Shoaib and Asif win appeal

[Wanderer]

It was an "internal" matter. PCB handled it internally and that is the end of that.

Whether outsiders agree or not is NOT an issue.

[Maranello]

Quite right Wanderer. But outsiders can at least try and understand, no? Here's what seems like a more plausible and reasonable explanation:

The judgment has questioned the workings of the previous committee, finding flaws in the manner in which it operated. In particular, concern was raised over the fact that while it was constituted to work within the guidelines of the PCB's anti-doping policy, the punishment it decreed - and the benchmarks it derived them from - were based on the ICC's anti-doping regulations.

"It is worthwhile to note that the ADC (Anti-doping commission) which was a creature of the PCB Anti-Doping regulations, while repeatedly referring to the various PCB regulations under which the players were charged, proceeded against and even punished, without any ostensible rationale sought to rely on distinct benchmarks of 'No fault or negiligence' and 'no significant fault or negligence' from the ICC' anti-doping code in its decision," the report states.

It states later that 'exceptional circumstances', on which the players defended themselves, were defined by the PCB 'on a significantly different plane' than the ICC. "The standard of 'exceptional circumstances' under the ICC code and the PCB regulations is entirely different in terms of language, scope and meaning...The confusion between the applicability of standards of 'exceptional circumstances' fatally plagued the final decision of the ADC." Ashraf said the crux of the decision to overturn the ban was based on this technicality. [...]

The report also points out that while under ICC regulations it is the players' responsibility for what substances are taken, irrespective of intent, fault or negligence, the PCB's anti-doping regulations impose no such "onerous burdens on the players," instead placing responsibility on the PCB to ensure its players are educated. This responsibility, says the report, has not been fulfilled comprehensively.

[Mr Hutt]

Hahahahahhahaha

Well we have our attack back... and can take more drugs to bowl 200mph it seems now.. just as long as it stays "internal"

boy... talk about friggin justice!!!!

Still im glad we have them back :P Graeme smith hope you are ready man!!!

[Speedboy Salesman]

Originally Posted by Mr Hutt

Still im glad we have them back :P Graeme smith hope you are ready man!!!

Yeah Akhtar will be the first to go up to Smith and ask him for "munchies".

[Mr Hutt]

lol.. or maybe take his head off witha 90 mph bouncer... to announce his return

[DomainK]

I am not surprised. I expected this. But like Wanderer said, its their internal matter and they can do whatever they want. I think its not justice. The first hearing established that they did consume drugs. The fact the the players were not interested in a B-sample test was close to admitting that they took the drugs knowingly. Then the second hearing lets them off. I am afraid it sets a very bad example for the younger generation of bowlers who are growing up watching Akhtar.

[Wanderer]

A positive that could come out of this, is that the PCB may have another look at their "doping policy". Like in SA. The players don't only get the yearly talk, but they get a booklet to carry around with them with all the do's and dont's etc.

Education is the key. And it should start at the earliest (youngest) level. Then youngsters wont grow up and follow bad examples. They will learn from them.

[DomainK]

Now I learn that WADA can step in here and interfere. Not sure though if its true.

[south beds mikey]

Is that possible considering what Dick Pound said about the Warne ban yesterday?

[ll0OoO0ll]

Originally Posted by Golden Boy James

This is probably another example of the creeping americanisation of society: i.e don't accept responsibility for your actions but find someone else who "made" you do it.

I think a more classical example would be Darrel Hair's statment when claimed for being "ill-advised" for asking $500,000.00 in return of his retirement.