Cricket-Match-Special ... A forum for discussion

100+ stand now though.

Why is James Harris playing for Kent?

Due to Billings and Denly's injuries our squad was almost such that we couldn't have fielded a team.

Another proud chapter in this year's ODI season

Typical England. Hales named in the WC squad and then a few days later withdrawn for a drugs ban that was known about when the squad was announced.

With Billings out the WC I suppose we're looking at another chance for James Vince or possibly Joe Clarke. Doesn't seem to be any buzz around Liam Livinstone anymore.

Too late for Bopara and Bell....

After 2 years of as close to ODI dominance as we've ever got, England predictably pick the World Cup build-up to start falling apart.

The bowlers are pissed off about Archer, the batsmen are getting injured or being stupid.

Hopefully it'll all come together in a few weeks, but I am losing what confidence I had.

Recreational drugs should not be tested for, and should not carry any penalty under competitive drug testing. This is a dumb move... if he can hit a ball and run, it shouldnt matter that he hoovers the odd line or lights the odd joint in his personal time.

I agree. But suspect we are in a minority.

I agree too. I've never understood the reasons for a ban for recreational drugs.

Its the idea that recreational drug taking leads to substance abuse, which sporting boards and clubs obviously dont want for their assets. But these sorts of policies are always written by people very detached from reality; lets take a bad case scenario and say Hales has taken cocaine, and not something milder. You get two groups using the drug in vastly different habits. Cocaine substance abuse is prevalent only really in people who find it through abuse of other gateway drugs, and that abuse is more almost exclusively linked to forms of mental illness or environment factors that aggravate it. The second group are people who just take it after a few drinks so they can have a good night, and these people hardly factor in figures on an abusive scale.

The first group, the problem one, you can test for and try and stop it, but its likely that their abuse has any bearing on their ability to engage in professional sports. They are already arguably in an unfit state of mind, and by statistical definitions are about 100 times more likely to be abusive drinkers, 100 times more likely to be smoking excessively, 100 times more likely to already be using other drugs in combination. So you bust someone like this for cocaine, its hardly going to matter..... they are probably already deeply in a spiral of abuse or depression that limits their use in professional sport.

Its been a big thing in the NFL recently with medical THC. People started to fail drugs tests all over, but when you get down to the nitty gritty, these are a mix of people passed a joint at a house party who have habits that are hardly worth bothering with, both on a social and health point of view when considering a parallel to the perfectly acceptable post match p*ss up (in fact, they create far less issues from all perspectives)..... or they are people who are in deep physical or physiological pain living with the pressures of the sport. Its been proven if these people dont smoke the odd joint, they turn to abuse of harsher drugs, or become addicted to prescription meds.

The policy is improving there, because now they have a three strikes and your out style of thing, but inside those three strikes each player follows a course that tackles the issues in hand.... if there is no issue, the final judgement about suspension is often swept under the carpet. People only really get banned for taking things of a more powerful nature, and only as and when they have been through a lot of physiological treatment.

Josh Gordon, of the New England Patriots for instance, is currently indefinitely banned, but the player himself has acknowledged that his drugs use puts him in a position that makes his participation unsafe (his been busted numerous times for class A drugs, and says hes played under the influence, which puts everyone in danger)...... I think the general consensus is, once he gets clean through the programmes presented to him through help and guidance, he will have the ban lifted.

PEDs are different, but for recreational it seems bans are only used to protect the safety of the individual and those around him. This seems sensible.

Without any evidence of abusive patterns, there is no justification for banning players. If anything, doing so puts these people in great risk categories should they subsequently have to deal with more harsh issues that mix with access, willingness, and tendency to use drugs.

The nativity can be summed up by Michael Vaughan taking the 1970s school assembly wisdom of "I never took drugs just to show off to my mates as the big man"........ Yes mate.... all those heavy heroin users you pass on the street are just doing it to look cool.

Sometimes Vaughan needs to learn when to shut his bloody mouth.

sussexpob wrote:The nativity can be summed up by Michael Vaughan taking the 1970s school assembly wisdom of "I never took drugs just to show off to my mates as the big man"........ Yes mate.... all those heavy heroin users you pass on the street are just doing it to look cool.

Sometimes Vaughan needs to learn when to shut his bloody mouth.

I assume it's "naivety" that Vaughan is being accused of and whilst I don't possess the expertise of Sussexpob on substance abuse the training I have had from experts on the subject did indicate that in most instances substance abuse does begin as a result of peer pressure.
The fact is, though,that Hales is breaking the law and he has signed a contract which includes clear sanctions for instances of drug abuse. He was already under a warning regarding his conduct as a result of Bristolgate and has then ignored the warning after his initial sanction regarding drug abuse. He'd have been fully aware of the clear consequences of his non-compliance. Personally I can't see he has any argument for leniency but, of course, I wouldn't claim to be an expert on the subject.

F

GarlicJam wrote:F

Fogged off?

Fair point about the legality. Drug use sustains pretty unpleasant crime and it's hard to defend from that point of view.