*Official* Warne vs Murali Discussion

[silentstriker]

Exactly. Innocent till proven guilty.

Why do you think Olympics take your medals away only if you tested positive for masking agents? Where there's smoke, there's usually fire.

 

[Ikki]

Why do you think Olympics take your medals away only if you tested positive for masking agents? Where there's smoke, there's usually fire.

Ok, where's the fire? Warne doing anything different in 2003+ that he didn't do before?

 

[subshakerz]

Ok, where's the fire? Warne doing anything different in 2003+ that he didn't do before?

The fire in this case is the injuries nobody expected him to recover from so quickly.

 

[subshakerz]

He would deliberately get the story wrong...one that is already on the record...to revise which facts? Everyone already knows about them. He would have been high to think he could try.

And if his opinion can't be trusted, you do have the same journalists and fans following his word for any error. Yet their was none when he was citing his case about the drugs. That tells me more than "oh, you can't trust him anymore". Whatever.

Please, did you see the interview? He went out of his way to state emphatically that he never knew that the man was a bookie, and would never have associated him if he knew that. That is in direct contradiction with the formal enquiry where the man introduced himself as a bookie, this is not a minor slip of memory. He probably figured most people wouldnt go through the enquiry details and just accept his view at face value. So yes, if a man goes on national television and deliberately twists facts, his opinion is doubtable.

Actually, it's a totally plausible excuse. It's just still reckless. As a sportsman he should know what he should/shouldn't put into his body. In the frank terms Warne addressed it, he would call them 'water' tablets and it was well documented how Warne wanted to lose weight (which he did) and play in his last World Cup. Ignorance of the substance is not an excuse, hence his ban. Warne has been an idiot, but never a cheat.

It's an unconvincing excuse at best. You tell me whats more plausible, his mum gave him pills that he didnt bother to check up on to lose weight, or that it helped mask an injury that he somehow healed from twice as fast. Had it been any other cricketer, their career would have been over there and then.

Warne was no doubt a great cricketer, but he was a poor sportman.

 

[archie mac]

Around the outside around the outside buffalo girls go around the outside

 

[silentstriker]

Ok, where's the fire? Warne doing anything different in 2003+ that he didn't do before?

Again, why do you think masking agents are banned in the first place, to the point where Olympics will revoke all your medals/records?

 

[Ikki]

Please, did you see the interview? He went out of his way to state emphatically that he never knew that the man was a bookie, and would never have associated him if he knew that. That is in direct contradiction with the formal enquiry where the man introduced himself as a bookie, this is not a minor slip of memory. He probably figured most people wouldnt go through the enquiry details and just accept his view at face value. So yes, if a man goes on national television and deliberately twists facts, his opinion is doubtable.

Yes, I did see it. It is still up on YouTube.

You keep referencing him blundering his story of the bookie. I say, so what? How does that prove what he said regarding the courts clearing him of masking anything come into it?

As I said, if his opinion IS doubtable, and assuming he has lied about the courts clearing him, why hasn't anyone reported that - as they did with the bookie scandal? Maybe because it holds.

Again, non-sense. I don't care whether you believe him or not. Proof is in the pudding. Where/if it's false, he has been caught out. So, something said in the same interview, which you reckon is a lie, has not been corrected. So, you have nothing to go by. Other than character reference.

It's an unconvincing excuse at best. You tell me whats more plausible, his mum gave him pills that he didnt bother to check up on to lose weight, or that it helped mask an injury that he somehow healed from twice as fast. Had it been any other cricketer, their career would have been over there and then.

Warne was no doubt a great cricketer, but he was a poor sportman.

Warne was the very best of sportsmen. He always played hard but also always fair.

And to me, a man who ****ed up the bookie scandal, his marriage, his weight issues...lord knows what else...I think he is stupid enough to take his mum's pills in an effort to look prettier. But do I think he was ever the cheating kind? Not a chance. And a bigger testament too: all his own contemporaries. They have the highest regard for him, and those that know him closest know how vain he was. If to do such a thing was Warne-like...then he'd never get this legacy.

 

[Ikki]

Again, why do you think masking agents are banned in the first place, to the point where Olympics will revoke all your medals/records?

Yes, because that is assuming they'd have taken them all the time, they just weren't detected.

Whereas Warne's legacy was made a long time before this ever existed. Long before he ever took the diuretic, let alone assuming he took steroids. There is a big gap in common sense here all for the uncertainty that the circumstantial evidence provides.

