How was the Ryan Bailey incident kept quiet for so long?

[Bob8]

3 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

I don't understand this quote Bob8.

I am surprised we did not hear anything about it.  I accept the finding fully, but we are not used to secrets being kept.

[Kayakman]

25 minutes ago, Allora said:

In most Sports failing to submit to a test is a failure to pass the test.

I can not say to the Police man  doing a random breath test that he can not prove the implement he is using is sterile come back to me in two days time and we will have another go at it.

That is a fail.

 

 

Correct Allora!  You don't argue with the police officer, they are simply doing their job and enforcing the law. 

You save your argument for the judge and court, who will then decide if the law was broken and the penalty ( the police don't get to decide the penalty; this would lead to a police state).

In Baileys case, the Panel found that his refusal to take the test was reasonable due to extenuating circumstances and the charges were dismissed.  He even, of his own volition, willingly retook the test at their discretion and subsequently  passed.

Those are the facts of the case....now everyone attack me for being so unreasonable....I know...I know... its a crazy thing called 'due process'.

[Kayakman]

3 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

I am surprised we did not hear anything about it.  I accept the finding fully, but we are not used to secrets being kept.

What secrets?...THERE ARE NO SECRETS! 

The Panel heard all the evidence in an open investigation and made a judgement...I'm sure everything was presented to them, if one of the parties failed to disclose that is their problem...certainly not Baileys!...like come on people...be reasonable!

Is there an alternative agenda at play here?- because it all seems very cut and dried to me.  If there are facts about this incident that I don't know please advise.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

What secrets?...THERE ARE NO SECRETS! 

The Panel heard all the evidence in an open investigation and made a judgement...I'm sure everything was presented to them, if one of the parties failed to disclose that is their problem...certainly not Baileys!...like come on people...be reasonable!

Is there an alternative agenda at play here?- because it all seems very cut and dried to me.  If there are facts about this incident that I don't know please advise.

I can't tell if you are going out of your way to purposely argue with people or you purely do not understand what you are reading. Bob8 is merely pointing out, things like this don't often stay secret for very long i.e. everyone normally knows what has happened before it has been announced. It is the same with player transfers etc.

[Kayakman]

12 minutes ago, 7723 said:

I can't tell if you are going out of your way to purposely argue with people or you purely do not understand what you are reading. Bob8 is merely pointing out, things like this don't often stay secret for very long i.e. everyone normally knows what has happened before it has been announced. It is the same with player transfers etc.

I am not trying to purposely argue with people, I believe the opposite is actually correct.  I getting hit and attacked from all sides for taking a very simple just position.

Let me be very clear, THERE ARE NO SECRETS!  

There was a full open Panel investigation, which upon weighting all the factors/evidence found in Baileys favor.

THERE ARE NO SECRETS, THERE IS NO SECRET TWP AGENDA!  There is no conspiracy in any way , shape or form (except the Rugby League Forum)!

Simple, end of story.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

I am not trying to purposely argue with people, I believe the opposite is actually correct.  I getting hit and attacked from all sides for taking a very simple just position.

Let me be very clear, THERE ARE NO SECRETS!  

There was a full open Panel investigation, which upon weighting all the factors/evidence found in Baileys favor.

THERE ARE NO SECRETS, THERE IS NO SECRET TWP AGENDA!  There is no conspiracy in any way , shape or form (except the Rugby League Forum)!

Simple, end of story.

I think you have still missed the point Bob8 was making!! In rugby league, not much stays secret, be it player transfers, bans etc. Everyone normally knows what is happening before it has been announced e.g everyone at Wigan new McIlorum was leaving well before it was announced. What is surprising with this Bailey story is that we did not know about it weeks ago even though it had not been made public then. Not that there were secrets within the investigation etc. just that it was very surprising no one knew about the story before it was announced.

[fairfolly]

Anybody know where the actual failed refusal to take the test occurred.Not the actual one he took but the one he did not.That could be the reason it was never brought out in the open.This side of the Atlantic or the other?

[phiggins]

1 hour ago, Bob8 said:

To be fair, this sport has a very short grapevine.  

Plenty of people hear stuff before it reaches this forum.  In this case, we have found that the grapevine does not cross that Atlantic and I am surprised.  

Me too, and so is the writer of the original article I assume, hence the thread. 

Lots of posts about the rights and wrongs of the outcome, where this thread was really about how we didn't know anything about the case till now. When news of Sean Penkywicz officially broke, nobody was surprised, similarly for other cases over here.

Maybe Rowley has learned his lesson after the rumour mill about Leigh went into overdrive in 2015 and been clear to all his staff that they have to keep their mouths shut. 

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

21 minutes ago, fairfolly said:

Anybody know where the actual failed refusal to take the test occurred.Not the actual one he took but the one he did not.That could be the reason it was never brought out in the open.This side of the Atlantic or the other?

