 or 4 year ban. Not much else.
Of course, I didn't hear this myself, so let the speculation reign....
-
So, following that, does it stand to reason that any suspension would start from end of year tour time 2016 (where my understanding is that is when the provisional suspension was put in place?)
@gt12 said in Super Rugby News:
So, following that, does it stand to reason that any suspension would start from end of year tour time 2016 (where my understanding is that is when the provisional suspension was put in place?)
Yes, that's more or less what it comes down to (see that 9th bullet point). Say, if the final decision is made on 1 March 2016 and PT gets a one year ban, then the period during which he was provisionally suspended (e.g., mid November - 1 March 2016) will be deducted from the one year imposed.
@nzzp said in Super Rugby News:
Back online now - my mate that reported it was clear that the bloke from Drug Free Sport was saying that the only question was basically a 2 or 4 year ban. Not much else.
Of course, I didn't hear this myself, so let the speculation reign....
Whether the Drugfree Sport NZ guy mentions it in an interview or not, the possibility of a reduction of the ban exists under the WADA rules. It involves the difficult assessment of the degree of fault of the athlete (that is, the absence/presence of intent//negilgence/knowledge etc) and it's the athlete who has to establish the absence of fault. This will often be hard and, therefore, time-consuming.
I mean, if you really have not taken any pills or injections and have no clue how the substance ended up in your body, you basically have to consider every food and drink you have consumed that could have been contaminated. Supplements and medicines would be the first suspects, but even then it could be just one faulty batch. Good luck tracing that! Naturally, some media and many punters have no understanding of this and have a misplaced sense of entitlement to get the information here and now, so they are very impatient because all they think it comes down to is the outcome of that B-sample and that every delay is a cover-up.
NZR have been between a rock and a hard place in this situation. WADA rules prevent them from mentioning anything about the procedure. Sending a player home without giving reasons will lead to a lot of speculation. Saying that a player has been sent home but that they are legally not allowed to give the reasons (as has been suggested by the media) will also lead to a lot of speculation (we're not kidding ourselves that the media would quietly wait for more info, are we?). And now, obviously, having been found out what the "personal reasons" involve, there's also a lot of speculation. NZR can't win really, esp after an "eventful" 2016.
-
@gt12 said in Super Rugby News:
So, following that, does it stand to reason that any suspension would start from end of year tour time 2016 (where my understanding is that is when the provisional suspension was put in place?)
Yes, that's more or less what it comes down to (see that 9th bullet point). Say, if the final decision is made on 1 March 2016 and PT gets a one year ban, then the period during which he was provisionally suspended (e.g., mid November - 1 March 2016) will be deducted from the one year imposed.
@nzzp said in Super Rugby News:
Back online now - my mate that reported it was clear that the bloke from Drug Free Sport was saying that the only question was basically a 2 or 4 year ban. Not much else.
Of course, I didn't hear this myself, so let the speculation reign....
Whether the Drugfree Sport NZ guy mentions it in an interview or not, the possibility of a reduction of the ban exists under the WADA rules. It involves the difficult assessment of the degree of fault of the athlete (that is, the absence/presence of intent//negilgence/knowledge etc) and it's the athlete who has to establish the absence of fault. This will often be hard and, therefore, time-consuming.
I mean, if you really have not taken any pills or injections and have no clue how the substance ended up in your body, you basically have to consider every food and drink you have consumed that could have been contaminated. Supplements and medicines would be the first suspects, but even then it could be just one faulty batch. Good luck tracing that! Naturally, some media and many punters have no understanding of this and have a misplaced sense of entitlement to get the information here and now, so they are very impatient because all they think it comes down to is the outcome of that B-sample and that every delay is a cover-up.
NZR have been between a rock and a hard place in this situation. WADA rules prevent them from mentioning anything about the procedure. Sending a player home without giving reasons will lead to a lot of speculation. Saying that a player has been sent home but that they are legally not allowed to give the reasons (as has been suggested by the media) will also lead to a lot of speculation (we're not kidding ourselves that the media would quietly wait for more info, are we?). And now, obviously, having been found out what the "personal reasons" involve, there's also a lot of speculation. NZR can't win really, esp after an "eventful" 2016.