The fire in this case is the injuries nobody expected him to recover from so quickly.

That's hardly a fire, if one at all. Secondly, he wasn't totally fit anyway. He was supposed to have healed in time for the latter stages of the competition. Healing quicker-than-expected happens all the time in sport.

 

[silentstriker]

Yes, because that is assuming they'd have taken them all the time, they just weren't detected.

Exactly.

Whereas Warne's legacy was made a long time before this ever existed. Long before he ever took the diuretic, let alone assuming he took steroids.

You mean long before he tested positive for a diuretic. No one knows how long he was taking them for. Just started? A year? His whole career? Thats why they take the medals away.

 

[silentstriker]

Healing quicker-than-expected happens all the time in sport.

What a magnificent coincidence. He just happened to be injured the first time he took a diuretic and it just happened to heal much quicker.

 

[Ikki]

You mean long before he tested positive for a diuretic. No one knows how long he was taking them for. Just started? A year? His whole career? Thats why they take the medals away.

Because there never was a spec of diuretic or any other substance. Ever. That's why, as I've come to understand, the reasoning of why he didn't mask anything. His samples were all identical with the ones he had years previously. You don't take performance enhancing drugs to not have a permanent effect on your body.

And we're talking about spin bowling here. What performance enhancing drug is going to help your technique? You certainly don't need more strength to bowl and endurance isn't a problem - Warne was overweight for a lot of his career.

What a magnificent coincidence. He just happened to be injured the first time he took a diuretic and it just happened to heal much quicker.

It isn't magnificent if you didn't do it. And that's the only thing that puts it in suspicion: that he healed quicker. Which isn't a very uncommon thing anyway. Which is why all assertions that based on this he probably did take them is quite asinine. Sure, there was a window, but nothing else points to him having taken them.

LOL and then to back that point maybe question if he hasn't taken them all along.

 

[subshakerz]

It isn't magnificent if you didn't do it. And that's the only thing that puts it in suspicion: that he healed quicker. Which isn't a very uncommon thing anyway. Which is why all assertions that based on this he probably did take them is quite asinine. Sure, there was a window, but nothing else points to him having taken them.

Come on. If, by your own admission, there was a window for him to take the steroids, and the diuretic is a masking agent that can cover the steroid in one's system, and he did heal much more quickly than usual (which is more uncommon than common, by the way, especially for a cricketer with past shoulder problems) than how is this whole assertion asinine?

Any objective observer will say this is far more likely than the whole "my mum gave me pills I didnt know about" bit, an account the Australian board themselves described as "vague and inconsistent".

 

[Ikki]

Come on. If, by your own admission, there was a window for him to take the steroids, and the diuretic is a masking agent that can cover the steroid in one's system, and he did heal much more quickly than usual (which is more uncommon than common, by the way, especially for a cricketer with past shoulder problems) than how is this whole assertion asinine?

Just because I may be the last person to see you before you get murdered doesn't mean I did it. Even if I have a history of petty crime. Especially considering the only evidence you have is that a) I was the last person and b) I had charges to my name before.

It's more than stupid.

If Warne had such leniencies the first people who'd know would be his teammates. And they all worship him. His contemporaries, or most, adore him. In sport you're not going to get the respect of anybody if they figured you for a cheat. This is the big problem. If he was that type and if anyone figured he would do it, then the above just wouldn't be true. It's a pretty simple and effective reason.

Any objective observer will say this is far more likely than the whole "my mum gave me pills I didnt know about" bit, an account the Australian board themselves described as "vague and inconsistent".

No, I'd say anyone privy to Warne's ignorance on a lot of matters would conclude he is just a dolt outside Cricket and it's very like him to be so reckless with his body/life. There are more examples of that then there are of him cheating - if there even is one. It's just not in his sporting nature at all. The only thing that makes him look guilty is the circumstance.

I don't argue the possibility of Warne doing it, but the probability of Warne doing it.

 

[subshakerz]

Just because I may be the last person to see you before you get murdered doesn't mean I did it. Even if I have a history of petty crime. Especially considering the only evidence you have is that a) I was the last person and b) I had charges to my name before.
.

So O.J. Simpson, who ultimately wasnt convicted of murder because of lack of evidence, didnt deserve the stigma he had after that?

If Warne had such leniencies the first people who'd know would be his teammates. And they all worship him. His contemporaries, or most, adore him. In sport you're not going to get the respect of anybody if they figured you for a cheat. This is the big problem. If he was that type and if anyone figured he would do it, then the above just wouldn't be true. It's a pretty simple and effective reason.
.

