Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Munster Team Talk Thread - Snymans are(n't) Forever

Options
1…114115117119120…851

Comments

  • Options
    #3482
    The Lost Sheep
    Registered Users Posts: 14,967 ✭✭✭✭The Lost Sheep


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Just watched the Mun v Sale match that munster posted on their YouTube channel last week


    It
    Was
    Class

    Except for the wierd glitch with the match clock
    Had me questioning 'has rugby always been 40 minutes a half??'
    pretty much.
    Origins of half time first came through games played at rugby school itself and 40 minutes per half first mentioned in the laws in the 1920s


  • Options
    #3483
    phog
    Registered Users Posts: 23,928 ✭✭✭✭phog


    Akrasia wrote: »
    Just watched the Mun v Sale match that munster posted on their YouTube channel last week


    It
    Was
    Class

    Except for the wierd glitch with the match clock
    Had me questioning 'has rugby always been 40 minutes a half??'

    2004 - Munster played Wasps in Lansdowne Road, it was an epic match, tries from one side countering a try from the other,in the final minutes Munster had Hendo and DOC in the bin and Leota scored in the corner to give them the lead once more, I looked up at the stadium clock and thought great we have time for a comeback but unfortunately I hadn't realised the clock was stopping for match stoppages, it was my first time seeing a stadium clock keeping time with ref so when the ref blew the final whistle I was devastated.

    As an aside I think Leota's try was a knockon but that's another story.


  • Options
    #3484
    Panda Killa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,384 ✭✭✭Panda Killa


    Soooo, he was given the wrong medication by the pharmacy... absolutely no attempt to dope...but he still gets a month ban.....
    https://www.munsterrugby.ie/2020/04/20/disciplinary-decision-james-cronin/?fbclid=IwAR0b1akCbD-5-JzpmkFQBuQVjIqiWyXxPII1w9G7_jokLwG3OipnHnvk2gU


  • Options
    #3485
    Cookiemunster
    Moderators, Sports Moderators Posts: 11,886 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cookiemunster


    The ban runs from April 15th to May 16th, so he won't miss anything. There's always some sort of sanction as a warning to players to be more careful as to what they're taking.


  • Options
    #3486
    connemara man
    Moderators, Sports Moderators, Regional West Moderators Posts: 6,773 Mod ✭✭✭✭connemara man


    Panda Killa wrote: »
    Soooo, he was given the wrong medication by the pharmacy... absolutely no attempt to dope...but he still gets a month ban.....
    https://www.munsterrugby.ie/2020/04/20/disciplinary-decision-james-cronin/?fbclid=IwAR0b1akCbD-5-JzpmkFQBuQVjIqiWyXxPII1w9G7_jokLwG3OipnHnvk2gU

    The man's body is his work, so he needs to be 100% sure of what's going into it. And the judgement says as much

    These bans reinforce that and its a fair enough ban TBH


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3487
    Panda Killa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,384 ✭✭✭Panda Killa


    connemara man wrote: »
    The man's body is his work, so he needs to be 100% sure of what's going into it. And the judgement says as much

    These bans reinforce that and its a fair enough ban TBH

    I'd argue that tbh... (says you, what's new)
    My fear here is that that the doctor prescribed the meds.. which were WADA approved.....the dispenser provided the wrong meds.
    Now.. unless James Cronin is a chemist there is no way he's going to know that the makeup of the drugs aren't correct...
    Now it's obvious that the judgment is deliberately set to run when there is no rugby... but I'd be questioning this judgement as it sets a dangerous president....and wonder what happens to the chemist in all of this


  • Options
    #3488
    connemara man
    Moderators, Sports Moderators, Regional West Moderators Posts: 6,773 Mod ✭✭✭✭connemara man


    Panda Killa wrote: »
    I'd argue that tbh... (says you, what's new)
    My fear here is that that the doctor prescribed the meds.. which were WADA approved.....the dispenser provided the wrong meds.
    Now.. unless James Cronin is a chemist there is no way he's going to know that the makeup of the drugs aren't correct...
    Now it's obvious that the judgment is deliberately set to run when there is no rugby... but I'd be questioning this judgement as it sets a dangerous president....and wonder what happens to the chemist in all of this

    I'm just going of the judgement and one of the meds says its a steroid in black and white on the paper.

    As he's a sportsman he needs to be aware of what is going into his body, he trusted the chemist and doctor did their jobs correctly just like either of us would, but as a sportsperson he needs to hold himself to a higher standard than trusting people have done their jobs correctly as his livelihood relies on it.

    I dont think he took anything on purpose, I see and understand where the ban comes from and don't think its harsh or unfair


  • Options
    #3489
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,324 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    connemara man wrote: »
    I'm just going of the judgement and one of the meds says its a steroid in black and white on the paper.

