• The forum upgrades are now largely complete.
    Please read this thread for more details.
    New user registrations are currently disabled.

Burnham

Status
Not open for further replies.

watchingfromafar said:
Like he has just repaid them by failing not 1, not 2, but 3 drug tests inside a year
Click to expand...
And the 3rd came hot on the heels of a 21 day suspense ....... mega stupid as well as stupid. Did he not realise that after the suspension he was bound to be tested again?
 
badger55 said:
I heard this on Monday, but wasn't sure about the source of the information.
Why haven't Durham CCC made a statement ?
Typical of them, keep the supporters in the dark and let the rumours seep out.
Click to expand...
You must be logged on to see external links
 
I hope the lad gets the help he needs as he obviously has a problem with whatever substance hes been taking. Very talented cricketer and people make mistakes.
 
Mackem DJ said:
is anyone left in society not on Coke!? Ffs

This disagreeer:lol:
Click to expand...

What? I'm not disagreeing with anyone in the slightest

Christ these internet trolls are annoying

Vipers1990 said:
I hope the lad gets the help he needs as he obviously has a problem with whatever substance hes been taking. Very talented cricketer and people make mistakes.
Click to expand...

This.

He's young

Needs to show he can learn
 
Pleased they have stood by him. Yes he has made a huge error, but he hasn't got things as easy as a lot of people make out, and Durham supporting him will hopefully be his lifeline.
 
My take on this:

Which recreational drug(s) was it?

Although I don't understand why anyone would actually get a ban for taking recreational drugs. I'm not saying sportsmen should all be on weed and pills, but if it isn't a PED, what is to be gained from taking them? If the police aren't going to prosecute - why should the necessary governing bodies? I've got quite a liberal view on it because after all, it isn't going to give them an unfair advantage and I'd rather see support given in terms of education and rehabilitation than hindrance.

However, that said, I think he should have his contract ripped up, I really do. THIRD offence for fuck sake?! There's a drug testing policy in place in my job, one failure and you're gone. What's more, he clearly hasn't learnt his lesson. How f***ing thick do you have to be to know the rules, yet continuously break them?!

As I say, the rules IMO around recreational drug use are wrong, but whilst they are what they are, all sportsmen know what they can and can't do. I'd be happy to let Burnham stay a part of the squad, but he can do that on his own time out of his own pocket for me. The club are cash strapped as it is and to lose someone for a whole year, through their own stupidity, doesn't warrant paying them in my view.

Finally, suppose Beefy can't sack anyone for taking recreational drugs can he?! :lol:
 
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.
 
brandon said:
My take on this:

Which recreational drug(s) was it?

Although I don't understand why anyone would actually get a ban for taking recreational drugs. I'm not saying sportsmen should all be on weed and pills, but if it isn't a PED, what is to be gained from taking them? If the police aren't going to prosecute - why should the necessary governing bodies? I've got quite a liberal view on it because after all, it isn't going to give them an unfair advantage and I'd rather see support given in terms of education and rehabilitation than hindrance.

However, that said, I think he should have his contract ripped up, I really do. THIRD offence for fuck sake?! There's a drug testing policy in place in my job, one failure and you're gone. What's more, he clearly hasn't learnt his lesson. How f***ing thick do you have to be to know the rules, yet continuously break them?!

As I say, the rules IMO around recreational drug use are wrong, but whilst they are what they are, all sportsmen know what they can and can't do. I'd be happy to let Burnham stay a part of the squad, but he can do that on his own time out of his own pocket for me. The club are cash strapped as it is and to lose someone for a whole year, through their own stupidity, doesn't warrant paying them in my view.

Finally, suppose Beefy can't sack anyone for taking recreational drugs can he?! :lol:
Click to expand...

i guess maybe it comes into the realms of bringing the sport into disrepute.

if we lived in a confidential world that's one thing but if the results of drugs tests came out in public and it became publically known that sportsman A was bang into drug B and they did nowt it may be seem as condoning it or at least acceptance and whilst it is illegal i don't see how they can do that.

Brexit said:
We'll miss his 10 runs per innings. :evil:
Click to expand...

oof ya fucker :lol:

So just a quick recap.

Stoneman, Jennings*, Borthwick, Burnham, Muchall, Mustard+, Coughlin, Arshad, Hickey, Onions, Hart

since the end of the season before last, is that right?!
 
Last edited:
''Durham will honour the new two-year contract they agreed with the 20-year-old last month. . . The Journal understands they were not informed of his first transgression, as per the protocol.' Depending on the details could the club get some compensation? Were they aware of all the information when negotiating the contract? I know it's stupid of him but addiction doesn't make you act rationally, I hope this is a wake up a call and he takes the chance to sort himself out.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top