CM Jenkins: Giddins banned for 20 months for cocaine use (21 Aug 1996)

21 August 1996

Giddins banned for 20 months for cocaine use

By Christopher Martin-Jenkins

ED GIDDINS, the 25-year-old Sussex and England A fast bowler, was banned from professional cricket until April 1998 by the discipline committee of the Test and County Cricket Board after a hearing at Lord`s yesterday. His registration has been withdrawn until then, with immediate effect. A routine drug test taken under Sports Council regulations on the second day of Sussex`s match against Kent at Tunbridge Wells in late May proved positive.

The drug in question was cocaine, regarded in law as class A, the most serious category. The committee rejected Giddins` contention that he had ingested the drug inadvertently and found instead that he had taken it deliberately. He has 14 days in which to consider an appeal.

Giddins, represented by Lawrie Doffman, solicitor to the Cricketers` Association, was found guilty on three counts; a positive drug test; knowingly taking a prohibited substance; and "behaving in a manner which may bring the game into disrepute". The player said last night: "I`ve absolutely nothing to say. I wish I could."

The severity of the punishment reflects the Board`s perceived need to set an example, pour encourager les autres. They took the view, in a statement, that this was "a grave breach of regulations which was not only likely to bring the game into disrepute but which had the potential to put at risk the safety of fellow players and officials".

It is not clear what exactly is meant by that. There was no question of the drug being taken to enhance a performance. In the case of cocaine this is inconceivable, except, perhaps, to provide a brief burst of extra energy if it were taken immediately before a player took the field. The offence, therefore, was judged on the basis of a well-known cricketer setting a bad example to the young and breaking the law.

Sussex have time to decide whether to offer Giddins a new contract for 1998. He has taken 48 first-class wickets this season, including the six for 47 which helped to scupper Yorkshire on his home ground at Eastbourne.

Sussex`s secretary, Nigel Bett, who was at the hear- ing as an observer rather than as the player`s representative, said that all players whose contracts expire at the end of this season are going to be discussed at Hove this morning. Ian Salisbury`s possible move to Surrey has become, perhaps, a higher priority.

His brother Charles, a golf professional, hinted at how serious a player he is beneath the happy-go-lucky exterior when he said yesterday: "He`s going to be hurting inside: cricket is his life."

It is unclear as yet whether Giddins will be able to play professional cricket overseas during his period of suspension. Technically he might even be banned from club cricket when the TCCB becomes the England Cricket Board next year, with theoretical control over both the professional and recreational game. I trust they would not pursue the punishment to that draconian degree, however. Losing his livelihood for the rest of this season and all of next is sufficient penalty, even for someone from a comfortable background. Eastbourne will be favourites for next year`s Sussex League.

If his reaction is one of suitable contrition rather than devil may care, there is no reason why he should not resume in 1998 with a good chance of making the most of a talent for hostile fast bowling, even to the extent of reaching Test level, though his offence has clearly put a severe dent in that ambition. His brother Charles, a golf professional, hinted at how serious a player he is beneath the happy-go-lucky exterior when he said yesterday: "He`s going to be hurting inside: cricket is his life."

Unfortunately, Sussex`s decision will have to take into account an additional incident during the match against Hampshire at Arundel when Giddins struck out at his fellow fast bowler Paul Jarvis after a wicket had fallen, following a remark about the state of the ball during the match.

That might most fairly be judged, however, as a result of the inevitable tensions arising from the positive test. In other respects it did not seem to affect his cricket. He had taken 33 wickets since the news broke, a run of success now halted.

There was no precedent for a cricketer being found guilty of taking cocaine but Ian Botham was suspended only for two months when, in 1986, he admitted having smoked cannabis. In 1992 no action was taken in the case of the then Worcestershire player Richard Stemp, whose drink was `spiked` by amphetamines without his knowledge.

It is precisely because the `drugs culture` is almost unknown in professional cricket that this case is so significant. In football last year there were a dozen cases of posi- tive drug tests. The Arsenal footballer Paul Merson has made a good recovery from his well-publicised addiction, but the Leyton Orient player Roger Stanislaus was sacked by his club and suspended for a year after a test had shown traces of cocaine. The first such incident in cricket has been dealt with in a manner intended to make sure that it is the last.

Source :: Electronic Telegraph (https://www.telegraph.co.uk)