    As he's a sportsman he needs to be aware of what is going into his body, he trusted the chemist and doctor did their jobs correctly just like either of us would, but as a sportsperson he needs to hold himself to a higher standard than trusting people have done their jobs correctly as his livelihood relies on it.

    I dont think he took anything on purpose, I see and understand where the ban comes from and don't think its harsh or unfair
    Yeah. WADA rules are very clear on the subject. It's the athlete's ultimate responsibility to ensure that they are taking medications that aren't banned. Otherwise, it'd be open season on blaming doctors and pharmacists and no actual doper would ever be sanctioned.


  • Options
    #3490
    lawrencesummers
    Registered Users Posts: 8,518 ✭✭✭lawrencesummers


    Has the pharmacist been reported for their error?

    The mis-administration of medicines is extremely serious, potentially fatal and can be the subject of legal ramifications.

    If the pharmacist hasn’t been reported and investigated then it completely clouds my opinion on this.


  • Options
    #3491
    Caranica
    Registered Users Posts: 10,048 ✭✭✭✭Caranica


    It's unclear as to whether the pharmacy is in Ireland or France?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3492
    thomond2006
    Registered Users Posts: 45,433 ✭✭✭✭thomond2006


    Pharmacies in Ireland have to report these errors themselves. The game the judgment references is the home game on the 23th November.


  • Options
    #3493
    Panda Killa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,384 ✭✭✭Panda Killa


    prawnsambo wrote: »
    Yeah. WADA rules are very clear on the subject. It's the athlete's ultimate responsibility to ensure that they are taking medications that aren't banned. Otherwise, it'd be open season on blaming doctors and pharmacists and no actual doper would ever be sanctioned.

    WADA have the right to appeal this verdict


  • Options
    #3494
    Panda Killa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,384 ✭✭✭Panda Killa


    prawnsambo wrote: »
    Yeah. WADA rules are very clear on the subject. It's the athlete's ultimate responsibility to ensure that they are taking medications that aren't banned. Otherwise, it'd be open season on blaming doctors and pharmacists and no actual doper would ever be sanctioned.

    Stupid comment

    All sides are agreed the pharmacy gave the wrong medication..it's not in doubt...
    This is another reason I hope WADA question this verdict...to cut out this kind of name blackening


  • Options
    #3495
    Shefwedfan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 18,958 ✭✭✭✭Shefwedfan


    Panda Killa wrote: »
    Stupid comment

    All sides are agreed the pharmacy gave the wrong medication..it's not in doubt...
    This is another reason I hope WADA question this verdict...to cut out this kind of name blackening

    How is it name blackening?


  • Options
    #3496
    thomond2006
    Registered Users Posts: 45,433 ✭✭✭✭thomond2006


    Panda Killa wrote: »
    Stupid comment

    All sides are agreed the pharmacy gave the wrong medication..it's not in doubt...
    This is another reason I hope WADA question this verdict...to cut out this kind of name blackening

    Read the full judgment. It justifies the month ban.

    https://twitter.com/threeredkings/status/1252256173362950145?s=19


  • Options
    #3497
    Panda Killa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,384 ✭✭✭Panda Killa


    Shefwedfan wrote: »
    How is it name blackening?

    Just look at Larry Summers post


  • Options
    #3498
    Panda Killa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,384 ✭✭✭Panda Killa


    Genuinely...what is a player supposed to do with this shít?


  • Options
    #3499
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,324 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    Panda Killa wrote: »
    Stupid comment

    All sides are agreed the pharmacy gave the wrong medication..it's not in doubt...
    This is another reason I hope WADA question this verdict...to cut out this kind of name blackening
    How is that a stupid comment? Genuinely those are WADA rules. You can't fall back on the excuse that "it was the doctor's fault", even in cases where the banned ingredient is not obvious. The ultimate responsibility is the athlete's.

    This is what the WADA guidelines say about this exact type of situation - inadvertent taking of a banned medication:
    Under the overarching principle of strict liability in effect under anti-doping regulations, as an athlete, you are ultimately responsible for everything that goes into your body, whether it was recommended, prescribed, or even provided by someone else. If an athlete tests positive, the result is a disqualification, and possible sanction or suspension.

    I won't stoop to the level you did. But you know what I'm thinking.


  • Options
    #3500
    Panda Killa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,384 ✭✭✭Panda Killa


    prawnsambo wrote: »
    How is that a stupid comment? Genuinely those are WADA rules. You can't fall back on the excuse that "it was the doctor's fault", even in cases where the banned ingredient is not obvious. The ultimate responsibility is the athlete's.

    This is what the WADA guidelines say about this exact type of situation - inadvertent taking of a banned medication:



    I won't stoop to the level you did. But you know what I'm thinking.

