only 30!!!

lol.

so tharanga, of sri lanka, reportedly failed a drugs test during the world cup. seems the substance was probably not performance enhancing just something prescribed for his asthma.

what i want to know is how come the icc don't seem to have done anything about it, released no statement at all and why after he failed the test at the world cup why he wasn't pulled out of the remaining matches?

what if he had scored a century in the final and sri lanka had won? typical bull**** by the icc. regardless of whether it was an honest mistake by the player or not he still failed the drugs test and should have been pulled immediately out of the tournament imo. (i am no expert on drug testing etc and maybe mistaken in know how long tests take to come back, b samples etc, wada regulations etc)

but whatever the facts there needs to be more transparency and the icc need to come out here and make a proper statement instead of this slow leaking of information.

Lol isn't that the same excuse any sprinter/cyclist who failed a doping test ever gave, ever?

link to tharanga story on cricinfo

http://www.espncricinfo.com/srilanka...ry/517141.html



andy, it probably takes a while for the tests to come back. In sports such as cycling, athletics and weightlifting, where there are endemic and high profile problems with steroid abuse, etc, they probably have much faster turn-round times than sports like cricket, where, let's be fair, it's not such a big deal and routine testing is just that, routine. It'll go to the lab and join the queue with everything else.

I think there have been a couple of county cricketers who tested positive for coke and/or various undesirable herbal cigarettes, but aside from that, the last incident of note which springs to mind involved that very nice chap from Pakistan, Mohammed Asif, and his partner in crime, Shoaib Akhtar, about five or six years ago — before that I think you have to go back to Warney and his diet pills more than eight years ago.

Trott's average just shows how deceptive statistics can be. He is a very good player but he's not that good. I guess in the long run his average will settle in to the mid-40s like Cook, KP, Strauss etc.

Screw the rain, bring back timeless Tests!!

From recent times, Graeme Smith and Mike Hussey both had absurdly high averages early in their careers after starting with a string of high scores and/or not-outs. Smith's average was about 80 at one point, after he looted an early double ton against the Bangladeshis and hammered England for back-to-back scores of 277 and 259 in the summer of 2003, while Hussey's average was >70 after 20 Tests or so, when he notched up eight or nine centuries. Both have since seen their career average normalise to somewhere around the 50 mark. It really illustrates just how far off the scale Bradman was though, to finish at 99.94 after 52 Tests.

I suspect Trott will end up closer to the low 50s than the mid 40s; he reminds me a lot of Jacques Kallis, apart from the fact that he can't hit the ball for six. The modern game is so much in favour of batsmen these days, and it's inflating averages.

Not sure why we're batting on really, we should have been declaring. A touch harsh on Bell to strand him on 98* but it is a team game and the team would be better served by bowling. Sure it's a long shot that we bowl them out, but I think we may as well have a dash at winning, because we absolutely can't lose the match.

This test had Draw written all over it.

Kicking myself for not betting.

Lol @ declaring now. Ridiculous waste of twenty minutes of potential bowling time just so Bell can get to three figures. What difference did the five runs make to the team? Those minutes might be much more valuable

******ed to let Bell bat on, should have got his century last night.

England to get Sri Lanka 9 wickets down imo.

Dernbach, Shahzad and Onions all not having great games in latest round of county championship games. I can't imagine engladn want to play finn, tremlett, and broad but they may have too. jesus has there ever been a bigger bowling attack? better makes lords a quick bouncy wicket imo

Hopefully, it would serve us right for such a stupid decision.

Hold the phones, can England still win this?

We can. Plenty of teams have been bowled out inside 45 overs or so. We would have had an even better chance with an extra four overs.... Strauss is gonna look such a wiener if we get SL nine down.

would need a pretty hilarious collapse but it's possible

Should have declared yesterday and gave themselves an hour to bowl and then whatever play they get today.

England could never have lost the test doing that.

Tremlett in the absolute zone.

Getting interesting......

5 down bitches, sangakara gone

43/5, and it really is game on now

43/5 you say?

all figures accurate at time of publishing

surely he nicked this.......

surely that is off the glove and gonna be overturned