Burnham

[Bri]

Is that proof of addiction?

It's a term thrown round willy nilly. An addiction (though the existence of 'addiction' itself is an ongoing controversial debate) suggests dependency and an inability to function without a substance.

Testing positive three times and your employers encouraging a move away from a particular crowd because they like to dabble isn't anywhere near proof of 'addiction'.

Professional sports clubs would take issue with an employee if they were to get pissed out of their skulls every weekend but they wouldn't necessarily be alcoholics.

He didn't say 'proof', he said it suggests that it is.

 

[The Voice Of Reason]

Haway, Brandon man, not an addiction, when he's failed drug tests three times within a year!! What sort of person are you when you demonstrate "insights" such as this? You haven't a clue whether Burnham is an addict or not, although the known facts suggest that he is.
Have you the slightest idea how harmful and damaging cocaine is to the human body and how easy it is the become addicted? And all you seem to be concerned about is obtaining "compensation" from the ECB for an entirely unrelated matter. You really are an idiot.

Have a debate but cut out calling people names please

 

[New Young Ebor]

Have a debate but cut out calling people names please

Anyone who persistently seeks to minimise drug abuse is an idiot and should be identified as such. There are many posters on this message board who take a responsible attitude towards substance abuse, alcohol abuse and wanton violence, and say so clearly, but there is a hard core of those such as Angel Dave, and Brandon who consistently seek to minimise such behaviour or who actually support it. I think calling Brandon an idiot for his views on the potentially lethal practice of cocaine use is a responsible approach to such a view, especially in view of his own depraved language , such as referring to Colin Graves as a c***. I cannot see any admonishment to him for that particularly obscene name calling b you. An even playing field, please.

 

[The Voice Of Reason]

Just play nice all of you

 

[New Young Ebor]

Just play nice all of you

Fair enough, mate.

 

[DaveAngel]

He knew the rules and all that, but still a nonsense that a player should be banned for taking recreational drugs.

The ECB must be fapping themselves daft.

Player takes cocaine and is caught 3 times

But he shouldn't be banned???

If he sacked from job as would you I bet

 

[mackemmover94]

Player takes cocaine and is caught 3 times

But he shouldn't be banned???

If he sacked from job as would you I bet

But knocking people out cold in the street is okay and should be forgotten about?

You have canny twisted morals - quick to tell people not to comment (despite your own comments) on one story as not all facts released (surprisingly a story involving England's best player), but quick to knock a young lad and call for his head...

 

[chunkyshanhawk53]

What an absolute tit

3 times ffs

He’s a very lucky boy he hasn’t been fired

 

[brandon]

A lot of it comes down to how you define addiction.

I'll stick to the medical definition thanks, after all, I'd believe the opinion of doctors that specialise in addiction to lead the way and inform us.

So:

the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma.

Would you call Jack Burnham a drug addict based on that definition?

I wouldn't. Taking a drug now and again does not make you an addict. Liam Plunkett whilst at Durham for example was a complete and utter piss-head, it eventually lead to him having to leave the club, but he wasn't addicted, he wasn't an alcoholic.

Haway, Brandon man, not an addiction, when he's failed drug tests three times within a year!! What sort of person are you when you demonstrate "insights" such as this? You haven't a clue whether Burnham is an addict or not, although the known facts suggest that he is.
Have you the slightest idea how harmful and damaging cocaine is to the human body and how easy it is the become addicted? And all you seem to be concerned about is obtaining "compensation" from the ECB for an entirely unrelated matter. You really are an idiot.

I do have a clue about whether Burnham is an addict actually, I also know quite a lot about drugs and alcohol and their effect on the body. I have to know as part of my job, but of course you're not really arsed about debating me are you? You're just a hungry troll.

Compensation however, is not an unrelated matter at all. It's been suggested by many people that FTECB should notify Durham, who pay the lads wages, should he receive a ban or fail a drug test. They did not do so in the first instance, therefore, now that he's had 'three strikes' and been given a year ban, Durham should rightly feel aggrieved that they're now in a position where they have to decide whether to sack him or stand by him. By standing by him, they must now pay his wages - as a result, FTECB should be responsible for chipping in, by way of compensation, seeing that they didn't inform Durham (like they should've) that he was on one of the three strikes.

If Durham had known about the earlier failure, they would've had more chance of stopping the later failure.

Quite simple really, I mean if an idiot like me can grasp that, anyone should be able to.

