Rate Him: Shane Warne

[Tom Halsey]

a) 100% concrete proof isn't required, intent is enough with supporting evidence.



b) They do imply something esp among sportsmen who use it and that's why they are banned.

a) You've missed my point, whether it's required or not for whatever purpose you're on about, there isn't 100% proof. That's all I'm saying - if you agree that there isn't 100% proof, then essentially we agree. I'm not trying to argue his innocence.

b) *bangs head*, don't deny that, read my post again.

 

[Tom Halsey]

No. Statistically Warne's performance was better in 2002. Better Avg., SR, ER. 1994 was the only otheer year where Warnie had a comparable year (statistically) where he had better avg. and ER than 2002 but worse SR.

Statistically it may have been, but I don't think many people would argue that he bowled better in 2002 than 2005. And performances suddenly improving doesn't imply drugs are at work at all, plenty of players have had their performances improve all of a sudden for one reason or another, that doesn't mean that they're all on drugs.

Rather irrelevant, because 2002 was before the positive test for diuretics, anyway.

 

[Cricket_God]

well of what i have seen of him playing india i would not rate him highly,
but his performances against other countries has been amazing
so 6-10

 

[Ikki]

Warne's Bowling Average between 1996-2001 was in 30s and then all at a sudden he goes below 20 and guess what he gets caught for taking a drug masking agent. Must be a huge Co-incidence.

As for ZERO Proof - Why was he banned then ?

As for Side Effects :- Didn't it come out during the investigation that Warne took the substance to change his appearance ?

As for the Benefits - first and foremost was that it lengthened Warne's career. Warne was a < 500 wickets bowler if not for Banned Substance.

That same time was when Warne was through his worst with injuries and such. His own testimony gives gravity to this period where he said he was essentially learning how to bowl all over again. He lost the ability to bowl some of his other balls as well.

In fact, his record with WIndies is spoiled because of the 1 series in this period, otherwise even against them he has a great record.

Warne said he took the diuretics to improve his appearance. That is not a side affect of steroid use, but of using diuretics.

Warne's career really hasn't been lengthened by any abnormal amount as to suggest usage of any other drug had to do with it, really.

 

[Sanz]

I guess both of us have made our views clear on more than one occasion. You are entitled to your own belief I am to mine. I am happy that I could keep this discussion civil and respectful unlike previous occasions.

 

[Migara]

Warne said he took the diuretics to improve his appearance. That is not a side affect of steroid use, but of using diuretics.

Anabolic steroids cause weight gain.Using diuretics will be beneficial in two ways. It will reduce the plump features produced by steroids. Secondly it will mask it in the assay. dirty bastard knew it from the beginning.

 

[zaremba]

Warne's Bowling Average between 1996-2001 was in 30s and then all at a sudden he goes below 20 and guess what he gets caught for taking a drug masking agent. Must be a huge Co-incidence.

As for ZERO Proof - Why was he banned then ?

As for Side Effects :- Didn't it come out during the investigation that Warne took the substance to change his appearance ?

As for the Benefits - first and foremost was that it lengthened Warne's career. Warne was a < 500 wickets bowler if not for Banned Substance.

The fact that Shane Warne took banned diuretics is plainly a very serious black mark against his character.

However you shouldn't press the point too far and I think you have done.

There's no evidence that he took anything other than diuretics (albeit that one possible effect of diuretics is to mask the presence of other substances) and to suggest that his performance was somehow enhanced by drug taking is a pretty wild piece of speculation.

 

[Ikki]

Anabolic steroids cause weight gain.Using diuretics will be beneficial in two ways. It will reduce the plump features produced by steroids. Secondly it will mask it in the assay. dirty bastard knew it from the beginning.

 

[howardj]

9 out of 10.

His record against India prevents a higher rating.

He's the retired cricketer I miss seeing play the most.

 

[Top_Cat]

Can we just clear up a few things? Diuretics don't mask steroids, they mask the use of steroids by making you excrete excess steroids and their metabolites.

Second, Warne lost weight after about 2001 when he started bowling really well again. It was a fairly dramatic amount of weight too on his body and partcularly his face. The only way he would be able to use any type of steroids and lose weight is if he wasn't doing any exercise at all and that's only because then the steroids would have had very little effect i.e. he'd just whizz them out. Even then, if anything, he would be more likely to gain a little. This is a key point; no-one uses steroids, does the amount of exercise Warnie would have been doing as part of an elite cricketing team and loses weight. If you take steroids and exercise regularly, you'll gain weight.

Third, the use of steroids aids repair of muscles and Warnie's injury before the 2003 WC was a mechanical ligament and tendon injury (rotator cuff from memory?). Steroids' utility as a repair agent for non-muscular areas is still pretty hotly debated and even then, they just alleviate the pain and further damage of the area, not restore prior function. The areas in questions still have to repair themselves. Warnie's quick recovery from the injury was due to his powers of recuperaton, good physio work, etc. Any doctor who prescribes a steroid and claims it'll repair an injury quick enough to compete in an international sporting event is lying.

All that said, I'm pretty sure Warnie was lying about how long he was taking diuretics for. He lost not only weight on his body but in his face, etc. I wouldn't say Warnie or any athlete would be above juicing either. But to say he was using them to mask steroid use is not only unproven but counter-intuitive.

 

[zaremba]

Can we just clear up a few things? Diuretics don't mask steroids, they mask the use of steroids by making you excrete excess steroids and their metabolites..

I may be missing something but I can't see any distinction between the two for practical purposes.

