Bailey avoids four-year ban
FORMER England and Great Britain prop Ryan Bailey has avoided a fouryear ban despite refusing to take a drugs test in a case even his lawyer described as “extremely unusual”.
In what is believed to be a first, Bailey’s legal team managed to persuade a National Anti-Doping Panel that while the player had committed a rule violation in refusing the test, he “bore no fault or negligence” and should therefore not be sanctioned.
Heard in London last month, the details of the case are revealed in the panel’s written decision.
The key section, witness testimony from two psychiatrists, has been redacted, but the panel’s chairman Robert Engelhart QC described it as “impressive” and “thoughtful”.
Bailey, who joined the Toronto Wolfpack last April after a distinguished Super League career, can now resume his preparations for the Canadian-based team’s first season in English rugby league’s second tier.
That, however, looked very unlikely when the 33-year-old from Leeds told two Canadian drug-testers, working on behalf of UK Anti-Doping, that he would not give them a urine sample last May because he believed the water they had given him might have been contaminated.
Having already drunk two bottles from their cooler bag, Bailey said he had not heard a “crack” when he turned the cap on a third bottle. He then tried another and said he thought that one was not properly sealed, either.
The testers tried to assure him that they had bought the water only an hour before and they repeatedly reminded him that a refused test is treated as a positive under the rules.
Bailey, who made more than 300 appearances in 13 successful seasons with the Leeds Rhinos, would not change his mind and even wrote down why he was refusing the test on an ‘athlete refusal form’.
His principal lawyer, Daniel Saoul, Ryan Bailey, once of Leeds Rhinos, is tackled by the Wigan defence during the Carnegie Challenge Cup Final against Wigan in 2011 tried to convince the tribunal the case should be dismissed for a number of breaches in testing protocol that he characterised as “a shambles”.
The three-strong panel noted these breaches but said they were insufficient to have the case thrown out. For them, this case boiled down to Bailey’s state of mind.
Engelhart wrote that the panel believed the rules should not be applied on the basis of how a “reasonable man” would have behaved under those circumstances and they allow for “special considerations such as impairment”.
Noting that even Saoul described the case as “extremely unusual, indeed unique”, Engelhart explained Bailey’s response was “entirely irrational” but “his mind was quite unable to take in or process” what the testers were telling him about refusing a test.
Engelhart wrote: “Having heard Mr Bailey give evidence, we do not for one moment think that he is a cheat or was trying to cover up drug taking. Indeed, we note that a few days later Mr Bailey did in fact undergo a drug test (which was negative) without any problem.”
He added that the case was based on “its own special facts and psychological evidence” and should not be taken as “any sort of precedent”.
It is now up to the Rugby Football League, UKAD or the World AntiDoping Agency to decide if they want to appeal against the verdict.
Bailey, who has previously discussed struggling with depression during stints with Hull KR and Castleford in 2015, posted a message on Twitter saying “2018 let’s go” with a picture in his Toronto kit.
In a statement, director of rugby Brian Noble said: “The correct verdict has been returned. On behalf of the Wolfpack, I’d like to thank the tribunal for their professionalism and time in dealing with this complex case.”