+- +-

+-Newcomers Start Here

+-Harlequins/Rugby Links


+-Articles


Author Topic: O/T Wasps' Ashley Johnson given backdated ban for failed drugs test  (Read 759 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Boonie

  • A Team Captain
  • **
  • Posts: 433
What a mistake to make! Wonder if he's taken any other of his wife's pills by accident?! ;) Seriously though - it is a bit of a minefield out there, but this shows that the testing does actually work.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/rugby-union/44969119

Wasps forward Ashley Johnson will be available for the start of the Premiership season despite receiving a six-month ban for failing a drugs test.

The 32-year-old convinced an independent panel that he mistakenly consumed his wife's dietary supplement before failing the test on 7 February.

His ban has been backdated to February, despite Johnson playing four times for Wasps since then.

Hydrochlorothiazide was found in his urine in an out-of-competition test.

South African Johnson said: "I was horrified when I got the test results and once we tracked back and worked out I had inadvertently taken the wrong tablet.

"I completely accept that I am responsible for everything in my body."

The Rugby Football Union's lawyers wanted the suspension to be imposed from 16 March, when Johnson was informed of his provisional suspension.

That would have seen Johnson miss three further league matches, with Wasps opening their 2018-19 campaign at Worcester Warriors on 1 September.

He will now be free to resume playing from 7 August.

A statement from Wasps read: "At a hearing conducted by the independent national anti-doping panel, [Johnson] advised he mistakenly took his wife's fat burner 'the Secret' rather than his own legitimate supplement 'Nutrilean'.

"Under World Rugby regulations, Johnson is permitted to fully resume training with his club with immediate effect."

Wasps Director of rugby David Young said: "This situation has highlighted just how easily a player can make a mistake of this kind.

"We have therefore strongly reinforced to all our squad that they must always be on their guard and fully aware of exactly what they consume."

Johnson added: "Drug use is not something I would ever condone, and from now on I will be extra vigilant at all times."

The fat burner product was tested by both the player and the RFU for hydrochlorothiazide - which was not listed in the product's ingredients - and on both occasions it returned a positive result, an RFU statement said.

Stephen Watkins, RFU anti-doping and illicit drugs programme manager, added: "[Johnson] was careless in his failure to acknowledge his responsibilities as a rugby player and ensure he was dutiful in checking what he consumed.

"The risk of contamination in supplements is significant to all players and therefore we advise that there is no guarantee that a supplement is free from prohibited substances."

RodneyRegis

  • Lions Captain
  • ******
  • Posts: 3385
Stephen Watkins, RFU anti-doping and illicit drugs programme manager, added: "[Johnson] was careless in his failure to acknowledge his responsibilities, but we don't give a toss and we're going to let him play as soon as he likes. We've also brought him loads of coke to say sorry.

guest25

  • Guest

deadlyfrom5yardsout

  • Lions Captain
  • ******
  • Posts: 3838
Farce. A ban means nothing if you don't actually miss any game time.

T-Bone

  • Lions Captain
  • ******
  • Posts: 3106
Laughable punishment. To backdate it is one thing, to back date it to a period after which he played several more games is ridiculous. Yet again there is inconsistency. Some bans, albeit not for doping, take into account "meaningful games" so that a ban doesn't just run through the off season. I'm sure some of our players have been banned and they've not been allowed to count friendlies / warm up games / Anglo-Welsh games as part of the ban. In this case, the ban covered a period when he continued to play, and then a long period with no games at all, so basically he has had no ban and they've showed that they don't give a toss about doping

Fearless Fred

  • Lions Captain
  • ******
  • Posts: 3776
Even taking his account of taking the tablet inadvertently at face value, a ban has been judged as the appropriate sanction. For the sanction to be backdated is one thing (I can see the logic behind that) but considering he played a number of meaningful games during the period the ban was supposed to cover, he should miss the same number of games in the coming season.

poorfour

  • Lions Captain
  • ******
  • Posts: 3606
Even taking his account of taking the tablet inadvertently at face value, a ban has been judged as the appropriate sanction. For the sanction to be backdated is one thing (I can see the logic behind that) but considering he played a number of meaningful games during the period the ban was supposed to cover, he should miss the same number of games in the coming season.

