COULD SOMEONE SUPPLY A LINK TO APPLETON OUTBURST AND REASON FOR HIS BAN/SUSPENSION...THANKS
- Thread starter bbb
- Start date
I prefer the movie version where he was caught both times but the sport can't afford losing him so they paid him to go away with their story. Start a poll/ lol/...
It is not on video. Emily mentioned it in an interview. The rest is railbird gossip.
Thanks for the link and the helpful info. For those who didn't click on the video, Darren told the drug tester / matchroom handler to F themselves (or something along those lines) during his test, the WPA fined him $1500 and made him miss the Masters, and then if Darren "misbehaves" again he gets a year ban.
That is a good discussion. Timing of the second "random" drug test and the usual secrecy behind the way names are decided are both of interest. I worked in the local nuclear power plant as a white collar contractor. I was given the usual prehire whiz quiz then went years before the random drug test caught up with me. All fine until I mentioned when I was hired and this was my first random drug test. Seemed a contractor's random test should have been far more often! My name supposedly came up two or three more times in the next month or six weeks, then never again in the few more years I worked there. "Random" is far from entirely random and since the methodology can't be revealed without opening the people doing the testing up to possible discrimination issues we never know what is going on behind the scenes.
Darren had a right to be annoyed at the timing of the second test. Certainly few players had been tested since his last test. While "random" should mean your name can come up two times in a row or more it is hard not to feel a bit persecuted when you are tested multiple times while other players are never tested.
I do feel that the fine was excessive and the demand that he write a letter of apology juvenile. Having the threat of suspension hanging over his head indefinitely seems unwarranted too. One thing that wasn't cleared up was exactly what Darren said concerning the tester wiping the smile off of his face. If Darren threatened the tester that would certainly change things for the worse if the tester considered it a valid threat.
This does seem like a tempest in a teapot. It will be interesting to keep an eye on developments
Hu
telinoz
Registered
Mystery solved.
or patched...
tomatoshooter
Well-known member
Yeah, if the "wipe the smirk off your face" was perceived as actually threatening that's over the line but the suspension is too much. The letter of apology? C'mon, how do you make someone apologize? They can state the words but if they don't mean it, it's worthless. Plenty of professional athletes suffer far less for worse behavior. A warning, maybe even a couple hundred fine.
FREE DARREN!!
FREE DARREN!!
thank you. neight doesnt come across as impartial, i guess it's darren's version. but you or mike mentioned a scuffle with the smirk guy.. that would change things.
i don't think both suspension and fine is called for anyway. a fine would be enough. i hope darren bounces back from this.
Going by memory here but according to Neight in the video from post #4 Darren was already on tilt from losing his match to Filler when Darren was up big twice in the match including 10-7 in the race to 11, and also because Filler took a time out and went to his table to wipe his hands or take a drink or whatever it was before shooting the final set winning 9 ball which was a hanger six inches from the pocket that couldn't be missed. So he is already on tilt and then gets told he was chosen for a drug test when he was just chosen for one at the last event a week before which apparently irritated him even more. Anyway he had just peed 20 minutes earlier so was sitting there drinking water trying to make himself need to go. During this time the drug tester apparently tried to make small talk with Darren and Darren told him to "fu<k off". Shortly after a Matchroom employee was in the area and was grinning or giggling about something, Darren assumed it was about him and so he told them they needed to "wipe the smirk off your face".
After the WPA takes a few days to make a decision on what to do they sent Darren an email saying he was being fined 25% of his winnings, and his winnings were $6,000 making for an effective fine of $1,500, and that if he has any future WPA violations he will be banned from all WPA events for a period of one year. He apparently also had to write a letter of apology to several of the involved parties. It was mentioned that Darren does have one previous WPA behavior violation of some kind from around 2016-ish where he got into it with another player but no details were given.
Neight never named any sources so it could all be 4th hand hearsay for all we know, and even if he heard any of it directly from the involved parties we don't know for sure which or how many of the involved parties he heard from, and he apparently never saw or heard any of it for himself so he can't personally verify anything at this moment as far as we know.
So the obvious question to be asked is, was the punishment appropriate for the "crimes"? My thoughts are that it very well could be, or it might not be, we simply have no way of knowing ourselves without hearing from all the involved parties, hearing what they say happened, what each admits to or denies, hearing who sounded most believable, whose story made the most sense, etc.
After the WPA takes a few days to make a decision on what to do they sent Darren an email saying he was being fined 25% of his winnings, and his winnings were $6,000 making for an effective fine of $1,500, and that if he has any future WPA violations he will be banned from all WPA events for a period of one year. He apparently also had to write a letter of apology to several of the involved parties. It was mentioned that Darren does have one previous WPA behavior violation of some kind from around 2016-ish where he got into it with another player but no details were given.
Neight never named any sources so it could all be 4th hand hearsay for all we know, and even if he heard any of it directly from the involved parties we don't know for sure which or how many of the involved parties he heard from, and he apparently never saw or heard any of it for himself so he can't personally verify anything at this moment as far as we know.
So the obvious question to be asked is, was the punishment appropriate for the "crimes"? My thoughts are that it very well could be, or it might not be, we simply have no way of knowing ourselves without hearing from all the involved parties, hearing what they say happened, what each admits to or denies, hearing who sounded most believable, whose story made the most sense, etc.
