Jump to content

Thomas Minns Drug Test fail


Recommended Posts


  • Replies 135
  • Created
  • Last Reply
2 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

Not under English law. Having it in you system isn't possession

He's already admitted taking it, so he's already admitted breaking the law. Possession is against the law, and unless you believe someone else put it in there for him, he's broken the law.

You can try and get by on a technicality all you like here, but he did break the law and trying to point out that it isn't a crime to have it in your system is clutching at straws. 

Wells%20Motors%20(Signature)_zps67e534e4.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

Smoking was legal. it killed millions. We advertised it. Alcohol kills thousands, we advertise it now. Gambling addiction ruins lives, we advertise it.

To pretend we are making some stand by moralising about recreational drugs yet advertising others is hypocritical. Pretending we are performing some social good whilst advertising gambling is hypocritical.

Alcohol in moderation doesn't kill. Gambling in moderation doesn't ruin lives. I see nothing immoral about advertising them, especially with the warning labels that they come with. No one is advertising gambling addiction and alcohol addiction.

I'm sure taking cocaine in moderation probably doesn't ruin lives either... But whilst it is against the law, getting caught in possession or having it in your system is enough to ruin careers, so that takes precedent over the health problems.

I'm not pretending anything about promoting some kind of social good. I've never said it was our job. You've put words in my mouth there, which is quite unlike you to be honest as you're usually a better debator than that  

I'm simply suggesting that there is an avenue for PLAYERS to admit they f'ed up by breaking doping regulation and telling their clubs before they enter competition. The club will no doubt suspend them to take an investigation, but at least it would be in house, can be disguised as having a leave of absence due to personal reasons and the club can put in place safeguards to protect that player from future discretions. By entering competition and not telling anyone, they have openly flaunted doping rules and risk a two year ban. I know which one would be better.

Wells%20Motors%20(Signature)_zps67e534e4.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just got round to watching Sky's 'golden point' discussion about this and I have to say that as someone in Minns' age group, there are two things I would note.

1, yes drugs are prevalent and accessible (if it is cocaine as is most widely believed then this is true also). Anyone walking through Hyde Park on Friday could have noticed that.

2, anyone trying to say our generation aren't educated on these issues are deluded. We get PSHE lessons every week on all this stuff all through school. If anything we're the most clued up generation on sedatives, hallucinogens and stimulants. We know the risks and effects of almost everything we'll come into contact with, or at least we think we do, and maybe, in conjunction with expected 'youthful feelings of invulnerability, hubris is why drugs related incidents are so high amongst our age group.

With both these in mind... stupid, that's the only way I can sum this up. Not very eloquent I know, but it ultimately is what it is and is probably how Minns feels right now. He'll take his ban and then will continue with his life and maybe his career. But undoubtedly he's jeopardised that future.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, scotchy1 said:

Taking and being under the influence nor having it in your system are crimes. The possession of a controlled substance offence doesn't cover having previously taken drugs. It's not a technicality it is a the law.

You can technically argue that he possession with it in his system. You can technically argue he must st some stage have had possession for him to have had taken it. You can argue these things if you like but they aren't crimes.

He will have had possession in order to take it, unless you're arguing someone put it in him. Let's not pretend he hasn't committed a crime just because he hasn't been caught in possession of it before (and admitting to) taking it.

In the process of putting it in his system, he broke the law.

By putting it in his system, he broke doping laws.

 

Wells%20Motors%20(Signature)_zps67e534e4.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

The law doesn't work like that in this country I'm afraid. You may think it common sense that having it in your system means at some stage you were guilty of possession but that isn't true. It's not a technicality.

Doping laws aren't legal laws. They are rules put down by private bodies. Some of them making no sense at all, some poorly enforced, some contradictory. 

I never said doping laws were legal laws.

And I never claimed the law worked in any way you're suggesting. I'm just saying that just because he wasn't caught doesn't mean he didn't do it. He admitted taking it. He had it. He broke the law. He didn't get caught, but he still broke the law by having it in possession.

You seem to be of the impression that just because you haven't been caught, you haven't broken the law.

Wells%20Motors%20(Signature)_zps67e534e4.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you all really think that Minns suddenly decided - I'm having a really bad time here , I need something to pick me up. I know I will go and try drugs for the first time . Do us all a favour and stop with the bloody tripe ....... The lad knew exactly what he was up-to , took the chance and got caught.He isn't the first and he certainly wont be the last in a world full of it in every workplace.

I hope he learns his lesson gets the support he needs and can eventually return to his livelihood.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like the Albert Kelly thread, will be interesting to see if this one drops down for a few years. If he re-emerges in a black and white top I am sure some moral compasses will be recalibrated.

I can confirm 30+ less sales for Scotland vs Italy at Workington, after this afternoons test purchase for the Tonga match, £7.50 is extremely reasonable, however a £2.50 'delivery' fee for a walk in purchase is beyond taking the mickey, good luck with that, it's cheaper on the telly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Just Browny said:

Like the Albert Kelly thread, will be interesting to see if this one drops down for a few years. If he re-emerges in a black and white top I am sure some moral compasses will be recalibrated.

Naturally.