    Actually.. Wada can appeal this ban


  • Options
    #3501
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,324 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    Panda Killa wrote: »
    Actually.. Wada can appeal this ban
    Yes. Most usually on the basis that it was too lenient.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3502
    Panda Killa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,384 ✭✭✭Panda Killa


    prawnsambo wrote: »
    Yes. Most usually on the basis that it was too lenient.

    So you're speculating again that it was deliberately done... There's only one person sinking here ..and it's not me


  • Options
    #3503
    salmocab
    Registered Users Posts: 11,307 ✭✭✭✭salmocab


    Panda Killa wrote: »
    So you're speculating again that it was deliberately done... There's only one person sinking here ..and it's not me

    I don’t think anyone has speculated that at all


  • Options
    #3504
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,324 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    Panda Killa wrote: »
    So you're speculating again that it was deliberately done... There's only one person sinking here ..and it's not me
    You're joking right? You think WADA would appeal a ban on the basis that it was too harsh?


  • Options
    #3505
    Panda Killa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,384 ✭✭✭Panda Killa


    salmocab wrote: »
    I don’t think anyone has speculated that at all

    You'd be wrong..


  • Options
    #3506
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,324 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    Panda Killa wrote: »
    You'd be wrong..
    You accused me of speculating that it was deliberately done. Despite the fact that I quoted in it's entirety the WADA guideline on inadvertent taking of a banned substance.

    You're just wrong and wrong again. And wrong a third time when you intimated that WADA would appeal the ban on the basis of it being too harsh. Despite the fact that you'd just read and replied to my post that pointed out what they say on the subject.


  • Options
    #3507
    Panda Killa
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,384 ✭✭✭Panda Killa


    prawnsambo wrote: »
    You accused me of speculating that it was deliberately done. Despite the fact that I quoted in it's entirety the WADA guideline on inadvertent taking of a banned substance.

    You're just wrong and wrong again. And wrong a third time when you intimated that WADA would appeal the ban on the basis of it being too harsh. Despite the fact that you'd just read and replied to my post that pointed out what they say on the subject.

    I pointed out that WADA can appeal the verdict...they are not the only ones.
    If you care to read the screenshot of the finding that I posted, you will see where this judgement is morally wrong.. you had a snide little dig..and that ok..no biggie.. but Larry summers went even further and therein lies the issue.
    The finding states that the player cannot blindly trust the doctor...and that is the issue....you have to trust your doctor..or else you're looking to Karen off Facebook who sells essential oils.
    No player can realistically second guess his doctor
    Seems the pharmacy have apologised to Cronin...it's his local...and will be left at that by the player personally


  • Options
    #3508
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,324 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    Panda Killa wrote: »
    I pointed out that WADA can appeal the verdict...they are not the only ones.
    If you care to read the screenshot of the finding that I posted, you will see where this judgement is morally wrong.. you had a snide little dig..and that ok..no biggie.. but Larry summers went even further and therein lies the issue.
    The finding states that the player cannot blindly trust the doctor...and that is the issue....you have to trust your doctor..or else you're looking to Karen off Facebook who sells essential oils.
    No player can realistically second guess his doctor
    Seems the pharmacy have apologised to Cronin...it's his local...and will be left at that by the player personally
    I didn't make a snide little dig. You just took it that way because... well I won't speculate. I literally pointed out why the rule is there. Because you seemed to be having difficulty comprehending it.

    Morality has nothing to do with it. All athletes are told to consult the WADA lists every time they take medications. They are told to inform their doctor that they are athletes. They are told to check active ingredients and treatments. They are told to apply for a TUE if they need a medication that is banned. That is their responsibility. You mightn't like it, but all athletes are made aware of their responsibilities wrt taking medications.

    And yes, they are expected to check what their doctor prescribes and what their pharmacy gives them. It's in the damn rules.

    For the record, I sympathise with Cronin. Rugby is not a heavily policed sport like athletics. But I understand why he got the ban. And it was a lenient one.


  • Options
    #3509
    thomond2006
    Registered Users Posts: 45,433 ✭✭✭✭thomond2006


    There's a responsibility put on athletes to be extra vigilant with what they put in their bodies. The ban in many ways is harsh, in other ways it's justified.


  • Options
    #3510
    Squidgy Black
    Registered Users Posts: 21,610 ✭✭✭✭Squidgy Black


    I think the main point to take away from all this is Cronin waived the B test and admitted guilt to it rather than going through an appeal process, so I'm not sure why people are getting wound up by the decision when it seems the player himself was accepting responsibility....


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3511
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,324 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    Squidgy Black wrote: »
    I think the main point to take away from all this is Cronin waived the B test and admitted guilt to it rather than going through an appeal process, so I'm not sure why people are getting wound up by the decision when it seems the player himself was accepting responsibility....
    Bit of a wake up call for rugby players generally. As I said above, it's not heavily policed as a sport and players would be routinely taking medications. The doctors would generally be on top of things, but pharmacies just wouldn't be on the same wavelength.


Advertisement