This is silly. So what if his teammates adore him? You would expect them to. When Shoaib Akhtar/Asif got support from their teammates during their drug scandal, does that mean they were not guilty?

No, I'd say anyone privy to Warne's ignorance on a lot of matters would conclude he is just a dolt outside Cricket and it's very like him to be so reckless with his body/life. There are more examples of that then there are of him cheating - if there even is one. It's just not in his sporting nature at all. The only thing that makes him look guilty is the circumstance.

Just because a cricketer has a squeaky clean record (which Warne doesnt have) is not enough. If you have a zero-tolerance policy towards drugs, as the Australian board purports to have, you judge the player by his circumstances, which in this case, points towards his shoulder recovery. You shouldnt have selective standards for amateurs and elite cricketers.

 

[Ikki]

So O.J. Simpson, who ultimately wasnt convicted of murder because of lack of evidence, didnt deserve the stigma he had after that?

You're comparing this to O.J.? Even they had more to convict O.J. than for you to make this claim.

This is silly. So what if his teammates adore him? You would expect them to. When Shoaib Akhtar/Asif got support from their teammates during their drug scandal, does that mean they were not guilty?

I don't think the Pakistanis go around calling them the greatest test bowlers of all-time. As friends, they'd support. But as players, cricketers, you won't support someone who is cheating to get what you're putting hard work into. And not just from your own teammates remember, from the world at large. This is silly, not even comparable.

Just because a cricketer has a squeaky clean record (which Warne doesnt have) is not enough. If you have a zero-tolerance policy towards drugs, as the Australian board purports to have, you judge the player by his circumstances, which in this case, points towards his shoulder recovery. You shouldnt have selective standards for amateurs and elite cricketers.

You're acting as if there is a fine line in being a squeaky clean cricketer and a cheat. There is a huge gap. Warne may not be an Angel, but hell, he is far from a cheat.

The fact that Warne only took a diuretic and was open about it probably bought him some leniency. But he got 1 year for being stupid enough for taking a 'water' pill. Even that's irrelevant, Warne doesn't control how much ban he gets.

Warne only controls himself and there has been no incident in his career, bar this, to suggest he was a cheat. So as I said, the circumstantial evidence just does him no favours at all. It's outside the graph of his career as a cricketer.

There is a difference to saying: "based on what we know, he could have taken them", than saying, "I think he did it I just have no proof".

 

[silentstriker]

It isn't magnificent if you didn't do it. And that's the only thing that puts it in suspicion: that he healed quicker. Which isn't a very uncommon thing anyway.

What is uncommon is healing much quicker while also being tested positive for illegal substances.

 

[Ikki]

What is uncommon is healing much quicker while also being tested positive for illegal substances.

He only took the diuretic, we went through this before didn't we? In his interview he stated how the courts didn't find anything that could have been masked because his samples were all identical?

It simply puts it down to healing quicker which, again, is not uncommon at all. Nor was he fully healed anyway. Just fit enough to be included in the squad.

 

[silentstriker]

He only took the diuretic, we went through this before didn't we?

No, he took a masking agent. He could have taken a lot else, and probably did, thats why he was banned. You don't ban people for just taking a diet pill. This pill is used to conceal other drugs.

 

[Ikki]

No, he took a masking agent. He could have taken a lot else, and probably did, thats why he was banned. You don't ban people for just taking a diet pill. This pill is used to conceal other drugs.

You get banned for the possibility, not the probability. You seem to have a tough time distinguishing the two.

I don't really think it's important to mention the possibility, but when you talk about it as if Warne doing this is a probability you are making an insulting generalization of the man. If you think Warne is a cheat, then frankly you don't know Warne. And really, nothing more to discuss.

 

[silentstriker]

You get banned for the possibility, not the probability. You seem to have a tough time distinguishing the two.

I don't really think it's important to mention the possibility, but when you talk about it as if Warne doing this is a probability you are making an insulting generalization of the man. If you think Warne is a cheat, then frankly you don't know Warne. And really, nothing more to discuss.

Err, he is a professional sportsman. Like the hundreds who have come before who look for an edge in performance, or a way to speed up their recovery, or to put on muscle, etc. Technically, he is a cheat because he took the masking agent. The fact that he recovered so much faster means the possibility turns into a strong probability for mine. Clearly not for you though, which is fine.