Shoaib and Asif win appeal

[ll0OoO0ll]

Originally Posted by Maranello

Pity that most other Western touring teams, in particular some of the Aussie and the English players, fans and media, moan and whinge so much whenever they visit the sub-continent - just shows their class (or lack of it!).

Yep, and to most of these safeed chamri wala goras, the Shoaib Asif news mustve acted like an over doze of a strong lexative.

[Oliver]

Originally Posted by Maranello
On a related matter, I am not sure about labelling Asif and Akhtar as "cheats". In my view, given recent developments, it is factually incorrect and libellous.

An interesting question:-

For me, I am completely against the Olympics being held here (in London) in 2012. Obviously I'm a bit stuffed there.

Londoners seem to be surprised at the moment that all their tax and travel expenses are rising to cover the costs... a side issue...

I can no longer watch athletics. Who knows who the cheats are?

Drug taking, for performance enhancement is rife. All the world's National Athletics boards look out hawkishly for the "cheats." All the world's National Athletics boards take the culprits to court and vilify them (except perhaps the Americans). And then just when the poor "innocent" athlete is at his/her lowest ebb, all the world's (hmm perhaps only in the cynical capitalist west) media pick up the cause of those devastated athletes and run with them all the way through the appeal courts to second chances and a furtherance of their careers.

We are very culpable in this country. They are very very bad in the states.

"Send him to the stocks, hang the rotter, he took nandralone, testosterone and homealone, he's an evil, evil greedy bar...steward."

Then "ohhh but he didn't know what he was doing, it was a mistake. Someone gave it to him. His drink was spiked. It was administered while he was asleep."

"And ohhh she died aged 38, but what a heroin, what a champion and let's nobody mention her name."

We had a non-descript middle distance athlete who married a known banned Spanish sportsman, who became her coach. She was banned for two years, had the decision over-turned and is now one of British athletic's retired "darlings."

There was an also-ran for the title of fastest man alive, who suddenly became "great" past the age of thirty at a time when he really should have been hanging up his spikes. Now he should be hanged on a spike.

The American athlete who finished fourth in the Ben Jonson final, a tiny skinny short sprinter whose name I cannot remember (I keep wanting to put Calvin Klein, but I'm fairly sure that isn't right ) was said to be the only one not on steroids in that final.

Well that means that Carl Lewis the much feted all American god-of-the-track was on steroids and our lovely Linford too.

But then we knew that. Ohh but then that was all a terrible mistake, he didn't know that was a stimulant.
And Carl Lewis, well he's a christian, he'd never cheat the world, not knowingly anyway.

And now joke of all jokes, Christie has been employed to coach young athletes toward the 2012 Olympics.

This man should not be allowed anywhere near an athletics track.

I don't care that he won a bronze (upgraded to silver) medal in the Jonson Olympics, he helped to destroy the sport for me.

And now he has taken the job that somebody much less tainted should be doing.

Now that's not quite the same as the Akhtar and Asif issue, and here I take exception to the "we are treated differently because we are muslems" thing, but nevertheless these guys were tested - in a sport (rather like tennis) where testing seems to be a take it or leave it issue - they failed and they should be banned.

[greg]

Originally Posted by Oliver

The American athlete who finished fourth in the Ben Jonson final, a tiny skinny short sprinter whose name I cannot remember (I keep wanting to put Calvin Klein, but I'm fairly sure that isn't right ) was said to be the only one not on steroids in that final.

Calvin Smith wasn't it?

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Oliver

The American athlete .... was said to be the only one not on steroids in that final.

Well you know what the Olympic motto is Ollie: May the best Chemist win!

[Oliver]

The Best Chemist yes.

Where does that leave Akhtar?

[Maranello]

With a not very good chemist? Seeing how often he breaks down...

[Mr Hutt]

Really misleading and factually incorrect eh?? what could be more leading and factually correct then the results on their samples by a WADA certified lab in malaysia?

And please dont tell me they are fellow muslims or some b.s like that. Im not going to tolerate them in the team means i wont be supporting this team if they play... simple. my choice isnt it?

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Mr Hutt

Really misleading and factually incorrect eh?? what could be more leading and factually correct then the results on their samples by a WADA certified lab in malaysia?

The lab results prove nothing except that some samples of certain substances had miniscule amount of some obscure and unpronounceable chemical in them. Interesting for chemists perhaps, but boring for anyone normal. Did the lab results refer to cheating? No. Test tubes do not decide whether a person is a cheat or not - a court of law does.

Hence, Akhtar or Asif can only be labelled cheats if the relevant governing bodies, or a court of law, concludes that they are. As they have been exonerated of any guilt by the relevant governing body, calling them a cheat is misleading and libellous

[Mr Hutt]

you just negated the primary evidence in this case which were the samples...

and there is a limit above which that miniscule substance you refer to should not be present

When it crosses that limit as was discovered by those tests it doe not remain miniscule it is then called substance abuse!!!

One governing body banned them for 2 years & 1 year respectively saying they were provided the adequate literature, etc and the nutritionakl supplements mentioned do not contain nandolorene.

Then they appeal, and they have that right... another governing body or committee as you can call it was appointed, why a different one??? why shouldnt their appeal go to the same 3 people who convicted them in the first place?

The newly appointed commitee votes 2-1 and they are let off without even a slap on the wrist!!!


and you call this justice served?

My friend im afraid your views are not entirely fair when Pakistan is at question.

FYI WADA is now bringing this case to the ICC, they think what has occured is absolutely unreasonable.

This is not a case of challenging someones integrity without proof, the proof is in the bloody samples!!!

[Maranello]

Originally Posted by Mr Hutt

you just negated the primary evidence in this case which were the samples...

I didn't. The body set-up to appraise the "primary evidence" did.

In any prosecution, the evidence is used to educate the jury/judge; its interpretation and relevance remains with the jury/judge. If it was that "conclusive", there would be no need for a prosecution and we could simply line 'em up and shoot 'em

Thankfully, we don't do that... though "Dr" John Reid seems to have other ideas.

why a different one??? why shouldnt their appeal go to the same 3 people who convicted them in the first place?

LOL. I can only assume you are joking here.

An appeal adjudicated by the same tribunal / bench which gave the initial ruling? Sounds like the perfect kangaroo court.

Whatever next? A serving military man as the President?

This is not a case of challenging someones integrity without proof, the proof is in the bloody samples!!!

Perhaps. But you are not responsible for deciding the validity of the proof; the PCB's appointed committees are. The first committee felt that Shoaib's "over-indulgent" sex life and his "infrequent" intake of alcohol merited a ban; the appeals committee, headed by someone who actually knew what he was doing, rightly ruled that Shoaib's noctural activities are completely irrelevant to his guilt or innocence.