I know of places that do random drug/alcohol tests, and if you fail, a suspension and possible contract termination follows. I passed the test, but others didn't and were advised to resign rather than get sacked. That wasn't snorting coke at work, that was failing a test after what they got up to out of work hours.

When you put it like that a 2 year ban does seem reasonable.

It seems reasonable for the RFL to punish players for breaching RFL laws and for the courts to punish players for criminal offences.

If the two were proportionate, it would be perfectly reasonable. Unfortunately, they are not.

I think we should have a breakaway league where drugs are compulsery, not much skill on show but would be a giggle.

The point is being missed by most of you. The drugs tests are done after every game, and it was found that this drug was in his system !! simple as that. I know you are all going on about drink driving, assault, GBH, but at the end of the day, if you played pi55ed you would be sacked, if you actually GBH'd someone with intent you would have a massive ban, and possible prosecution.

The tests are taken during working hours, and for all the talk about other offences, these and this offence took place during a match, yes he was coked up, or had coke in his blood and uring, during a game end of !

It is highly unlikely he was 'coked up' during the game more that he had traces from a few days/weeks before. This is not applicable in the case of assault as that doesn't tend to stay in your blood supply for you to be tested. From a personal point of view I can more understand someone doing a couple of lines of coke than someone who smashes someones face in.

Read a commented in the currant bun attributed to the great and wise brian noble!!!!
"it is a tradegy that the game could lose a player of gareths calibre"
Think they should start checking coaches aswell!!!!!!!

Someone is missing the point here, the point is THE PLAYERS KNOW THE RULES REGARDING DRUGS AND DRUG TESTING. SIMPLE. DONT DO IT OR YOU WILL GET BANNED. There are no excuses.

if you are gonna accuse people of missing the point, please dont miss the point

WTF

And your point is chap????

I understood H2o's remark as will most people but what I have missed is why you feel the need to be a c*ck.

drugs = ban

simples

the point is 'chap' that the discussion had moved on to the merits of being banned for taking social drugs, there was no dispute to whether or not he should be banned.

hence 'chap' H20's post claiming we were missing the point, was itself missing the point.

hope this helps, 'chap'.

if you need anything else explaining i'm here all week

all drugs are performance enhancing..they alter the brain..life ban for me..stupid boy..

There is no discussion, as is the rules TAKE DRUGS, GET BANNED. Whats to discuss.

It is a discussion forum.

If I want to see what Hock will get if/when his guilt is confirmed, then I will consult the RFL's rules or check it with a news site. Quite clearly, in respect of that point there is nothing to discuss. No one is saying, will he get 2 years, or 5 or just a letter advising him to change his snorting technique?

What is being discussed though is the relative merits of the mandatory sanction as it applies across social drugs. There are other points in this worthy of discussion.

Merits of taking social drugs??? As I see it there is no merit that outweighs a career dive/tarnish.

I bet you hate to see the sunday chicken carcass go in the bin.



Take drugs whether recreational or enhancing and pay the consequences picking the bones out of the arguement alters nothing.

Chap

Merits of being banned for taking social drugs. Not quite the same thing.

See post i reply too Merits not my wording.

[url=http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/2009_Prohibited_List_ENG_Final_20_Sept_08.pdfThe WADA Prohibited List[/url

They class it as a 'stimulant' - and go into further detail elsewhere on the website regarding suitable punishments which may be enforced should the case be put forward that the 'stimulant' was not used for performance enhancing reasons.

I assume by that you mean that I should see the post you replied to, and that the use of the word 'merits' isn't your wording. I had already considered the post you were replying to:


to which you replied:


Which is why my emphasis was on the banned for, not the use of the word merits. As they are quite different things, and quite different discussions.

I'm sure they have their own reasons for trying to extend their sphere of influence.

No they are not.

As for a life ban, why? Is taking a recreational drug more worthy of a life ban than say punching a woman in the face, glassing somebody, beating someone up outside a nightclub or causing mayhem in a city centre to a point where you have to be escorted out of town by the police?

tobacco?