That would seem fair, wouldn't it?

Fearless Fred

  • Lions Captain
  • ******
  • Posts: 3776
Even taking his account of taking the tablet inadvertently at face value, a ban has been judged as the appropriate sanction. For the sanction to be backdated is one thing (I can see the logic behind that) but considering he played a number of meaningful games during the period the ban was supposed to cover, he should miss the same number of games in the coming season.

That would seem fair, wouldn't it?

Ideally the games he would miss would be the equivalent fixtures to those he played in during the "ban" (eg if he played at home against Sarries, he'd miss that fixture this season). But yes, it would only be fair to see him miss games this season.

drd

  • Amateur Player
  • *
  • Posts: 1
Brilliant

So quins were sanctioned quite rightly after bloodgate

Sarries and bath p++s all over the salary cap no sanction at all

Ashley done for a doping offence  and the league bend over backwards to help him out

Not interest in his excuse he is a professional player who is aid very well he is responsible for his own actions

They are a joke organisation

BedfordshireBoy

  • Lions Captain
  • ******
  • Posts: 1150
Even taking his account of taking the tablet inadvertently at face value, a ban has been judged as the appropriate sanction. For the sanction to be backdated is one thing (I can see the logic behind that) but considering he played a number of meaningful games during the period the ban was supposed to cover, he should miss the same number of games in the coming season.

That would seem fair, wouldn't it?

Yep, doesn`t make any sense to ignore the 3 matches that he played.

Chipstead Quin

  • 1st Xv Starter
  • **
  • Posts: 529
I think its fair to say that the slimming pill he took hasn't had a fundamental effect ...

If the guy was taking steroids on a regular basis or other performace enhancing drugs I could understand an outcry .. but this seems like its just a metaphorical smack on the hand ( no pun intended)  to let the rest of the RPA know they are on the case and people are being checked

If this is the only high profile case then Id say our sport is pretty clean ...

« Last Edit: Friday 27-Jul-2018, 16:17* by Chipstead Quin »

Hellequin

  • Senior Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 77
My thoughts would be that they do believe it was an honest mistake, but had to announce a strong sentence as a warning/benchmark. Probably means that if he reoffends the punishment would be severe and for everyone else there is no more excuses not to be vigilant.

T-Bone

  • Lions Captain
  • ******
  • Posts: 3106
But it's not a strong punishment, at all. He's been banned for no games. Not one. It's not only a weak punishment, it's no punishment. It sends the message that if you accidentally took a prohibited substance because it belonged to your wife, that's fine.

KiltedQuin

  • Academy Captain
  • *
  • Posts: 342
The drug he 'inadvertantly' took is a prescription only medicine in the UK and has no place in weight management. It is a banned substance in sport for two reasons. Firstly, as a diuretic, it removes water from the body and as such will temporarily reduce your weight, an obvious advantage in sports such as boxing where there are weight based matches. The second is it can mask the presence of a number of drugs of abuse including anabolic steroids.

The farcical ban situation notwithstanding, which is a separate issue, you may wish to make your own conclusions on the fact it was found in one of his samples.

Hellequin

  • Senior Player
  • ****
  • Posts: 77
Was trying to differentiate between sentence and punishment. Sentence was 6 months which is pretty harsh the actual punishment was negligible. The real quibble is should he be taking any medication he can't recognise anyway.

 

+-User

Welcome, Guest.
Please login or register.
 
 
 

Login with your social network

Forgot your password?

+-Site Statistics

Members
Total Members: 1162
Latest: Marsi1e
New This Month: 2
New This Week: 1
New Today: 0
Stats
Total Posts: 119467
Total Topics: 6383
Most Online Today: 365
Most Online Ever: 4089
(Sunday 10-Oct-2021, 12:56*)
Users Online
Members: 30
Guests: 244
Total: 274