Some other thoughts...
A knee jerk reaction would be to say that you should not be able to be drug tested more than once every three months or some other length of time or number of events or other similar limitation, but there is a good reason it is truly random which means potentially you could be chosen twice in a row (which appears to be close to what happened here) or even more theoretically. The reason is because if the rule was say "no more than once in a 3 month period" then you know if ABC only stays in my system for one month and I just got tested then that gives me the next two months to be able to do ABC before I have to stop again to give it enough time to clear out of my system etc. By being truly random, including that you could even potentially get picked twice or more in a row, it keeps people from easily being able to game the system.
Just like I believe all tournament bracket draws should be done publicly to prevent any real or perceived funny business, I think all picks for drug testing should be done publicly as well for the same reasons. It prevents anybody from intentionally being picked on, or somebody else from intentionally not being chosen for testing to help them out, and it of course also prevents even the perception of the above. Like in this case there has been some whispers of "I wonder if they did that to Darren intentionally because he is trying to start a player's union". Do your picks publicly in a fair manner, period, and then nobody will be able to wonder because it won't be able to happen. I will go even further and say that anybody who is unwilling to do the bracket or drug testing picks publicly is unwilling because they want to be able to do funny business as desired because there simply isn't any other good enough reason for needing to keep it private where the process can't be vetted.
Fines should be a straight amount judged to be appropriate for the offense, not a percentage of your prize fund (making you ineligible for any prize would be different and be ok). Making it a percentage effectively penalizes the better players for being better and placing higher, or penalizes an individual player for having a great performance. So if you are a great player who placed high, your 25% will be really high, and if you are a lesser player or even the same player who just placed low that day your fine could be minuscule or zero. $1,500 is either the appropriate fine or it is not, and your fine amount should have nothing to do with your skill level or how well you placed on any particular day.
A knee jerk reaction would be to say that you should not be able to be drug tested more than once every three months or some other length of time or number of events or other similar limitation, but there is a good reason it is truly random which means potentially you could be chosen twice in a row (which appears to be close to what happened here) or even more theoretically. The reason is because if the rule was say "no more than once in a 3 month period" then you know if ABC only stays in my system for one month and I just got tested then that gives me the next two months to be able to do ABC before I have to stop again to give it enough time to clear out of my system etc. By being truly random, including that you could even potentially get picked twice or more in a row, it keeps people from easily being able to game the system.
Just like I believe all tournament bracket draws should be done publicly to prevent any real or perceived funny business, I think all picks for drug testing should be done publicly as well for the same reasons. It prevents anybody from intentionally being picked on, or somebody else from intentionally not being chosen for testing to help them out, and it of course also prevents even the perception of the above. Like in this case there has been some whispers of "I wonder if they did that to Darren intentionally because he is trying to start a player's union". Do your picks publicly in a fair manner, period, and then nobody will be able to wonder because it won't be able to happen. I will go even further and say that anybody who is unwilling to do the bracket or drug testing picks publicly is unwilling because they want to be able to do funny business as desired because there simply isn't any other good enough reason for needing to keep it private where the process can't be vetted.
Fines should be a straight amount judged to be appropriate for the offense, not a percentage of your prize fund (making you ineligible for any prize would be different and be ok). Making it a percentage effectively penalizes the better players for being better and placing higher, or penalizes an individual player for having a great performance. So if you are a great player who placed high, your 25% will be really high, and if you are a lesser player or even the same player who just placed low that day your fine could be minuscule or zero. $1,500 is either the appropriate fine or it is not, and your fine amount should have nothing to do with your skill level or how well you placed on any particular day.
Last edited:
He should write a letter and title it,,,, Go Fck Yourself.
Take your dog and pony show and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.
Write a letter.....Give me a break...... Power Trip Control Freaks....watch the puppets dance.
Take your dog and pony show and shove it where the sun doesn't shine.
Write a letter.....Give me a break...... Power Trip Control Freaks....watch the puppets dance.
I've worked Nuclear for 31 years and didn't have my first random till at least year 20, I mentioned that when they called me in and guess what, it was another ~ 10 years before another one.
People see things where they want to see them and try to validate every coincidence.
If I talked to the drug tester like that, I would be out of the Nuclear industry permanently.
Agreed. This is the problem with subjecting pool to Olympic testing standards. Darren deserved what he got in my opinion but the underlying issue is that the process is stupid for pool players. We wouldn't have any pro sports in the US if our leagues applied the same testing regimen as pro pool.
Content of the year right there. Quite literally explains the vast majority of self righteous bitching I see on this forum.
I don't drink. Don't smoke. Don't use drugs. They drug tested us where I worked prior to retirement. I didn't mind it but I told them I know I'm not on drugs and they could be testing me for some medical issue I might have and not know about. After that I never got tested again.
Regarding Appleton it's bs but not unexpected from that goofy organization. I think they need to drug test the people pushing the purple 5 ball and other nonsense.
Regarding Appleton it's bs but not unexpected from that goofy organization. I think they need to drug test the people pushing the purple 5 ball and other nonsense.