BREAKING NEWS:::: SHOIAB and ASIF ban Lifted!!!!!!

[steds]

Pathetic.

 

[Langeveldt]

Disagree right there, I don't think first time drug abusers should be dealt with that harshly in any sport. Really, I am mystified at the witch-hunting that goes on in global sport when ever this happens. Not the biggest problem and calls for life are nothing more than a knee-jerk reaction. I thought Warne should have got less and I thought these two should have got less as well.

Don't see why people are coming out and slamming the decison when little is known about the process as of yet and untill I see evidence otherwise, I'll assume the panel acted in honesty and integrity.

Any average Joe can fake ignorance though.. In the days of being a professional athlete, being paid mega bucks to ply your trade, you have to do the research.. Anything else is irresponsible..

Just think, you are Damien Martyn or whoever, batting for your career as an Aussie contracted player, your livelihood is at stake, and someone you know has cheated before he even lets go of the ball takes your wicket, how do you feel?

 

[steds]

Thought the original bans were an overreaction

What? They tested positive for performance enhancing substances. Seriously, **** off and come back when you're less dire.

 

[pasag]

What? They tested positive for performance enhancing substances. Seriously, **** off and come back when you're less dire.

Post reported.

Seriously though, go **** yourself and come back and post when your not making knee jerk reactions to news that you know little about.

 

[pasag]

Any average Joe can fake ignorance though.. In the days of being a professional athlete, being paid mega bucks to ply your trade, you have to do the research.. Anything else is irresponsible..

Just think, you are Damien Martyn or whoever, batting for your career as an Aussie contracted player, your livelihood is at stake, and someone you know has cheated before he even lets go of the ball takes your wicket, how do you feel?

Yep, not saying they should be let off, rather the bans shouldn't be so harsh for first time offences. I don't care whether they knew, they didn't know, first time should just be a couple of matches and after that I would be more than happy with bans for years or life.

 

[nightprowler10]

Disgraceful over reaction in this thread from just about everybody, whether they agree or disagree with the decision. I just read the news on Cricinfo, and even though I'm disappointed by the decision made, I think it was the right one considering the facts presented. I think PCB screwed up royal by not following the proper guidelines in the first place, and it makes sense to me how the committee would decide they were both innocent of the charges. Personally, I think a bit of malice may have been invloved from at least Akhtar's part, taking advantage of the fact that PCB guidlines didn't technically ban the substance in question.

Either way, they both got off, and I really don't think I'll watch either one play with awe and respect like I used to. I may have if they served their sentence, but not now.

 

[Scmods]

Yep, that crazy subcontinent. Because Shoab and Asif represent the entire subcontinent. And of course, the independent tribunal that made the decision was obviously not independent at all, but just made up of members of the PCB/BCCI etc. Also not forgetting that cricket wasn't ever ruled by England/Australia and the subcontinent was always treated equally.

Anyway, to some of reactions in here - it seems as if the decision to overturn the ban was made on technicalities...not out of some sort of crusade to let cheats go free. It wasn't the PCB's decision either. Provided similar circumstances, I suspect the result would be the same anywhere in the world.

Did I say they represented the entire Sub Continent? No, it's just another example in different rules applying to them. I don't care that they faced an independent tribunal, they should've been banned, they took steroids FFS. Warney only took a diuretic. Hypocrisy, if the ICC doesn't step in then they will prove themselves as useful as Ashley Giles is against Australia.

 

[silentstriker]

Ugh, that just sucks. Warne got banned for a year, these two should have been banned for that much, if not more.

 

[R_D]

It's hard to think rationally when such lunacy prevails in our once great sport..

I'd propose boycotts of Pakistan matches (not that any of their fans would care), and if I was in charge of a cricket board, I certainly wouldn't honour a tour there, whatever the fine.. Any games that Asif and Shoaib participate in should not contain an opponent who has crickets interests at heart

This sets a horrible message to potential drug takers and makes the game even less credible as a global and honest sport..

Amen to that brother.
Can't say I'm really suprised, i think pretty much everyone was expecting their banned to be lifted.

 

[Achtung Baby]

Well i am personally happy to see akhtar ball again along with asif. Worldcup without akhtar and asif would have looke a bit dented. What i have understand after watching it on the tv is that both he players have never been breifed on these banned substances.Though akhtar tested negative in 2003 it doesn't mean that he had knowledge of the banned substances. Akhtar surely attracts more trouble then he deserves. But what i expect now from other boards is to keep their players informed about such substances so that the players whould be discouraged from using ignorance as a reson for testing positive. .

