[ad_1]
The judicial officer who heard James Cronin’s anti-doping rape case has defended his decision to give the Munster player a one-month suspension.
Cronin tested positive for two banned substances, prednisolone and prednisone, after the Munster Champions Cup clash at home at Racing 92 on November 23 last year and was not covered by a Therapeutic Use Exemption.
Organizers of the EPCR competition referred the matter to independent judicial officer Antony Davies, who heard the case last week and ruled that the propper had committed an “unintentional anti-doping violation” as a result of a pharmacy dispensing the wrong antibiotics.
Davies’ one-month ban could be appealed by Sport Ireland and the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA), which are considering whether the length of the suspension is too lenient since Cronin will be able to play again after May 16 without missing any game due to the Covid-19 outbreak.
Davies told Off The Ball that he was comfortable with reviewing his decision, but defended his determination that “Cronin’s level of guilt was low” and that the suspension was adequate.
“We know that the prescription issued by the doctor to the pharmacy only had amoxicillin and we know that they gave him a package with two tables, two different types.
Their fault is not asking because athletes, if you are under the program, you are 100% responsible for what is in your system. It is a strict responsibility, you cannot delegate that to other people.
Davies added: “Yes, it could potentially have been avoided, but the big problem here is with the pharmacy, it is a serious and unexpected mistake.
“He saw his own name on the medication and sometimes the players absolutely trust the environment they are in in their clubs, with the team doctor, nutritionists, people like that and they don’t question as much as they should in my opinion ” , exactly what they are asked to take.
“And in this case, James Cronin did not and it was a sloppy but understandable mistake in the circumstances. I felt his level of guilt was low, compared to similar cases towards the low end of zero to two years.”
“Given that there is still the possibility of an appeal by AMA or Sport Ireland in the case, they may very well decide that my decision is a decision that no reasonable legal representative could have made, in which case they will reach a different decision decision themselves … Everything is subject to additional independent review.
“I am sure that if you consider that you are out of this kind of decision that could reasonably be expected in this case, then it will be replaced by something else at a later date.”
[ad_2]