Low Graphics Site
White bar
Daily SectionMarker

Misc SectionMarker

Horoscope Recipes Weekly SectionMarker

Weekly SectionMarker

Pakistan's Internet Magazine
Herald
Dawn GroupMarker

Archive, Search, Feedback & HelpMarker

Dawn Classified



FrontPage National International Local Business KSE Forex Sports Editorial Opinion Letters Features Today's Cartoon TV Guide Cowasjee Ayaz Irfan Hussain Review Dawn Magazine Young World Images Dawn Group Subscription To Advertise

DINA
Previous Story DAWN - the Internet Edition Next Story


February 27, 2003 Thursday Zul Hijjah 25, 1423

Click to learn more...
Please Visit our Sponsor (Ads open in separate window)



Warne was reckless, says ACB


JOHANNESBURG, Feb 26: Shane Warne has been described by the Australian Cricket Board (ACB) as “reckless” for taking a diuretic which caused him to be banned from cricket for 12 months.

The official findings of the ACB’s anti-doping tribunal, which were published on Wednesday, said the leg spinner had given “vague, unsatisfactory and inconsistent evidence” to the hearing last week.

“It was a reckless act totally disregarding the possible consequences,” the ACB report said.

“Much of Warne’s evidence on these issues was unsatisfactory and the committee does not accept he was entirely truthful in his responses to questions about his knowledge of the ACB anti-doping policy.” The 33-year-old Warne, one of Wisden’s five cricketers of the 20th century, was sent home from the World Cup two weeks ago after being told about his positive drugs test. He claimed he took a fluid-reducing tablet to improve his appearance without knowing it contained an illegal drug.

But the ACB said: “Coupled with that is his vague, unsatisfactory and inconsistent evidence about the extent of using a Moduretic.”

“The committee is of the view that the evidence does not establish a reasonable belief such as would found a defence of exceptional circumstances.

“The use of the diuretic by Warne was a reckless act totally disregarding the possible consequences.

“He knew he was taking a chemical substance which would have some effect on his body but he made no enquiry when such enquiries were reasonably available as to whether it was a banned substance.”—Reuters






Previous Story Top of Page Next Story

Seprater
Contributions
Privacy Policy
© DAWN Group of Newspapers, 2005