Rate Him: Shane Warne

[Jonty Lathwal]

I would give him 9/10 .......he would have got 10/10......considering his test record.....
but his scandals...drugs addiction,,,lets him down.......

i would have given him 8 if there had been no IPL this year.......

 

[Ikki]

There was one ball in the 05 Ashes, to Strauss I think, that span so much that Hawkeye went nuts over it and had to be re-calibrated or something. Anyone remember it? It hit the stumps but Hawkeye actually thought it couldn't possibly and showed it missing. Not sure if it was this one or the one that went between his legs (can't seem to find it).

 

[sanga1337]

10/10 one of the greatest spin bowlers to play the game. A bit of a character off the field as well.

 

[sanga1337]

There was one ball in the 05 Ashes, to Strauss I think, that span so much that Hawkeye went nuts over it and had to be re-calibrated or something. Anyone remember it? It hit the stumps but Hawkeye actually thought it couldn't possibly and showed it missing.

Yeah Remember watching that. I remember when they fixed hawkeye, they showed what the delivery would've been like had it not spun and compared it to the spinning delivery. It spun something insane like a meter and a half or something like that anyway.

 

[Ikki]

Well Sanz is rarely anything other than at odds, who it may be with doesn't matter. And obviously whenever anyone has the temerity to suggest an Australian player is less than excellent, KaZoH0lic must disagree.

Especially when that someone has the temerity to declare Nasser Hussain better than Matthew Hayden.

 

[Migara]

How is giving info to bookies match-fixing?

Let's put it in a different way. Transactions with bookies.

 

[Migara]

Pardon? Which team apart from India played him well? He had the wood on pretty much every team but them.

Wrong. Although Warne did well against Lankans, there were enough batsmen to confront him and hit him out of the attacks. Unlike English and Saffies, where it occured once in a blue moon. With Lankans and Windies Warne had his fair share of assaults as his good moments.

 

[Sanz]

Especially when that someone has the temerity to declare Nasser Hussain better than Matthew Hayden.

 

[Migara]

Diuretics give you an advantage?

Why do you use them?

 

[Ikki]

Wrong. Although Warne did well against Lankans, there were enough batsmen to confront him and hit him out of the attacks. Unlike English and Saffies, where it occured once in a blue moon. With Lankans and Windies Warne had his fair share of assaults as his good moments.

Yeah, when Warne started off he was whacked around...however, that wasn't mutually exclusive to Sri Lanka. In the end he had them by the balls, pardon the expression.

 

[silentstriker]

Diuretics give you an advantage?

What is implied by using masking agents for steroids certainly gives you an advantage.

 

[Ikki]

What is implied by using masking agents for steroids certainly gives you an advantage.

Again 0 proof he took them. We had this discussion before. I wonder how someone can take steroids and see no side-effects? And if he had used them to recover, as you say, what benefit did he get if he didn't play for a year?

 

[Sanz]

Again 0 proof he took them. We had this discussion before. I wonder how someone can take steroids and see no side-effects? And if he had used them to recover, as you say, what benefit did he get if he didn't play for a year?

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.

 

[Tom Halsey]

a) 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.

b) As for ZERO Proof - Why was he banned then ?

a) 1996 to 2001 was also, the time where Warne's career was hamstrung by injuries.

b) Because diuretics are banned. Whilst a positive test for diuretics would suggest steroids, it doesn't actually provide any concrete proof whatsoever.

 

[Sanz]

a) 1996 to 2001 was also, the time where Warne's career was hamstrung by injuries.

Which was obviously affecting his performance, then all at a sudden he miraculously recovered in 2002 from that injury to have the best year of his career. All coincidence.

b) Because diuretics are banned. Whilst a positive test for diuretics would suggest steroids, it doesn't actually provide any concrete proof whatsoever.

Take it to a court of law with that argument and your case will be thrown away in seconds. There is a reason why Warne didn't fight his case.

http://www.health24.com/fitness/Diet_Supplements/16-481-513,20910.asp

"Shane Warne's use of diuretics, classified as a "masking agent", follows barely six months after Australian winger Ben Tune tested positive for the masking agent probenecid.

The use of a diuretic can mask the use of anabolic steroids, stimulants, cannabis or other banned substances. The use of masking agents is "nothing new - it has been used for many years by sportsmen wishing to conceal their steroid use."

"It inhibits the excretion of waste material that indicates steroid use."

Thus, for a while after diuretic use, no anabolic steroid will be found in the urine of the steroid user.

Diuretics are also misused for quick weight loss, particularly in sports with weight categories like boxing.

It does have a legitimate medical use, but because of its misuse by many sportsmen and women, it has been listed as a banned substance, according to Dr Erasmus. "

 

[Tom Halsey]

a) Which was obviously affecting his performance, then all at a sudden he miraculously recovered in 2002 from that injury to have the best year of his career. All coincidence.



b) Take it to a court of law with that argument and your case will be thrown away in seconds. There is a reason why Warne didn't fight his case.

http://www.health24.com/fitness/Diet_Supplements/16-481-513,20910.asp

"Shane Warne's use of diuretics, classified as a "masking agent", follows barely six months after Australian winger Ben Tune tested positive for the masking agent probenecid.

The use of a diuretic can mask the use of anabolic steroids, stimulants, cannabis or other banned substances. The use of masking agents is "nothing new - it has been used for many years by sportsmen wishing to conceal their steroid use."

"It inhibits the excretion of waste material that indicates steroid use."

Thus, for a while after diuretic use, no anabolic steroid will be found in the urine of the steroid user.

Diuretics are also misused for quick weight loss, particularly in sports with weight categories like boxing.

It does have a legitimate medical use, but because of its misuse by many sportsmen and women, it has been listed as a banned substance, according to Dr Erasmus. "

a) His best year was 2005, I thought.

b) Whether it would stand up in a court of law is irrelevant. I'm not arguing the toss about whether diuretics suggests steroids; it obviously does. It doesn't, however, provide 100%, concrete proof.

The reason Warne was banned, your original point, was because diuretics themselves are a banned substance, not because they imply anything else, even if they do.

 

[Sanz]

b) Whether it would stand up in a court of law is irrelevant. I'm not arguing the toss about whether diuretics suggests steroids; it obviously does. It doesn't, however, provide 100%, concrete proof.

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

The reason Warne was banned, your original point, was because diuretics themselves are a banned substance, not because they imply anything else, even if they do.

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

 

[GIMH]

Who cares if Warne is a drugs cheat, Murali is a chucker

Oooopsie wrong thread, get my coat, TAXI

 

[Sanz]

a) His best year was 2005, I thought.

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.

 

[Migara]

Diuretics give you an advantage?

Yes. They mask steroids.