I got a news story now - but not much detail :
Shane Warne was found guilty of a drugs charge by an Australian Cricket Board anti-doping committee and suspended for 12 months.
Warne, 33, tested positive for a diuretic on January 22, the day he announced his retirement from one-day cricket.
He claimed to have been given the tablet by his mother Brigitte, who gave evidence in his defence yesterday.
The three-person ACB committee chaired by Queensland judge Glen Williams found the charge against Warne of using a prohibited method to be proven.
The 12-month ban starts on February 10 and rules Warne out of the World Cup and upcoming Test series against the West Indies, Bangladesh, Zimbabwe, India and Sri Lanka.
Guilty of using a banned method
- does that mean there was evidence of the diuretic being used as a masking agent, or lack of evidence that it wasn't? How are the laws framed I wonder - was the onus of proof on Shane or on the prosecution?
[ 02-21-2003, 09:36 PM: Message edited by: Davros ]