I remember vociferously defending Brett Seymour after he was arrested for drink driving, just because he played for Hull FC.

Or perhaps I didn't. 

                                                                     Hull FC....The Sons of God...
                                                                     (Well, we are about to be crucified on Good Friday)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/19/2018 at 5:30 PM, Saint 1 said:

Barba didn't fail a WADA test, he failed an NRL-administered one and hence they determined the punishment. I also believe that over here, internal tests aren't even considered by Super League beyond them being at the discretion of the clubs to apply and also punish. If Barba had done what he did in the NRL in Super League instead, he would serve 0 ban unless the club deemed it necessary. 

I might be remembering wrong but I think internal testing wasn't allowed by WADA (or at least frowned upon) because players could be moved/hidden/long term injury to avoid the real testers.  

With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 19/04/2018 at 12:30 PM, Saint 1 said:

Barba didn't fail a WADA test, he failed an NRL-administered one and hence they determined the punishment. I also believe that over here, internal tests aren't even considered by Super League beyond them being at the discretion of the clubs to apply and also punish. If Barba had done what he did in the NRL in Super League instead, he would serve 0 ban unless the club deemed it necessary. 

As WADA doesn’t punish cocaine use out of competition. If he’d failed the test under WADA at the time he did he wouldn’t of served a ban at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Just Browny said:

Like the Albert Kelly thread, will be interesting to see if this one drops down for a few years. If he re-emerges in a black and white top I am sure some moral compasses will be recalibrated.

Could you make your dislike for Hull FC a bit less obvious? People might actually bother with what you're saying then. Every mention is a negative.

Wells%20Motors%20(Signature)_zps67e534e4.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

You have argued that people would be grasping at straws by relying on a technicality yet are relying on the assumption that he likely theoretically broke the law on possession of a controlled substance even though there are plenty of reasons to assume (amount held, the length of time it was held for, public interest) means that crime would never be punished and will only ever exist theoretically.

So, he's admitted taking them. He must have had possession of them to do that. Possession is a crime, regardless of the amount held or for how long. It's not a serious crime, but it is a crime. Him likely not being punished for it even if he was caught is not exactly an argument for him not committing it in the first place.

It doesn't theoretically exist. He admitted he took it. There's your proof he had possession. 

Give me just one instance he could have it in his system without having had possession (baring in mind he admitted taking it).

9 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

You seem to be under the impression that the very fact of having had taken drugs equates to the offence of possession of a controlled substance, and you seem to have forgotten that in the absence of it being proven in a court of law you are innocent of any crime.

You seem to be under the impression that just because you haven't been caught means you haven't committed a crime. You're literally saying that until the courts have determined it, no crime has been committed. 

Just because the courts haven't processed it, doesn't mean a crime hasn't happened. It's a lesser crime, so they are obviously going to prioritise. But just because the courts haven't caught someone shooting someone else in the head doesn't mean that there wasn't a crime committed.

Wells%20Motors%20(Signature)_zps67e534e4.jpg
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 8 months later...

16 month ban apparently.

Anybody confirm this and if it's backdated?

                                                                     Hull FC....The Sons of God...
                                                                     (Well, we are about to be crucified on Good Friday)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, Old Frightful said:

16 month ban apparently.

Anybody confirm this and if it's backdated?

BBC said he's back available in July 2019. 

I feel for him given why he took it. I don't think it should be treated the same way as someone who took steroids, EPO, HGH etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/18/2018 at 11:10 PM, hunsletgreenandgold said:

Possibly the most stupid post I've ever read on here and that's saying something. 

First of all Minns played at Leeds with Hardaker last over 2 years ago - but don't let that get in the way of you trying to make a link....

By your reckoning Hull KR should probably strike off Maguire, Mulhern and Clarkson too as they're bound to have been at it too? 

Sacked and forgotten about? Whether you believe the comments he's made about the the affect the passing of his mother has had or not, this young man needs help. What happened to Terry Newton after his ban is still way too fresh in mind to think that's the way we should treat players in this situation. 

Between UKAD, the RFL and Hull KR I'm sure he'll get whatever punishment, but more importantly whatever support he needs to get through this clearly difficult period in his life. 

Fair points. But you are not quite right in suggesting that his was a "stupid" post, it was pathetic ignorant and bigoted. 

May I add to all concerned that, for health reasons these days, I have the odd half of bitter a week with the odd sniff... of white wine.  I mainline on green tea, preferably jasmine green tea.  I feel better for it.  I commend it to all who care to listen.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, PREPOSTEROUS said:

I know and it seems bizarre it takes this long. Often the bans are nearly served by the time the judgement is passed.

Procedure (essentially as in a court of law) has to be followed; the time it takes to analyse, and confirm the results, inform the offender, prepare for the hearing, obtain specialist/expert evidence, arrange the hearing, allow time for appeal etc and the time quickly goes. The 3 cases prior to Minns' took 8, 12 and 7 months between offence and publication.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's a different generation where drug taking is a lot more commonplace. If he'd just drunk himself into an alcoholic stupor everyone would be happy. There was a thread recently about how prevalent drug taking is on the game. He will be banned, but he is still a young man and still a human being who has made a mistake.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.