 

[Mrjardine]

He knew the rules and all that, but still a nonsense that a player should be banned for taking recreational drugs.

The ECB must be fapping themselves daft.

He's a talented kid which is why he won't be sacked. If Durham sacked him he'd end up at another county and providing grows up a bit will have a very good career.
The amount of young uns taking cocaine now is a joke mind, it's done more because they think it 'cool' rather than its effects IMO. Very sad.

 

[chunkyshanhawk53]

I'll stick to the medical definition thanks, after all, I'd believe the opinion of doctors that specialise in addiction to lead the way and inform us.

So:

the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma.

Would you call Jack Burnham a drug addict based on that definition?

I wouldn't. Taking a drug now and again does not make you an addict. Liam Plunkett whilst at Durham for example was a complete and utter piss-head, it eventually lead to him having to leave the club, but he wasn't addicted, he wasn't an alcoholic.



I do have a clue about whether Burnham is an addict actually, I also know quite a lot about drugs and alcohol and their effect on the body. I have to know as part of my job, but of course you're not really arsed about debating me are you? You're just a hungry troll.

Compensation however, is not an unrelated matter at all. It's been suggested by many people that FTECB should notify Durham, who pay the lads wages, should he receive a ban or fail a drug test. They did not do so in the first instance, therefore, now that he's had 'three strikes' and been given a year ban, Durham should rightly feel aggrieved that they're now in a position where they have to decide whether to sack him or stand by him. By standing by him, they must now pay his wages - as a result, FTECB should be responsible for chipping in, by way of compensation, seeing that they didn't inform Durham (like they should've) that he was on one of the three strikes.

If Durham had known about the earlier failure, they would've had more chance of stopping the later failure.

Quite simple really, I mean if an idiot like me can grasp that, anyone should be able to.

I struggle with how any of this is the fault of the ECB. He failed the tests, not them. It’s his responsibility fully

 

[brandon]

I struggle with how any of this is the fault of the ECB. He failed the tests, not them. It’s his responsibility fully

Read the post again, or as many times you need to until you get it.

I'm not blaming FTECB for him failing a drug test, I'm blaming them for not informing the club (as they should have).

 

[chunkyshanhawk53]

Read the post again, or as many times you need to until you get it.

I'm not blaming FTECB for him failing a drug test, I'm blaming them for not informing the club (as they should have).

I did read the post. Why should they? Should Burnham have not?

 

[mackembhoy]

He's a talented kid which is why he won't be sacked. If Durham sacked him he'd end up at another county and providing grows up a bit will have a very good career.
The amount of young uns taking cocaine now is a joke mind, it's done more because they think it 'cool' rather than its effects IMO. Very sad.

Everyone is at it like.

 

[Mrjardine]

Especially when MD is a lot cheaper and better

Don't know what MD is to be honest.

 

[Former Player]

From what I’ve been told the agreement between the cricket authorities and the PCA on “recreational drugs” is that on the 1st occurrence the Counties are not informed and the PCA work with the player to sort it out. Therefore Durham were not informed. The FTECB have followed the procedures.
There is only 1 person and 1 person only to blame for this and that is Jack Burnham.
Anybody who fails 2 drugs tests and continues to take drugs must know what’s coming.
He’s a lucky lucky lad that Durham have agreed to honour his contract.

 

[DaveAngel]

But knocking people out cold in the street is okay and should be forgotten about?

You have canny twisted morals - quick to tell people not to comment (despite your own comments) on one story as not all facts released (surprisingly a story involving England's best player), but quick to knock a young lad and call for his head...

He didn't knock anyone out

Instead of f***ing criticizing me read what I say you plank

I said I'm chuffed we are keeping faith with him

 

[New Young Ebor]

At last Brandon has made a sensible point, although I doubt he realises it.
Plunkett was indeed a bad lad when he was associated with Durham, very much in the Burnham/Stokes mould, but his salvation was in moving away.
To paraphrase Dr. Johnson, the finest road that a Durham cricketer sees is the one that leads him away from Durham, as many are now travelling on. It must be like cleansing the Augean stables up there.
Your own knowledge of substance abuse and medical terminology, Brandon mate, doesn't suggest that you are a consultant psychiatrist specialising in substance abuse, does it marra or are you just writing meaningless waffle? I think we should be told, please....

 

[mackem in milan]

I'll stick to the medical definition thanks, after all, I'd believe the opinion of doctors that specialise in addiction to lead the way and inform us.

