PDA

View Full Version : Why has David Hookes done a backflip on Warne's drug test?


wagstaff
19 Feb 2003, 21:24
Listening to 3AW's 'Sports Tonight' program over this week, it has been noticeable how Victorian cricket coach David Hookes has changed his viewpoint on Shane Warne's positive drugs result.

His comments suggest that after initally criticising Warne to a certain extent, he has now been made to come around and put forth Warne's version of events that would see Warne get the minmum punishment.

Yesterday, Hookes said that for Warne would be the 4 matches he will miss of the World Cup plus, wait for it, a suspended sentence and a huge fine.

First of all, the suspended sentence and fine is a nonsense of a punishment - even if Warne got fined $200 000 that would be a far preferrable punishment from his point of view then having to miss the entire World Cup.

And why would there need to be a suspended sentence? Anyone would know that if you're caught with an illegal substance a second time that the punishment will be much harder so it's pointless having a suspended sentence.

Notably, a caller rang up tonight criticising Hookes for suggesting this sort of punishment.

And it's interesting the way Hookes describes Warne's indiscretion (assuming you accept Warne's version of events) has changed over the last few days. When it occurred it was referred to as being 'negligent' and Hookes was quoted as saying "There would be no excuse for anybody in an elite sporting system in this country - male or female, cricketer, footballer, individual athlete - not having any knowledge about that situation,"

This week, he's being far more flippant, referring to it in a joking manner as a silly error and even suggeting that no one actually reads the manual that lists the prohibited drugs that cricketers have access to. He's also referred to Steve Waugh taking a tablet on a plane once as proof that these errors can occur and hence, are sort of acceptable.

I am particularly curious as to why this sudden change in view has occurred. I doubt whether because it is of a genuine change of mind as Hookes hasn't portrayed it as such and it would seem amazing to turn around one's opinon in such a short space of time.

My guess is that he's pressured by either the ACB or Warne's PR team to go easy and soften up public opinion so that Warne being let straight back into the World Cup is deemed acceptable.

Perty4
19 Feb 2003, 21:47
i think this has singled out hookseys problem with having two jobs - one in the media where he is supposed to speculate, and present an opinion on each issue, but that has coincided wuth his job as coach of Warne. On Inside Cricket/3aw his responsibility is to present an informed opinion of what has happened, as he did initially. However, i think Hookes then shifted into his job as Victorian coach on tuesday when saying Warne should have a suspended sentence, thus showing him the support a coach should have for a player.

goal_umpire
20 Feb 2003, 08:35
Originally posted by wagstaff
Listening to 3AW's 'Sports Tonight' program over this week, it has been noticeable how Victorian cricket coach David Hookes has changed his viewpoint on Shane Warne's positive drugs result.

His comments suggest that after initally criticising Warne to a certain extent, he has now been made to come around and put forth Warne's version of events that would see Warne get the minmum punishment.

Yesterday, Hookes said that for Warne would be the 4 matches he will miss of the World Cup plus, wait for it, a suspended sentence and a huge fine.

First of all, the suspended sentence and fine is a nonsense of a punishment - even if Warne got fined $200 000 that would be a far preferrable punishment from his point of view then having to miss the entire World Cup.

And why would there need to be a suspended sentence? Anyone would know that if you're caught with an illegal substance a second time that the punishment will be much harder so it's pointless having a suspended sentence.

Notably, a caller rang up tonight criticising Hookes for suggesting this sort of punishment.

And it's interesting the way Hookes describes Warne's indiscretion (assuming you accept Warne's version of events) has changed over the last few days. When it occurred it was referred to as being 'negligent' and Hookes was quoted as saying

This week, he's being far more flippant, referring to it in a joking manner as a silly error and even suggeting that no one actually reads the manual that lists the prohibited drugs that cricketers have access to. He's also referred to Steve Waugh taking a tablet on a plane once as proof that these errors can occur and hence, are sort of acceptable.

I am particularly curious as to why this sudden change in view has occurred. I doubt whether because it is of a genuine change of mind as Hookes hasn't portrayed it as such and it would seem amazing to turn around one's opinon in such a short space of time.

My guess is that he's pressured by either the ACB or Warne's PR team to go easy and soften up public opinion so that Warne being let straight back into the World Cup is deemed acceptable.
Hookes is an idiot. he always criticizes the Australian members. Look what he did to Damien Fleming.

Jaymin
20 Feb 2003, 08:40
Gee and wasn't getting rid of Fleming a huge disaster. He's been tearing up the paddock in SA.

GoEagles
20 Feb 2003, 16:12
I was suprised Hookes came out saying some nasty stuff on Warne, considering he was Captain of Victoria and the coach was talking about penalties instead of supporting him.

Hookes seems to be struggling on juggling his 2 hats.

scmods
20 Feb 2003, 21:02
Originally posted by suzi_olsen
Hookes is an idiot. he always criticizes the Australian members. Look what he did to Damien Fleming.
Was it necessary to quote the entire article to say that?

Lethal
21 Feb 2003, 07:47
Originally posted by scmods
Was it necessary to quote the entire article to say that?

She always does no matter how long the article.

dr nick
21 Feb 2003, 07:55
Originally posted by Lethal
She always does no matter how long the article.

perhaps she craves the extra attention.