Surely he’s learnt his lesson now?

I personally think that public awareness of what players have done wrong shouldn’t be coupled with bans that last for years and it should just be three month bans at most IMO.

Why should they change his ban?

Because its ridiculous, over the top and he's learnt his lesson.

The drugs Gareth took are illegal drugs that had he been caught by the police he would have been dealt with a lot worse.

On the other hand they are hardly performance enhancing, quite the opposite I should imagine so in this case should the ban reflect that?? With performance enhancing drugs the two year ban should allow the body to get back to what it was prior to drug use.

I think it is a tough one but if players think they will get away with taking any kind of substance that is against the rules or the law then more will do it. The other option is to stick to a two year banning order and have them do weekly tests (if affordable). Then at the end of the first year if they have helped the sport and have stayed off the drugs then reduce the ban by 6mths.

How do you know he has learnt his lesson?

What's up dammo-leeds? Not enough head high tackles for your liking this season

Exactly, and how is 3 months any sort of warning for players???

with no disrespect to anyone involved in rugby regarding recent events,but i think the bans for use of recreational drugs and performance enhancing should be judged differently.1 is a form of cheating, the other is a player letting his hair down a little too much.i think the 2 year bans handed out for either are harsh,though i condone neither.1 year 1st offence for performance enhancing(life for 2nd offence),and 3 months for recreational(with 5years for a second offence,which effectively ends an older players career anyway).

Because....Charlie Says......

surely a ban which is in effect nothing more than a slap on the wrist would counter any public awareness campaign? Players (and all other professional sports people) know which substances are banned, and they know the consequences of their actions if they decide to take drugs.

By having longer bans in place the players are being punished and others can see what they have lost via there actions therefore it will hopefully act as a deterrent to others. I do agree that the drug that was taken (ie recreational or performance enhancing) should be taken into account but I wouldn't like to see anything less that a 1 year ban personally.

'Charlie'???

Thats an unfortunate name when you consider what young Mr Hock was putting up his nose

You are either a real crim or too young to remember these public service films.......just ask someone to play you the Prodigy track...all will be come clear(er)......

I've only been in the UK since 2008

Link?

So there was a character called Charlie who was in a public service film telling people not to indulge in the old Columbian marching powder?



Only in England!

Unfortunately yes.

However there’s probably more dangerous ‘legal’ things around than cocaine.




I have to agree with the points here. Although I think once you stop taking performance enhancing drugs, the timescale of two years is a bit too harsh. At the end of the day some players probably eat healthier than other players - is that a ‘fair and level’ playing ground?

However I think the RFL should look into what you suggested in regards to reducing the ban after one eyar if the circumstances have improved.

Nope...he reminded you to always tell your mummy before you go out........The Prodigy are the ones who put it into the context you alluded to