So:

the state of being enslaved to a habit or practice or to something that is psychologically or physically habit-forming, as narcotics, to such an extent that its cessation causes severe trauma.

Would you call Jack Burnham a drug addict based on that definition?

I wouldn't. Taking a drug now and again does not make you an addict. Liam Plunkett whilst at Durham for example was a complete and utter piss-head, it eventually lead to him having to leave the club, but he wasn't addicted, he wasn't an alcoholic.



I do have a clue about whether Burnham is an addict actually, I also know quite a lot about drugs and alcohol and their effect on the body. I have to know as part of my job, but of course you're not really arsed about debating me are you? You're just a hungry troll.

Compensation however, is not an unrelated matter at all. It's been suggested by many people that FTECB should notify Durham, who pay the lads wages, should he receive a ban or fail a drug test. They did not do so in the first instance, therefore, now that he's had 'three strikes' and been given a year ban, Durham should rightly feel aggrieved that they're now in a position where they have to decide whether to sack him or stand by him. By standing by him, they must now pay his wages - as a result, FTECB should be responsible for chipping in, by way of compensation, seeing that they didn't inform Durham (like they should've) that he was on one of the three strikes.

If Durham had known about the earlier failure, they would've had more chance of stopping the later failure.

Quite simple really, I mean if an idiot like me can grasp that, anyone should be able to.

Where did you get that definition from? This seems to be the

You must be logged on to see external links

'Addiction is defined as not having control over doing, taking or using something to the point where it could be harmful to you.' The key point there is whether he has control over his drug use and there is some suggestion that he doesn't but not enough to prove it either way. I admit that I am not qualified to give a medical diagnosis and whether you class it as an addiction, a problem with cocaine, or whatever I just hope he sorts himself out and goes to have a good career with Durham.

From what I’ve been told the agreement between the cricket authorities and the PCA on “recreational drugs” is that on the 1st occurrence the Counties are not informed and the PCA work with the player to sort it out. Therefore Durham were not informed. The FTECB have followed the procedures.
There is only 1 person and 1 person only to blame for this and that is Jack Burnham.
Anybody who fails 2 drugs tests and continues to take drugs must know what’s coming.
He’s a lucky lucky lad that Durham have agreed to honour his contract.

I was just going by this line in the Journal article 'The Journal understands they were not informed of his first transgression, as per the protocol.' I don't know what the protocol is, if it is for the player or FTECB to report, timelines etc. or what effect not complying with the protocol had on Durham's decision making. It just seems a strange thing to put in if it has no relevance and there might be more to come out about it.

 

[brandon]

Where did you get that definition from? This seems to be the

You must be logged on to see external links

'Addiction is defined as not having control over doing, taking or using something to the point where it could be harmful to you.' The key point there is whether he has control over his drug use and there is some suggestion that he doesn't but not enough to prove it either way. I admit that I am not qualified to give a medical diagnosis and whether you class it as an addiction, a problem with cocaine, or whatever I just hope he sorts himself out and goes to have a good career with Durham.



I was just going by this line in the Journal article 'The Journal understands they were not informed of his first transgression, as per the protocol.' I don't know what the protocol is, if it is for the player or FTECB to report, timelines etc. or what effect not complying with the protocol had on Durham's decision making. It just seems a strange thing to put in if it has no relevance and there might be more to come out about it.

I looked it up, but the version you posted was pretty much the same - apply the question I asked: Do you believe Jack Burnham can be described like that? I don't think he can. Again, I reckon he likes a line or a joint now and again, I don't think he's an addict. He's probably f***ing stupid for thinking he could get away with it, but that doesn't mean he's an addict.

At last Brandon has made a sensible point, although I doubt he realises it.
Plunkett was indeed a bad lad when he was associated with Durham, very much in the Burnham/Stokes mould, but his salvation was in moving away.
To paraphrase Dr. Johnson, the finest road that a Durham cricketer sees is the one that leads him away from Durham, as many are now travelling on. It must be like cleansing the Augean stables up there.
Your own knowledge of substance abuse and medical terminology, Brandon mate, doesn't suggest that you are a consultant psychiatrist specialising in substance abuse, does it marra or are you just writing meaningless waffle? I think we should be told, please....

All of that bollocks and you accuse ME of 'waffle' .

I've had a fair amount of education on drug use and abuse with my job - I also get regularly drug tested, so I do know quite a bit about it. Believe what you want, I'm not telling you what I do, nor am I telling you my sort code and account number.