Warne (1 Viewer)

Generator · Feb 22, 2003

'Vanity' was his excuse...
What an idiot.
I liked it when Roy and H.G. were talking about Warne's actions on their show last week and how they were taking the Mum: 'Shane, you're fat. Take this tablet and you'll be thin after a long sleep.' Warne: 'OK, Mum.' angle.

12 months is fair enough, I guess, though I would like to see the reasons for why it was only 12 months and not the full 24...

tooheyz · Feb 22, 2003

yeah i was wondering y is was ONLY 12 months... he did the crime, and he should get the full punishment... he shouldnt get a better treatment... hhmmm...

Fi · Feb 22, 2003

does that mean he'll never play again??--didn't he say he was retiring soon anyway??

Generator · Feb 22, 2003

I'm not sure, but I guess that with this he'll now try to make a return to the game rather than retire.

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/21/1045638492291.html

'Warne's excuse of taking a tablet given him by his mother would be ridiculed under the new WADA code, which is consistent with Pound's statement that anyone with an IQ above room temperature knows you don't take diuretics if you are an elite sportsperson.'

Hehehe

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/21/1045638533941.html

'Warne was charged with "using a prohibited method", which carries a minimum two-year penalty.'

Hmmm...

Here we go (Official Press Release)...

http://www-aus.cricket.org/link_to_database/ARCHIVE/CRICKET_NEWS/2003/FEB/144890_ACB_22FEB2003.html

copious · Feb 22, 2003

the question is, would the same punishment been given to someone of less profile to that of shane warne? i think 12 months is satisfactory but i would of thought it was more. he took someone elses medication, something which you shouldnt do anyway.

loziscool:D · Feb 23, 2003

they should have given him 2years.......
then he probably would have retired, dammit.

tooheyz · Feb 23, 2003

yeah he shoulda got 2 years... didnt one of his brother get busted for drugs as well a couple of years back and got 2 years? is this true - or did i just told a load of bull?

AGB · Feb 23, 2003

Originally posted by Fi
does that mean he'll never play again??--didn't he say he was retiring soon anyway??

nah he is only retiring from one day cricket...i think his reason was becoz he wants to prolong his test career. so he'll probably be around for a few more years

schwang_thang · Feb 23, 2003

Originally posted by loziscool
they should have given him 2years.......
then he probably would have retired, dammit.

he's appealing the 12 months!
but i wonder if he'll get back in the game after his suspension...like waugh said, 12 months outta the game is a long time n warne might contemplate throwing the towel in altogether

Generator · Feb 23, 2003

From an article in today's smh:

'The hearing heard there was no evidence of anabolic steroids in Warne's urine sample, which underpinned the ACB panel's decision to reduce the minimum two-year ban for the offence to 12 months.'

loziscool:D · Feb 23, 2003

if he was just an average cricketer and not mr special Shane "my mummy gave them to me" Warne, he would have got 2 years.
its a rort
the ACB is a load of bollocks.

MiuMiu · Feb 23, 2003

he should get the chair

schwang_thang · Feb 23, 2003

Originally posted by loziscool
if he was just an average cricketer and not mr special Shane "my mummy gave them to me" Warne, he would have got 2 years.
its a rort
the ACB is a load of bollocks.

gosh, u guys r so bitter
the man's a brilliant cricketer, leave him alone!

AGB · Feb 23, 2003

Originally posted by schwang_thang

gosh, u guys r so bitter
the man's a brilliant cricketer, leave him alone!

wot is it with everyone making excuses for special people??? its the same in the michael jackson thread - ppl think that just becoz hes a good dancer everyone should turn a blind eye to 'extracurricular' life with little kids....

Generator · Feb 23, 2003

Rules are there for all, and past actions mean nothing once a drug of any sort has been taken.

AGB · Feb 23, 2003

Originally posted by Generator
Rules are there for all, and past actions mean nothing once a drug of any sort has been taken.

i fully agree with that...i mean, why should nebody be treated differently under the eyes of the law if they r famous or not??

Almighty Jafar · Feb 24, 2003

Originally posted by ToOhEyZ
yeah i was wondering y is was ONLY 12 months... he did the crime, and he should get the full punishment... he shouldnt get a better treatment... hhmmm...

i agree, he took a banned substance-so he should be brought to justice

schwang_thang · Feb 24, 2003

Originally posted by AGB

wot is it with everyone making excuses for special people??? its the same in the michael jackson thread - ppl think that just becoz hes a good dancer everyone should turn a blind eye to 'extracurricular' life with little kids....

okok i admit, the 12 months was kinda leniant
but all this talk of warney being a drug treat n as tho he had commited a hanging offence is a bit over-the-top...he was stupid n naive 4 taking the diuretic but he's not a drug cheat

AGB · Feb 24, 2003

Originally posted by schwang_thang

okok i admit, the 12 months was kinda leniant
but all this talk of warney being a drug treat n as tho he had commited a hanging offence is a bit over-the-top...he was stupid n naive 4 taking the diuretic but he's not a drug cheat

its like dick pound said - "anyone with an IQ over room temperature would know that taking a diuretic is against drug rules in sport..."

Generator · Feb 26, 2003

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2003/02/25/1046064037028.html

Well, he musn't be that dumb if during all that time he never actually stated that he had only taken one tablet...

He shouldn't be allowed to train with either team.

Warne (1 Viewer)

Active Member

- kmart supervisor -

Member

Active Member

Linbo rox my sox

Member

- kmart supervisor -

Member

Member

Active Member

Member

Somethin' special....

Member

Member

Active Member

Member

Banned

Member

Member

Active Member

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 1)