There are lots of reasons why players say they have taken illegal substances, whether to "feel good" or "cure a cold" or because "the trainer said so". If a by product of that is possible performance enhancement then I would suggest it is relevant unlike your "snippet" about the legal substance caffeine (although it is interesting).

and everyone has accepted that Hock's use of Cocaine wasnt performance enhancing, or an attempt at performance enhancement.

strangely your snippet contained nothing on the legality of cocaine only the physical effects. As did mine on caffeine.

The point you seem to have missed is that many everyday substances can be performance enhancing. The morality of performance enhancement isnt as black and white as you may wish to believe. Would you ban caffeine on the basis it can enhance performance? After all it is a reacreational drug and a psychoactive stimulant.

Isn't there an argument that cocaine can be used as a masking agent for other performance enhancing drugs?

Not that it matters - it's use is illegal and it is classified a performance enhancing drug by WADA and so he got his ban.

It's a 2 year ban from playing and training. Is the argument here that it would be easier for Hock to hit the ground running if he's allowed to train with the club before his ban is up? Well no sh*t sherlock, that's why it's a ban from playing AND training with the club - it's meant to be punishment.

Quote Terry Newton all you like - all that case shows to me is the danger of drugs and why people should be encouraged to avoid them, not that we should be more lenient. Newton knew what he was doing when he bought drugs at a service station, Hock knew what he was doing when he was shovelling coke up his nose in some grotty toilet or alleyway - both are punishable by a ban of defined term and thats that.

Surely we should look to prove that was case rather than just deciding so. Isnt there an argument that some rapists wear balaclavas, therefor all people who wear balaclavas should serve a prison sentence and sign the sex offenders register?

the rules being rules, doesnt by definition mean that the rules are useful, right, just, fair, or worthwhile.

OK, lets let players miss drug tests - if we don't test them we can't PROVE they took drugs, so might as well not bother eh?



Nor does it make them wrong.

whether or not he took it for that reason, cocaine is classified as performance enhancing by WADA, and the RFL is signed up to the WADA charter, which I suspect is why the RFL is concerned about it.

Really??

Why should it?

No I haven't, I didn't even mention it.

Quite true that the morality of performance enhancement isn't always black and white but then you don't have a clue what I believe.

What has caffeine got to do with a player taking cocaine?

I havent said we shouldnt test them, Im not sure where to got that from. Im comfortable with us testing them. Im not comfortable with us automatically deciding without putting any effort in to find proof or provide even convincing argument that someone who admits they are addicted to recreational drugs isnt actually addicted to recreational drugs but is actually using them to mask the use of performance enhancing drugs.

indeed it doesnt. In fact rules simply being rules makes them neither right nor wrong nor just nor fair nor worthwhile nor worthless. Which is why the argument that Hocks punishment needs to follow the rules simply because they are the rules holds no water. Our aim should be for a just, fair and proportional outcome. If the rules dont allow that it is the rules which are wrong and the rules which must be ignored, not our aim for a just, fair and proportional outcome.

Yes, and WADA are a bastion for fairness and proportionality arent they?

WADA are like the neighborhood watch who got drunk on the power and thought they were policemen. They and the likes of Dick Pound are an embarrassment to sport.

I have, havent you? do you have any evidence or even a convincing circumstancial argument otherwise?

Because you contrasted the legality of caffeine with cocaine in a discussion of their physical affects. Indicating that that contrast made the comparison with caffeine irrelevant. I then pointed out there was no mention of the legality and such a contrast was itself irrelevant.

Indeed, you generally dont mention points you have missed. You generally bang on about the irrelevancies like you have here by mentioning the legality.


I can only go on what you have said. If this is different to what you believe then i really cant do anything about that can I? What you have said indicates a very black and white attitude.
erm, as was explained, it was an example of an everyday substance that can be performance enhancing but is more likely to be used recreationally, like cocaine.

Can't you just.







and on.....



and on.....


and on..........

You still havent told me why im not allowed a cup of tea Barry?

Did you stay away cos you were a little embarrassed?

For once Barry, I actually agree with you.

Smokey and mirrors diverts the discussion from Cocaine to Caffeine then tries to bore people into giving up the will to debate.

Probably thinks that having the last word makes him right.

Why is the debate different from Cocaine to Caffeine, both enhance performance?

Which is on WADA's list? That might give you a clue as to why people think its irrelevant.

Passing something forward at Tesco's till isn't against the rules either, but it is on a rugby pitch.

I know it's stating the obvious but Hock did not get banned for taking Caffeine.

You introduced caffeine, if you want to discuss it, knock yourself out. If it's a pet subject of yours why not raise another thread where it can be discussed more thoroughly and you can merrily disappear into a frenzy of quotes and misdirection.

If anyone [i"bangs on about the irrelevancies"[/i it's you.

I'll give you a clue.

I went to the shop earlier and I purchased a can of Red Bull.

Quite [ulegally[/u.



Unless I was looking in the wrong aisle I didn't see any Cocaine for sale.

Because it's [uillegal[/u.


Hope this helps.



If you would like to know the answers to any other confusing questions you might be pondering over right now such as "why does it hurt when my social worker punches me in the face out of sheer frustration" or "why does my carers car stop when it runs out of petrol" please feel free to ask me.

No....he should do his full time and accept it and then try and catch up fitness wise etc with the rest

^ Deliberatley trying to avoid the swear filter



I don't think you can criticise anyone for posts PHIPPS!

However, you could still fail a sports drugs test for having too much caffeine in your system – whether from a Red Bull, coffee or Pro Plus tablets.

Just as you could fail a drugs test for using an over-the-counter cold remedy.

The situation is currently ridiculous. Started as a proxy war in the Cold War, the issue of drugs in sport is totally out of control when consumption of a Lemsip would see you fail a test. It long ago (if ever) ceased to be about the health of the athlete and has become a sort of sports eats itself circle of craziness, with the testers always slightly behind the drug/masking producers (who are probably quite large companies, given the research etc needed – they're not just some bloke with a chemistry set in the garden shed).

The entire list should be scrapped completely and then we sit down and think out a rational and coherent approach to the issue.

On recreational drugs – slightly complex, since the cocaine could possibly improve performance. On the other hand, I'd leave something like a player using dope to their club as an internal disciplinary matter – since one would think it might do exactly the opposite of improving performance. As a slight aside, that then raises the question of booze: for a serious player in any sport to be drinking a great deal cannot be good for their performance – yet it appears that clubs (in various sports and to varying degrees) tolerate it.

Well, he's back (sort of). Seems he's been given clearance to train but the playing ban remains in place until 23rd June. No links as yet but this is from the RFL according to various tinternet sources.

Great news: great for Hock, great for Wigan, great for England, great that it's gonna upset loads of people.

Or maybe just that the vast majority of people will be pretty indifferent to it.

So no other reason than someone somewhere else once said it was different?

Sums up the current state of affairs rather well me thinks. I can only imagine that coke would improve performance if it was taken a relatively short period of time before the game. Having a few snifters with some beers 3 or 4 days earlier is unlikely to have any positive effects, quite the opposite imo

You can't take the end of Terry Newton's life and use that as a reason not to punish those who take drugs, or the lengthy bans handed down to them. Them's the rules, the players all know that, and the risks when they take whatever they take.

If they want lenient bans for performance-enhancers, they should go to union...