Super Rugby News
-
@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.
-
Radio sport talking to Rob Nichols now.
Clears some stuff up and testing done under 6 Nations rules to world rugby guidelines.
Starts at about 8 mins in
http://120.138.20.16/WeekOnDemand/radiosport/2017.02.09-17.00.00-D.mp3
http://120.138.20.16/WeekOnDemand/radiosport/2017.02.09-17.15.00-D.mp3 -
@KiwiMurph said in Super Rugby News:
Also - why does the nz herald link above have a picture of V Fifita?
Obvious isn't it...
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby News:
@KiwiMurph said in Super Rugby News:
Also - why does the nz herald link above have a picture of V Fifita?
Obvious isn't it...
Paddy's A Sample was actually from Vaea?
-
@taniwharugby said in Super Rugby News:
@KiwiMurph said in Super Rugby News:
Also - why does the nz herald link above have a picture of V Fifita?
Obvious isn't it...
Paddy's A Sample was actually from Vaea?
@booboo you white fullas all look the same to us!
-
The most interesting points from the article below:
PT's sample was collected immediately after the Ireland v ABs game on 5 November.
While World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has the overall anti-doping responsibility/authority, Six Nations Rugby Limited (SNRL) was responsible for the collection of the sample.
The sample was analysed by the Sports Medicine Research and Testing Laboratory (SMRTL) in Salt Lake City.
SMRTL reported a positive result of the A sample and, after conducting the necessary review and notification procedures, Six Nations Rugby provisionally suspended PT (under World Rugby Regulation 21).
Later, PT requested the analysis of the B sample (it's unclear when he made the request) and SMRTL reported on 7 February 2017 that the B sample analysis did not confirm the A sample analysis.
"Accordingly, and again as required by World Rugby Regulation 21, SNRL confirmed to Mr Tuipulotu that the entire test is considered negative and that his provisional suspension has been lifted with immediate effect. "SMRTL is currently investigating the reason for the discrepancy between Mr Tuipulotu's A and B samples."WADA has launched a separate investigation into the case.
Obviously, the whole process has been very stressful for PT and his family, and during this morning's interview he said that a team involving lawyers and representative from New Zealand Rugby, the players association, and the Blues, would continue to investigate the messy process and that he couldn't reveal the alleged substance or whether he would press for compensation or an apology.
-
The most interesting points from the article below:
PT's sample was collected immediately after the Ireland v ABs game on 5 November.
While World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) has the overall anti-doping responsibility/authority, Six Nations Rugby Limited (SNRL) was responsible for the collection of the sample.
The sample was analysed by the Sports Medicine Research and Testing Laboratory (SMRTL) in Salt Lake City.
SMRTL reported a positive result of the A sample and, after conducting the necessary review and notification procedures, Six Nations Rugby provisionally suspended PT (under World Rugby Regulation 21).
Later, PT requested the analysis of the B sample (it's unclear when he made the request) and SMRTL reported on 7 February 2017 that the B sample analysis did not confirm the A sample analysis.
"Accordingly, and again as required by World Rugby Regulation 21, SNRL confirmed to Mr Tuipulotu that the entire test is considered negative and that his provisional suspension has been lifted with immediate effect. "SMRTL is currently investigating the reason for the discrepancy between Mr Tuipulotu's A and B samples."WADA has launched a separate investigation into the case.
Obviously, the whole process has been very stressful for PT and his family, and during this morning's interview he said that a team involving lawyers and representative from New Zealand Rugby, the players association, and the Blues, would continue to investigate the messy process and that he couldn't reveal the alleged substance or whether he would press for compensation or an apology.
@Stargazer yeah Rob NIchol mentioned the 6 Nations part yesterday.
-
From the interview I saw with Tew it sounds like it was Tuipulotu who was slow to react. Maybe he didn't immediately get the B sample checked because of how highly unlikely it is that the samples don't match. (1 in a 1000 I read I think?).
He must have thought he had taken something inadvertently and he was fucked. No point bothering with it.
Glad he changed his mind and hopefully next time they don't bloody dawdle.
-
From the interview I saw with Tew it sounds like it was Tuipulotu who was slow to react. Maybe he didn't immediately get the B sample checked because of how highly unlikely it is that the samples don't match. (1 in a 1000 I read I think?).
He must have thought he had taken something inadvertently and he was fucked. No point bothering with it.
Glad he changed his mind and hopefully next time they don't bloody dawdle.
@Frye said in Super Rugby News:
From the interview I saw with Tew it sounds like it was Tuipulotu who was slow to react. Maybe he didn't immediately get the B sample checked because of how highly unlikely it is that the samples don't match. (1 in a 1000 I read I think?).
He must have thought he had taken something inadvertently and he was fucked. No point bothering with it.
Glad he changed his mind and hopefully next time they don't bloody dawdle.
It sounded to me like he had advice to do a lot of fact checking before opting for the 'B' sample. Maybe there are implications legally if you are planning to fight the case even if the B comes back +.
ie get prepared, have your supplements checked over, get statements early from trainers, team doctors etc.
Maybe if you find out that you have actually taken something without knowing it is better to fess up and explain before opting for the 'B'? -
