View Full Version : Shane Warne... your punishment
dr nick
17 Feb 2003, 11:28
following on from the verdict thread, and keeping in mind your verdict, what punishement do you think should fit this crime??
Generalissimo
17 Feb 2003, 15:56
He's guilty and should go for something, but if the tribunal they've got just slap a mandatory two year ban on him, it does nobody any good.
What's the point of having a tribunal if they can't use their discretion? We could sack the lot and install a vending machine that will do the same thing for $1.20 a go.
It's almost certain that Warne was not using a performance enhancing drug, so there is no reason why leniency cannot be shown. The alternative is just to assume he was masking something, and whack a hefty ban on him. I always believed in 'Innocent until proven guilty', not the other way around, which is an absolute abomination.
No option for the same one month ban that Rummans got? :confused:
ScouseCat
17 Feb 2003, 16:58
I hope Shane Warne isn't suspended and if he is to be punished for this incident, a fine and counselling would be the best option.
I wanted to say six months, but it wasn't an option so I went for 12 months instead.
Long enough to keep him out of the Windies tour and whatever the next series after that is. Enough time for him to sit at home and have a good think about it but not so much that he is obliterated from the game entirely.
Originally posted by scmods
I wanted to say six months, but it wasn't an option so I went for 12 months instead.
Long enough to keep him out of the Windies tour and whatever the next series after that is. Enough time for him to sit at home and have a good think about it but not so much that he is obliterated from the game entirely.
How about a scenario half way between 6 and 12 months - banned from all First Class/List A cricket for 6 months, and all international cricket for 6 months after that.
It'd be very harsh for a set penalty to be applied without the ability to use discretion, but when the facts are indisputable (admission of guilt, positive sample) a strong stance should still be taken.
A 6/12 month staggered penalty would hurt Warne through being unable to represent his country for a year, but enable him to regain a place through domestic cricket. It'd more or less mean he can play a full Sheffield Shield/ING season next year, but not go any further.
A complete 1 year sentence, covering all forms of cricket, is effectively a 18-20 month sentence if Australia has no series scheduled for the middle of 2004 (from March until October), as there is no domestic cricket. Does anyone know what series are scheduled for that part of next year?
Brett Li
17 Feb 2003, 19:21
Where is the "Sent to Hobart in chains for the term of his natural born life" option?
:D
Booze Hound
17 Feb 2003, 19:31
Originally posted by Brett Li
Where is the "Sent to Hobart in chains for the term of his natural born life" option?
:D Surely that's a 'cruel and unsual punishment'?
Sorry but is has to be a two year ban from all cricket. The fact that is is a masking agent for steriods is enough to get this ban under the rules of any world sporting body.
Anything less would be wussing out.
But I suspect the authorities will wuss out.
Originally posted by ScouseCat
I hope Shane Warne isn't suspended and if he is to be punished for this incident, a fine and counselling would be the best option. I think Warne is well past the 'counselling' stage in his life.
A fine would only be offset by the amount he gets for selling his story.
How about ban him from entering a cricket ground anywhere in the world for 2 years.
dr nick
17 Feb 2003, 21:10
yes, i thought about the 1 month, 6 months, between 6-12 months and the "send him to Hobart in chains for the term of his natural born life" options, but there just aint enough room to fit them all in!!
dr nick
17 Feb 2003, 21:12
darky, i "think" we are playing bangladesh in 2004. i couldnt be bothered looking up cricinfo though
Why not send him (in chains) to a women's cricket Test, with matchsticks under his eyes so he can't go to sleep...
Originally posted by Brett Li
Where is the "Sent to Hobart in chains for the term of his natural born life" option?
:D
Isn't putting up with David Hookes enough punishment ? :D
After Warne's punished ,we should run another poll :
'How long until Warne's mum sells her story to New Idea ? '
red+black
17 Feb 2003, 21:43
Originally posted by Darky
A complete 1 year sentence, covering all forms of cricket, is effectively a 18-20 month sentence if Australia has no series scheduled for the middle of 2004 (from March until October), as there is no domestic cricket. Does anyone know what series are scheduled for that part of next year?
Fairly sure about 2003, although the ICC Ten Year Plan differs. I mean Sri Lanka were due to tour here late last year, but that never happened, so I wouldn't put 100% faith in the Ten Yeasr Plan.
2003
April - West Indies (a) 4 tests
July - Bangladesh (h) 2 tests
November - Zimbabwe (h) 2 tests
December - India (h) 3 tests
2004
February - Sri Lanka (a) 3 tests
September - India (a) 3 tests
November - West Indies (h) 3 tests
December - Pakistan (h) 3 tests
Jim Boy
18 Feb 2003, 19:41
My heart says I want him playing as soon as possible, but given that I think he deliberately took drugs to seek an advantage (ie cheat) and then lied when he got caught, then the only fitting punishement is to throw the book at him. Anything less will give others incentive to cheat as well. Minimum two year ban, should be a life ban.
Originally posted by Generalissimo
It's almost certain that Warne was not using a performance enhancing drug, so there is no reason why leniency cannot be shown.
Why, because Warne said so. IMO he has tested positive to a substance that can hide the presence of performance enhancing drug. Suspicion that there is more to it than the very unlikely (IMO) excuse that his Mum gave him one tablet is very much justified.
Looking at the TV this morning it seems as if there may (repeat may) be evidence that the dose found in Warnes system was to strong for there to be just one tablet. If he is found to be lying about this, what else is he lying about.
Moomba
dr nick
19 Feb 2003, 11:40
yep, now ASDA have claimed that the traces of the diuretic were too strong to be just ONE tablet, so now they are going to go back to the original samples and see if they can find trace amounts of steroids, below the threshold for which they would normally label an athlete clean.
pretty big blow to warney's defence, since his lawyers were banking on arguing he didnt take enough of it to mask anything. he's been caught out lying yet again.
Vindaloo Mat
19 Feb 2003, 12:28
at least 2 years....I voted for life.
The guy is either a cheat or an idiot.
He says he was not using performance enhancing drugs, and yet was taking a drug which masks their use....what would you expect him to say ? "Yes I was taking performance enhancing drugs and took this pill to cover it up ?"
If the 2nd test is positive (which I read it is), then he is guilty of taking a banned substance...whether it itself was performance enhancing or not is not the point....it was banned, he took it and he should be punished in the same way as thought it was an Anabolic Steroid.
2 Years minimum would probably mean life in any case.
Think about how we would react if it were Murili or Pollock.
If it were Murili we would be calling for the record books to be adjusted to remove him. I would even think about that for Warne as well.
The guy is a cheat.
Vindaloo Mat
dr nick
20 Feb 2003, 21:25
Originally posted by Vindaloo Mat
at least 2 years....I voted for life.
The guy is either a cheat or an idiot.
He says he was not using performance enhancing drugs, and yet was taking a drug which masks their use....what would you expect him to say ? "Yes I was taking performance enhancing drugs and took this pill to cover it up ?"
fair point, no athlete in history (at least none that ive heard of) when caught with masking agents have admitted to taking it for masking something.
If the 2nd test is positive (which I read it is), then he is guilty of taking a banned substance...whether it itself was performance enhancing or not is not the point....it was banned, he took it and he should be punished in the same way as thought it was an Anabolic Steroid.
agreed, masking agents should (and do) carry the same penalties as the substances they mask, and athletes can also claim that they didnt take either to enhance performance, or that their mum gave it to them.
2 Years minimum would probably mean life in any case.
life might mean that he can't have any testimonial matches.