 

[R_D]

Did I say they represented the entire Sub Continent? No, it's just another example in different rules applying to them. I don't care that they faced an independent tribunal, they should've been banned, they took steroids FFS. Warney only took a diuretic. Hypocrisy, if the ICC doesn't step in then they will prove themselves as useful as Ashley Giles is against Australia.

You're certainly right about that..There are different set of rules for the Aussies,Eng etc and different one for the sub-cont teams as even a ICC match refree admitted that these teams are more aggressive by nature so should be allowed to bully the umpire but a if a sub-cont team does it than well they should be fined and also interesting to note.. i still haven't heard anythign about Warne getting any fines or warning for his over-reactions today... It was pretty pathetic the way he was going on and on.... sure you can appeal but seriously if it was one of sub-cont players... i could see him being dragged to the match refree's office.

 

[James90]

Yep, not saying they should be let off, rather the bans shouldn't be so harsh for first time offences. I don't care whether they knew, they didn't know, first time should just be a couple of matches and after that I would be more than happy with bans for years or life.

Post reported.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Yep, not saying they should be let off, rather the bans shouldn't be so harsh for first time offences. I don't care whether they knew, they didn't know, first time should just be a couple of matches and after that I would be more than happy with bans for years or life.

No it shouldn't be just a couple of matches. Generally you're looking at a penalty of at least a few months for being caught with anabolic steroids in your body if you look at sport as a whole. Football is pathetic so it's weak on this, so it administers a few months as a punishment. A lot of other sports it would be a minimum two year ban for a first offense, cricket is supposed to be a cut above other sports so it should be looking at minimum two year bans and that is what would have happened if those two cheats had been caught in an ICC test. Ignorance is almost assumed for the minimum penalty - not that 'err but I thought taking an anabolic steroid was perfectly legal' holds any water with me. Also if Pakistan's team is so naive and uneducated why haven't the whole lot been caught?

I also thought it was amusing that the PCB was supposedly using ICC's guidelines and then it managed to come up with a one year ban for Asif.

 

[pasag]

i still haven't heard anythign about Warne getting any fines or warning for his over-reactions today... It was pretty pathetic the way he was going on and on.... sure you can appeal but seriously if it was one of sub-cont players... i could see him being dragged to the match refree's office.

Heaps of them were pretty close, plus Lee was dragged to the match ref's office so spare us the favoritism bull****.

 

[Matt79]

Warne may still be reported - Lee's booking was only announced the next day. Not that he'll care much.

 

[Scaly piscine]

Heaps of them were pretty close, plus Lee was dragged to the match ref's office so spare us the favoritism bull****.

Yea their argument doesn't hold water, a bit like Warne when he was banned...

 

[pasag]

No it shouldn't be just a couple of matches. Generally you're looking at a penalty of at least a few months for being caught with anabolic steroids in your body if you look at sport as a whole. Football is pathetic so it's weak on this, so it administers a few months as a punishment. A lot of other sports it would be a minimum two year ban for a first offense.....

Scaly - I'm taking as sport as a whole here tbh, on a global scale, imo, there is a massive overreacting to first time drug use. IMO.

 

[Tugger]

Ugh, that just sucks. Warne got banned for a year, these two should have been banned for that much, if not more.

Just goes to show. One rule for those from the sub continent and another for the rest.

 

[R_D]

Heaps of them were pretty close, plus Lee was dragged to the match ref's office so spare us the favoritism bull****.

its not bull**** its been evident for years.

 

[Dasa]

Did I say they represented the entire Sub Continent? No, it's just another example in different rules applying to them. I don't care that they faced an independent tribunal, they should've been banned, they took steroids FFS. Warney only took a diuretic. Hypocrisy, if the ICC doesn't step in then they will prove themselves as useful as Ashley Giles is against Australia.

1. Where exactly is the evidence that there are different rules or more lenient rules for the subcontinent? If anything, historically it's been the other way around.
2. There's effectively no difference between taking steroids and diuretics - diuretics act as a masking agent for 'actual' steroids. Others have made the point how Warne's recovery period was unusually quick, so it's not exactly that far fetched to say he may have taken 'actual steroids and used a diuretic to mask it.
3. How is the ICC supposed to step in? They didn't conduct the initial tests, they had no part in the punishments given.

At any rate, I don't think it's quite fair to let Asif and Shoaib off so easily. However, there was enough doubt in the testing procedures (given they weren't done 'properly') and technically, it's correct to let them off. I'd like to have seen some sort of suspension or ban at least, but I suppose there's little chance of that happening now.