Interesting for the outcome to be related to his state of mind. Does it create a precident?

What you going on about?

Refused a test www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/42558028

Refused a test www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/42558028

Bailey refused to give a sample for anti doping testing, which is an offence for which he was charged, but Bailey contested that he believed the water provided at the had been tampered with and a psychiatrist ruled that he was unable to process the information given to him when warned that his refusal was an offence for which he could be banned, meaning he has not been judged as culpable for his refusal. It's all a bit confusing, granted I know little else of the case or of bailey's circumstances of late.

He does what he wants

He does what he wants

He's Ryan Bailey

He does what he wants

No - the judgement says that it does not believe so: "[iWe should, however, like to stress that the present is a truly exceptional case on its own very special facts and psychological evidence. We do not think it should be taken as any sort of precedent for other cases."[/i

Dear god, seriously man.

Awww are you upset because he didnt join the Leeds Rhinos Forner Champions retirement home at the Wildcats like so many others?

Quote Clearwing="Clearwing"Refused a test www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/42558028'" For me it raises more question that answer

Quote Clearwing="Clearwing"Refused a test www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/42558028'" For me it raises more question that answer

How long does it take for traces of cocaine to leave your system... asking for a friend

Chief among which, why is the Canadian doping agency asking players to pee in unsealed bottles?

of course there are two trains of thought here,



1 he thought he would fail so refused the test and made a good excuse about water being tampered with.



2 he is right to refuse a test due to the water provided not being sealed. which it should be.



obviously the governing body and ukad went with the available evidence and agreed with number 2. that combined with a clean test taken a couple of days later. so i am sure if ukad thought there was any funny business they still would have upheld a ban.



i suppose only the player knows which is the correct response.



this seems a bit simmiler to the Diane modahl case 20 years ago, where she sued the anti doping authority for failing to stop contamination of samples.