The Murali throwing controversy continues ....

[Ernest]

Beny,

The drug that Warne got suspended for was a diuretic, if anything it would sap his energy, and in hot weather, could lead to dehydration, hardly a performance enhancing drug.

.

[Beny]

Exactly... If anything Warne is stupid for not getting it checked out but seriously, you wouldent think that it would be illegal.

[Ernest]

I agree Beny, why should a drug of that nature be banned, I can see no reason.

I don't for one minute think Warne is/was a cheat, I think he could have been trying to lose weight, not a crime.

[Beny]

Warnie said it was exactly for that reason. Now Im not a chemist but surely if the only thing this drug does is aid weight loss then the ICC or the sports drug body is insane for banning it and even worse for handing out a ban like they did to Warne.

[Maranello]

Ern I presume that the ICC's list of offensive and banned substances is a replica of the one used by other, more established sporting bodies eg the IOC and the IAFF. The ICC would want to keep their reputation for being a "bunch of cheapskates" intact, so would not do their own research into which drug. In any case, if the list of banned subtances is good enough for any other sport, it should be fine for cricket.

Now, you and Beny have made good arguments why in Warne's instance diuretics re not performance enhancing and could even be a hindrance. However, they obviously can potentially be used to aid cheating, or to cover up the user taking performance enhancing substances, otherwise the various drugs' watchdogs would not take offence to them and have them as a well known banned substance.

I am not a chemist, so do not know the details, but its probably fair to assume that these apparently innocous substances can be used in a way to cover up the use of steriods et al, or to prevent detection. Of course no one is arguing that Warne intended to cheat, but the rules are clear and all professional sportsman should be well aware. Cricket cannot argue for special treatment - it will make its claims to be a professional, modern and well-run sport look laughable.

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Beny

It would appear that statisticly Murali is the better bowler, however we must take into account the fact that Murali also plays more cricket against the 'minnows' and also more cricket at home in a spinners dreamland and on the subcontinent.
Warne apeared to me to be a better bowler than Murali on the recent tour of Sri-lanka when they both bowled supurbly but Warne came out with the better figures (it was warne's comback tour). It's also imporant to remember that Warne plays in a fantastic bowling line up where he dosen't always get as much of a bowl as he would like and certinly not as much as Murali does.

Overall career statistics can be misleading Beny, as you appreciate, and I agree with the various distorting factors you point out.

A more robust comparison would be to see how the two fared against the batting line-ups they both bowled to; eg, how did Warne do against India home and away, and how did Murali do. Similarly, how did Warne do against Pakistan home and away, and how did Murali do. To take out the impact of helpful Sri Lankan pitches, you could even restrict this comparison to their away records against the same batting line-ups.

The argument about Warne bowling in a better bowling line-up is not such a big distorting factor. Regardless of how many overs either gets, we are comparing how they actually do when they come on to bowl - sure, Murali may sometimes benefit from bowling extended spells to build up pressure, but then Warne always benefits from the great Aussie pace bowlers doing the initial damage, and taking the important early wickets, as well as putting a lot of pressure. Murali has no such support. Similarly, Warne is often helped in his bowling because his batting line-up puts up 500+ routinely, and the opposition is under tremendous pressure; Murali can seldom bank on his batting mates building such pressure.

There will always be some distorting factors in any comparison, and they are best dealt in a sibjective manner. Comparing their respective performances against the same batting line-ups, away from home, is I believe a sound objective basis for an initial comparison, which then needs to be augmented with some discussion. One day, I am sure one of us will have enough time to do the research for this comparison

In the meantime, comparing Warne and Murali in the Aus-SL series from last year is probably not a good basis - Murali had the world's best batting line-up to contend with and take wickets of, Warne only had a couple of decent Test batsmen who he was attacking, and the rest were a few ODI-type sloggers who are not even Test class, let alone Ponting or Gilchrist class.

[Ernest]

Originally Posted by Maranello

Now, you and Beny have made good arguments why in Warne's instance diuretics re not performance enhancing and could even be a hindrance. However, they obviously can potentially be used to aid cheating, or to cover up the user taking performance enhancing substances, otherwise the various drugs' watchdogs would not take offence to them and have them as a well known banned substance.

Hi Maranello,
With respect I can't agree with you here, why would a player take diuretics to cover up taking other substances, when a simple dope test, would uncover the use of diuretics, there would be no point, as he would face a ban either way.

Originally Posted by Maranello

but its probably fair to assume that these apparently innocous substances can be used in a way to cover up the use of steriods et al, or to prevent detection.

Well two things Maranello, again why would he wish to cover up a drug abuse, with another drug, for which he would also be banned.
Steroids as any Ashma sufferer will tell you, stays in the body for months, in fact they carry a steroid warning card, that they have had a course of steroids, for 3 months or so after the course has ended.
I think it was vanity with Warne, he took his mums water pills, to try and lose some weight, and appear thinner.

I thing the use of legitimate drugs, in particular those that won't effect performance, should be investigated.

[Maranello]

Ern my post had some specultive reasons for why diuretics may be banned, not reasons for why someone takes them. So yes, in the current scenario, there is no benefit in anyone taking them. However, if they were not banned, and if they did indeed sometimes, to a limited or greater extent cover up any other drug, then sportsmen would take them - hence banning them is in line with a zero-tolerance policy on substance abuse in sport.

[Ernest]

I take your point Maranelo, we are not poles apart on this.

Originally Posted by Ern

I thing the use of legitimate drugs, in particular those that won't effect performance, should be investigated

The reason I posted this take your fears into account.

Originally Posted by Maranello

and if they did indeed sometimes, to a limited or greater extent cover up any other drug,

I am saying these types of drugs should be investigated to see if they could cover up a more serious drug, I am only talking legitimate drugs here, no types of Amphetamines or Opiates, or Anabolic Sreroids.

Lets take a real life scenario.

Anthony McGrath, gets a grat run of form , is selected for England, takes 25 wickets at 23 in the Ashes series .

He suffers from Asthma, and on the tour to India, he begins to suffer, Steroids(not anabolic) is an essentiel part of treatment for Asthma, and people can lead a normal life.
So Anthony McGrath, if he suffers from Asthma, needs to take large doses of steroins, to ENABLE him to play, should he be stopped from taking these drugs?, or banned if he did?.

This is why I say legitimate drugs should be investigated, ruled upon the outcome, and that would cover the grey areas, of the present banned substances legislation.and get rid of the IF and Any.

[Paoli]

Hondo, I'm stating my case at why Warne will always be the better bowler than Murali

• He has played 2 tests against Bangladesh and taken 20 wickets; Warne has played 0 matches against Bangladesh and taken 0 wickets
• He has played 14 tests against Zimbabwe and taken 87 wickets; Warne has played 1 test against Zimbabwe when they were at the very height of their powers, (Flower Brothers, Goodwin, Johnson, Streak at the top of his game), and has taken 6 wickets.
• Vs. Minnows, Murali, 16 tests 107 wickets, Warne 1 test, 6 wickets.
• Murali took many wickets with his illegal doosra, Warne took 3 wickets after returning from his shoulder injury, where it is believed he took a diuretic.
• Warne would've most likely broken 600 wickets had he not had a year off. Yes, you might say it was his fault, but the truth is he could've broken 600 had he not been banned.
• And, as i have said so many times, and i say again, Murali will have that proverbial asterix beside his name in the history books.