@Stargazer said in Super Rugby News:
NZR have been between a rock and a hard place in this situation. WADA rules prevent them from mentioning anything about the procedure. Sending a player home without giving reasons will lead to a lot of speculation. Saying that a player has been sent home but that they are legally not allowed to give the reasons (as has been suggested by the media) will also lead to a lot of speculation (we're not kidding ourselves that the media would quietly wait for more info, are we?). And now, obviously, having been found out what the "personal reasons" involve, there's also a lot of speculation. NZR can't win really, esp after an "eventful" 2016.
I'd be comfortable with 'NZR decline to comment' and refer all questions to the player and NZRPA. But when the coach says 'personal reasons' that means 'they are provisionally suspended' I'm a bit skeptical. Next time someone says 'personal reasons' the media will be digging, and rightly so. The credibility is shot.
Cheers for your work on this by the way - good digging.
-
Sounds like Parsons has been given initial clearance to return from concussion and will now have a 4 week or so return programme, with an aim to be on the field for the Blues in mid to late March.
With Kaino a returning AB and therefore unlikely to start week 1 - it sounds like Jimmy Tupou will captain if he remains fit.
-
Patty cleared on 'B' sample: http://www.nzherald.co.nz/sport/news/article.cfm?c_id=4&objectid=11797676
The doping charge against Patrick Tuipulotu has been dropped after his B-Sample tested negative for banned substances.
the plot thickens! Why did it take so long?
-
Ok well I'm delighted. Welcome back Paddy!
-
Oh my gosh! All of that investigative work by @Stargazer and @nzzp was for nothing!
-
Oh my gosh! All of that investigative work by @Stargazer and @nzzp was for nothing!
@No-Quarter LOL, I'll keep it on record. No doubt, it will happen again one day. To someone, somewhere ...
-
Excellent news! Hopefully he's been keeping his fitness up and can quickly get back on the field and back to speed for the Blues.
Also - why does the nz herald link above have a picture of V Fifita?
@KiwiMurph said in Super Rugby News:
Also - why does the nz herald link above have a picture of V Fifita?
Obvious isn't it...
-
@Stargazer said in Super Rugby News:
NZR have been between a rock and a hard place in this situation. WADA rules prevent them from mentioning anything about the procedure. Sending a player home without giving reasons will lead to a lot of speculation. Saying that a player has been sent home but that they are legally not allowed to give the reasons (as has been suggested by the media) will also lead to a lot of speculation (we're not kidding ourselves that the media would quietly wait for more info, are we?). And now, obviously, having been found out what the "personal reasons" involve, there's also a lot of speculation. NZR can't win really, esp after an "eventful" 2016.
I'd be comfortable with 'NZR decline to comment' and refer all questions to the player and NZRPA. But when the coach says 'personal reasons' that means 'they are provisionally suspended' I'm a bit skeptical. Next time someone says 'personal reasons' the media will be digging, and rightly so. The credibility is shot.
Cheers for your work on this by the way - good digging.
@nzzp said in Super Rugby News:
@Stargazer said in Super Rugby News:
NZR have been between a rock and a hard place in this situation. WADA rules prevent them from mentioning anything about the procedure. Sending a player home without giving reasons will lead to a lot of speculation. Saying that a player has been sent home but that they are legally not allowed to give the reasons (as has been suggested by the media) will also lead to a lot of speculation (we're not kidding ourselves that the media would quietly wait for more info, are we?). And now, obviously, having been found out what the "personal reasons" involve, there's also a lot of speculation. NZR can't win really, esp after an "eventful" 2016.
I'd be comfortable with 'NZR decline to comment' and refer all questions to the player and NZRPA. But when the coach says 'personal reasons' that means 'they are provisionally suspended' I'm a bit skeptical. Next time someone says 'personal reasons' the media will be digging, and rightly so. The credibility is shot.
Cheers for your work on this by the way - good digging.
I actually don't mind the approach taken by the Hansen and co. Personal reasons was very accurate you would have to say. There is a process that can take considerable time - A sample, B sample, investigation etc. So after the A sample cam back I'm sure PT was extremely worried and probably not focused on rugby at all. Better to send the kid home to allow him to focus on that with better support back home. Again nothing was concrete at that point, so no point saying anything.
Pleased to hear that he has been cleared and he can return to footy. It will be interesting how he goes after this sort of attention on him.
