Why should Barba not be banned for two years, ala Gareth Hock, and the young Saints academy player IF he comes to play in the same competition?

Because it wasnt the UK Anti Doping committee that he tested positive with, and the NRL dealt with the offence within their punishment guidelines.

If he was to test positive for cocaine over here (assuming he does sign for Saints/another SL club) his ban would be for the 2 years.

That said (and I am in no way advocating the use of drugs) I do feel the punishments of 2 years for a recreational drug that doesnt enhance performance is a touch harsh for a players' first offence. Especially in the case of Barba who took the drug outside of the season. 3 months suspension I think is about right...however if he was to do it again a longer ban (for stupidity as much as anything else) should be given. It just seems a tad harsh imo that somebody who takes cocaine recreationally is given the same length ban as plaers caught using steroids/growth to gain an advantage in their performance.

I also think the NRL are more leniant as there is a wider problem with rec drugs use down under than we maybe have in SL - in addition to Barba, players like Bromwich, Proctor, Kenny-Dowell to name a few have all been involved in drugs scandals lately to name a few, with players such as Andrew Johns owning up to frequently using rec drugs throughout his career. That said, when Mullen at Newcastle tested positive for steroid use, they banned him for 4 years and effectively ended his career so shows they have a tougher stance on performance enhancing.

As for Barba, it will be interesting but given that Super League has happily registered similarly banned NRL players to play in the past (Greg Bird, Todd Carney etc), and also allowed players involved in the Gold Coast drug scandal a few years ago (Dave Taylor, Beau Falloon, Steve Michaels) to play without problem it would seem harsh to make him serve his 12 match ban.

Hock wouldn't have been allowed to go and play in Aus until the end of his ban, surely the same rule should apply to Barba.

I can't say I understand the differences between the two examples completely, however I would make the assumption that Hock tested positive by UK anti doping agency and that is why his ban was world wide and banned for 2 years (in line with world anti doping agency regulations). This ban would apply to all professional sport worldwide, and therefore Hock couldn't have played NRL or rugby union when banned. Ben Barba tested positive on a test issued by the NRL and/or Cronulla Sharks, and as a result was dealt with in house in line with NRL regulations. Similarly, if Barba had been sent off in his final game for Toulon and serving an 8 match ban by the RFU (or French equivalent), it would be their designated punishment and not carried over to the RFL. If it had been a positive test with ASADA (Aussie anti doping Agency) then his ban would be across professional sports worldwide (using a player like Sandor Earl as an example who is serving a 4 year ASADA ban and therefore cannot come to play in SL/rugby union anywhere). The fact that he hasnt failed an ASADA test means they have been unable to ban him, hence why his 12 match NRL ban counts yet he was clear to play union for Toulon. Barba doesn't feature on the list of athletes currently serving sanctions with ASADA and consequently hasn't failed a test recognised by an official organisation and therefore the ban imposed was by the NRL only. https://www.asada.gov.au/sanctions

I can't say I understand the differences between the two examples completely, however I would make the assumption that Hock tested positive by UK anti doping agency and that is why his ban was world wide and banned for 2 years (in line with world anti doping agency regulations). This ban would apply to all professional sport worldwide, and therefore Hock couldn't have played NRL or rugby union when banned. Ben Barba tested positive on a test issued by the NRL and/or Cronulla Sharks, and as a result was dealt with in house in line with NRL regulations. Similarly, if Barba had been sent off in his final game for Toulon and serving an 8 match ban by the RFU (or French equivalent), it would be their designated punishment and not carried over to the RFL. If it had been a positive test with ASADA (Aussie anti doping Agency) then his ban would be across professional sports worldwide (using a player like Sandor Earl as an example who is serving a 4 year ASADA ban and therefore cannot come to play in SL/rugby union anywhere). The fact that he hasnt failed an ASADA test means they have been unable to ban him, hence why his 12 match NRL ban counts yet he was clear to play union for Toulon. Barba doesn't feature on the list of athletes currently serving sanctions with ASADA and consequently hasn't failed a test recognised by an official organisation and therefore the ban imposed was by the NRL only. https://www.asada.gov.au/sanctions

And he's a kiwi lol. Since the influx of kiwis in the NRL over last 10 years, it looks like the aussies brought them down to their level.

It seems the aussies just do as they please. Look at the sharks scandal regarding performance enhancing drugs.

If they banned all the drug users in the NRL then the wouid be nobody left.

Well, one string of rumours has been tied up, ratchford has signed a 2 year extension with us.

Didn't Travis Burns have to serve the rest of his ban when he came over to join Hull KR?
I can't remember the exact details but I'm pretty sure he had to sit some games out, albeit for a dangerous tackle rather than drug use.

I've come to the conclusion that all RL players are thick.

Really!!!!

Wrong

Oh dear!!!!!

Pity your not called Richard,you would be able to sign off as King Dick