 

[FRAZ]

Good bowler , had a great support of fellow cricketers . Was born at the right place and represented a team which was number 1 (And still is) . Showed quality in Bowling , fielding and controversies . He was the chief constructor of Aussie dominance .Though not my ultimate favorite but still he is in my top 10 list for sure ... (He is just behind McGrath in my all time favorite list of Australian cricketers) ...

 

[Top_Cat]

I may be missing something but I can't see any distinction between the two for practical purposes.

Point is that's just one of the things they do; they're not specifically for removing steroids from the body so if you're taking diuretics, you're not necessarily taking steroids too. Many articles and pundits want to make them synonymous when you can't. There quite a few reasons why someone one might want to take diuretics including post-surgery (although, even though Warne did have surgery on his shoulder, he never claimed he took diuretics for this reason).

 

[zaremba]

Point is that's just one of the things they do; they're not specifically for removing steroids from the body so if you're taking diuretics, you're not necessarily taking steroids too. Many articles and pundits want to make them synonymous when you can't. There quite a few reasons why someone one might want to take diuretics including post-surgery (although, even though Warne did have surgery on his shoulder, he never claimed he took diuretics for this reason).

Obviously the mere fact that you're taking diuretics doesn't mean that you're taking steroids.

But the fact that diuretics have effects other than removing evidence of use of steroids doesn't mean that they can't be, and aren't, used for that purpose. They are used for that purpose (among others), and this is one of the reasons why they are banned.

 

[Ikki]

Can we just clear up a few things? Diuretics don't mask steroids, they mask the use of steroids by making you excrete excess steroids and their metabolites.

Second, Warne lost weight after about 2001 when he started bowling really well again. It was a fairly dramatic amount of weight too on his body and partcularly his face. The only way he would be able to use any type of steroids and lose weight is if he wasn't doing any exercise at all and that's only because then the steroids would have had very little effect i.e. he'd just whizz them out. Even then, if anything, he would be more likely to gain a little. This is a key point; no-one uses steroids, does the amount of exercise Warnie would have been doing as part of an elite cricketing team and loses weight. If you take steroids and exercise regularly, you'll gain weight.

Third, the use of steroids aids repair of muscles and Warnie's injury before the 2003 WC was a mechanical ligament and tendon injury (rotator cuff from memory?). Steroids' utility as a repair agent for non-muscular areas is still pretty hotly debated and even then, they just alleviate the pain and further damage of the area, not restore prior function. The areas in questions still have to repair themselves. Warnie's quick recovery from the injury was due to his powers of recuperaton, good physio work, etc. Any doctor who prescribes a steroid and claims it'll repair an injury quick enough to compete in an international sporting event is lying.

All that said, I'm pretty sure Warnie was lying about how long he was taking diuretics for. He lost not only weight on his body but in his face, etc. I wouldn't say Warnie or any athlete would be above juicing either. But to say he was using them to mask steroid use is not only unproven but counter-intuitive.

Great post, I've never heard it put out as logically as that.

Something to add though; it seems even when he was bowling and had "recovered" he was still bowling through pain.

 

[Top_Cat]

Obviously the mere fact that you're taking diuretics doesn't mean that you're taking steroids.

You know that and I know that. But they became synonymous.

But the fact that diuretics have effects other than removing evidence of use of steroids doesn't mean that they can't be, and aren't, used for that purpose. They are used for that purpose (among others), and this is one of the reasons why they are banned.

They are definitely used for that purpose...... as well as removing traces of illegal drugs. As well as a bazillion other reasons, a lot of which are beneficial. Depends on the type and brand and some are approved. I guess what I hate is the rationale that because it can be used for nefarious purposes, diuretics should be blanket banned. I find it really draconian.

 

[subshakerz]

The president of the WADA considered Warne's 'my Mum gave me the pills' excuse one of the worst he ever heard. Steroids are known for accelerating healing from injury, and yup, Warne did somehow recover from his shoulder injury to play the World Cup in surprisingly quick time. Then the Aussie board inexplicably bans him for only one year, despite the fact that being caught for drug use requires a mandatory two year ban. The whole affairs seem fishy and I find it hard given the circumstances to except Warne's version at face value.

 

[Top_Cat]

Which part of steroids not restoring prior function any quicker wasn't clear to you? That he recovered quickly is irrelevant.

And that a 2-year ban was mandatory? That he was suspended for 12 months suggests it's self-evident that it's not.

 

[Migara]

Point is that's just one of the things they do; they're not specifically for removing steroids from the body so if you're taking diuretics, you're not necessarily taking steroids too. Many articles and pundits want to make them synonymous when you can't. There quite a few reasons why someone one might want to take diuretics including post-surgery (although, even though Warne did have surgery on his shoulder, he never claimed he took diuretics for this reason).

I think you are missing a point. some diuretics, hydo-choloro-thiazide, in this instance, interfere with the ELISA that is used to detect steroids (or it's metabolites). Frusemide don't interfere, but HCT does. Warne clearly knew that he cannot be vindicated for use of seroids if he used HCT, because it will not be detected in urine. And it will result in the advantage of doubt with Warne.

 

[Top_Cat]

I think you are missing a point. some diuretics, hydo-choloro-thiazide, in this instance, interfere with the ELISA that is used to detect steroids (or it's metabolites). Frusemide don't interfere, but HCT does. Warne clearly knew that he cannot be vindicated for use of seroids if he used HCT, because it will not be detected in urine. And it will result in the advantage of doubt with Warne.

HCT's also happen, by far, to be the most common, available over-the-counter diuretics too which negates assertions of nefarious intentions without further proof. Do you have any?