One of the few blokes willing to stay at Durham, and he gets banned for a year for failing a drugs test.

[www.bbc.co.uk]

[www.chroniclelive.co.uk]



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/10/2017 14:43 by chunkyinargyll.

I'm sure the club president (or whatever his role is) will be able to offer some advice.

They say they are going to stand by him, but I wouldn't pay someone if I knew in advance there was no chance of them playing a single game (an injury would be different).

So, considering they are so short of money, I don't know if 'stand by him' means paying him to do nothing.

"Stand by him" may well mean supporting him during his ban and offering advice,I doubt very much it will mean paying him whilst he has knowingly made himself unable to play.

It certainly sounds like Jack Burnham could benefit from the help he is likely to get considering this is the third time he has breached the drugs regulations.

When an announcement was made about the penalties issued to Durham as a result of their ECB bailout, I anticipated that they would write-off any possibility of being promoted in 2017 and would use the season to get into a position from which they can challenge for promotion in 2018. However, their chances of getting promoted don’t look good, as their finishing position of second-bottom in division two in 2017 would only have been upgraded to fourth-bottom (and 76 points shy of promotion) without their 48-point deduction, plus they have already lost some quality players this winter. I expect Warwickshire and Sussex to challenge Middlesex’s hopes of an instant return to division one, although we will have to see whether Durham will make it hard for us.