Jump to content

Andre Russell banned for one year for doping-code violation


Recommended Posts

Posted

"West Indies allrounder Andre Russell has been banned for one year from cricket by an independent anti-doping panel in Kingston. The ban is effective from January 31.

Patrick Foster, Russell's lawyer, confirmed the development and said he would discuss all options with his client including appealing the ban.

Russell had missed filing his whereabouts on three separate occasions in 2015 - which amounts to a failed drug test under World Anti-Doping Agency guidelines.

The Jamaica Anti-Doping Commission brought charges against Russell in March last year for not filing his whereabouts on January 1, July 1 and July 25 in 2015."

 

Source: http://www.espncricinfo.com/westindies/content/story/1080431.html

 

Seems very harsh to me for not filing about his whereabouts for 3 days.

Posted (edited)

Missing drug tests is a serious offense .Unless justifiable reason was presented ,the ban is pretty much with in their guidlelines.Its not without precednt either.

 

Rio Ferdinand (Former England football player) was also banned for eight months for a similar offense in 2003.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/football/3333091.stm

Edited by BeautifulGame
Posted
2 minutes ago, Malcolm Merlyn said:

Strip WI team of its champion ship

Only if 3 or more members of a team are found guilty in a a same tournament,only then the team's results will be disqualified.Atleast thats the rules in Football .Pretty sure it will be the same in cricket as all come under WADA guidelines.

Posted

Wouldn't be surprised if his ban is reduced on appeal.  If a pill-popping Yasir Shah can claim he took his wife's medicine by mistake and get his ban reduced, I'm sure Russell will get something similar. 

 

 

Posted
21 minutes ago, Stumped said:

International cricketers have to provide their location for a 1 hour period for every day of the year so that random doping tests can be carried out by WADA. I'm presuming the locations that Russell provided on the days specified where found to be false.

Oh ok, thanks for the Info. The process seems a bit odd though, will have to look into it online.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...