As I keep saying, read the actual judgement it tells you (almost) all you need to know https://www.ukad.org.uk/assets/uploads/Files/UKAD_v_Ryan_Bailey.PDF

 

[Bob8]

1 hour ago, Kayakman said:

What secrets?...THERE ARE NO SECRETS! 

The Panel heard all the evidence in an open investigation and made a judgement...I'm sure everything was presented to them, if one of the parties failed to disclose that is their problem...certainly not Baileys!...like come on people...be reasonable!

Is there an alternative agenda at play here?- because it all seems very cut and dried to me.  If there are facts about this incident that I don't know please advise.

You know Nigel Wood's shock resignation?  I and several others knew about it a month in advance.

I utterly, utterly accept the decision of the panel.  Not an issue, No Sir!  This is not about that decision.  Bailey is innocent.  Completely.

You know if your best mate comes out as gay and you had no idea?  Your shock would be that you had no idea.  It would not be anti-gay, just genuine surprise. 

We are not suggesting he is guilty, we are just surprised we had not heard about the case!

I do not blame you for being sensitive, it is utterly reasonable. 

[fairfolly]

Les Tonks, Read it in full,very interesting,good job it was not in a court of law in my opinion.I think I know how the case would have ended.However as I have previously posted I hope the lad gets the correct assistance he needs.His health is far more important than Rugby League.

[Kayakman]

34 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

As I keep saying, read the actual judgement it tells you (almost) all you need to know https://www.ukad.org.uk/assets/uploads/Files/UKAD_v_Ryan_Bailey.PDF

 

I read the whole thing again so lets cut through  the fluff.  If they (the agents of the testing agency) had properly followed their own protocols there would have been no problem...the specific rules were put there for such a reason, to avoid any problems, and they should have been followed properly, they weren't!...as a player Mr. Bailey stood up for himself, was found innocent (although he did commit some technical errors)...he  is innocent and free to go.

It seems like it was a very well thought out professional and unbiased hearing..we should respect that...I do.

Its called due process and we ALL have an entitlement to it(.)!

[Bob8]

3 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

I read the whole thing again so lets cut through  the fluff.  If they (the agents of the testing agency) had properly followed their own protocols there would have been no problem...the specific rules were put there for such a reason, to avoid any problems, and they should have been followed properly, they weren't!...as a player Mr. Bailey stood up for himself, was found innocent (although he did commit some technical errors)...he  is innocent and free to go.

It seems like it was a very well thought out professional and unbiased hearing..we should respect that...I do.

Its called due process and we ALL have an entitlement to it(.)!

Yes.

I agree.

[Kayakman]

33 minutes ago, Bob8 said:

You know Nigel Wood's shock resignation?  I and several others knew about it a month in advance.

I utterly, utterly accept the decision of the panel.  Not an issue, No Sir!  This is not about that decision.  Bailey is innocent.  Completely.

You know if your best mate comes out as gay and you had no idea?  Your shock would be that you had no idea.  It would not be anti-gay, just genuine surprise. 

We are not suggesting he is guilty, we are just surprised we had not heard about the case!

I do not blame you for being sensitive, it is utterly reasonable. 

I didn't know he was resigning....I really didn't.

Although you are not suggesting he is guilty, it is quite clear from this thread and the other one, that some people are...lets be honest about this here.

I was not under the impression that there was any coverup on the case, if they have an obligation to inform they should have done so.

I believe I am being reasonable...I just want to confirm this for everyone, "The Toronto Wolfpack receives no special treatment whatsoever, and appears to be subject to unreasonable scrutiny and  standards, which all other clubs appear to be exempt from.  There is a clear bias against the TWP, and it is not based on any type of logic or fact....in fact we are treated much harsher by any measure, be it financially, being televised... or any other measure (such as the Bailey non incident)."   

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

24 minutes ago, fairfolly said:

Les Tonks, Read it in full,very interesting,good job it was not in a court of law in my opinion.I think I know how the case would have ended.However as I have previously posted I hope the lad gets the correct assistance he needs.His health is far more important than Rugby League.

The process runs on the basis of a UK Court of Law and indeed must not go against any rights or protections afforded by UK law to a 'defendant'. That is why the Tribunal is chaired by a QC.

[Kayakman]

1 minute ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

The process runs on the basis of a UK Court of Law and indeed must not go against any rights or protections afforded by UK law to a 'defendant'. That is why the Tribunal is chaired by a QC.

Exactly my point!

[fairfolly]

Thanks for that information Les.As he had stated he knew how the system worked and his lawyers exploited a loophole that the testers made.As you say,"not guilty" hope he now moves on and gets some good medical attention.

[Bob8]

4 minutes ago, fairfolly said:

Thanks for that information Les.As he had stated he knew how the system worked and his lawyers exploited a loophole that the testers made.As you say,"not guilty" hope he now moves on and gets some good medical attention.

Do you actually know the full circumstances?

[Derwent]

20 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

I read the whole thing again so lets cut through  the fluff.  If they (the agents of the testing agency) had properly followed their own protocols there would have been no problem...the specific rules were put there for such a reason, to avoid any problems, and they should have been followed properly, they weren't!...as a player Mr. Bailey stood up for himself, was found innocent (although he did commit some technical errors)...he  is innocent and free to go.

It seems like it was a very well thought out professional and unbiased hearing..we should respect that...I do.

Its called due process and we ALL have an entitlement to it(.)!

Clearly you didn't read it, or you misunderstood it, otherwise you wouldn't keep saying he was found innocent.

Point 48 of the report makes it absolutely clear that the tribunal found that he was guilty of the charges against him.

They chose not impose any punishment due to mitigating circumstances, which is not the same as being found not guilty.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

14 minutes ago, Derwent said:

Clearly you didn't read it, or you misunderstood it, otherwise you wouldn't keep saying he was found innocent.

Point 48 of the report makes it absolutely clear that the tribunal found that he was guilty of the charges against him.

They chose not impose any punishment due to mitigating circumstances, which is not the same as being found not guilty.

Point 40 dismisses any justification for refusing to take the test on the basis that the bottles may have been tampered with:

"There was no valid reason for Mr Bailey to have not taken the test. Any concern of Mr Bailey over the water could have been catered for by doing as Mr Taylor in fact suggested, that is by making a written record of his concerns, and even retaining one of the bottles for subsequent analysis if necessary."

And Point 47 rules out a dismissal of the case based on procedural irregularities.

[Kayakman]

10 minutes ago, Derwent said:

Clearly you didn't read it, or you misunderstood it, otherwise you wouldn't keep saying he was found innocent.

Point 48 of the report makes it absolutely clear that the tribunal found that he was guilty of the charges against him.

They chose not impose any punishment due to mitigating circumstances, which is not the same as being found not guilty.

Mr. Bailey did not try to 'evade' the test, the testers claims were 'unsubstantiated', large parts of the report were redacted, numerous protocols were not followed by the testers,and the entire case was 'judged objectively'.

If they had imposed ANY punishment, he could and would sue them for committing a 'tort' against his person (and he would clearly win), therefore they cover their ____ by writing it up both ways, saying he is wrong but right, or right but wrong.  Lawyer speak to protect themselves and their client from future litigation.

They should just admit they were wrong, and clean up their own shop, before they start testing anyone else; it is their responsibility as the testers.

They should just have come out and said "The man is innocent!" (which is a stronger phrase than not guilty; cowards!)

 

 

[Derwent]

36 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

Mr. Bailey did not try to 'evade' the test, the testers claims were 'unsubstantiated', large parts of the report were redacted, numerous protocols were not followed by the testers,and the entire case was 'judged objectively'.

If they had imposed ANY punishment, he could and would sue them for committing a 'tort' against his person (and he would clearly win), therefore they cover their ____ by writing it up both ways, saying he is wrong but right, or right but wrong.  Lawyer speak to protect themselves and their client from future litigation.

They should just admit they were wrong, and clean up their own shop, before they start testing anyone else; it is their responsibility as the testers.

They should just have come out and said "The man is innocent!" (which is a stronger phrase than not guilty; cowards!)

 

 

Nope, the tribunal were crystal clear that none of those things were a detraction from his guilt in not providing a sample. I don’t see how you find that so hard to understand. They were not considered to be mitigating circumstances or a suitable defence.

The only reason he was not punished was that they found him not be of sound mind under their definition of “a reasonable” person. That was the mitigation that saved him from a ban, not procedural issues. They may even have thought that the 5 month suspension he had already served was sufficient punishment.

Many people walk away from the criminal courts with no punishment after being found guilty, by way of conditional discharge or binding over. It doesn’t make them innocent.

[Kayakman]

7 minutes ago, Derwent said:

Many people walk away from the criminal courts with no punishment after being found guilty, by way of conditional discharge or binding over. It doesn’t make them innocent.

My point exactly (and there was no conditional discharge or binding over in this case; they didn't even have the guts to hit him with a verbal or legal caution in their ruling); and it doesn't make them guilty either!..the whole thing is a wash, which has been my position from the very beginning!

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

2 minutes ago, Kayakman said:

My point exactly (and there was no conditional discharge or binding over in this case; they didn't even have the guts to hit him with a verbal or legal caution in their ruling); and it doesn't make them guilty either!..the whole thing is a wash, which has been my position from the very beginning!

You cannot possibly be for real...... the ignore button has now screamed loud and long enough

[Kayakman]

2 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

You cannot possibly be for real...... the ignore button has now screamed loud and long enough

Read the ruling!