Leigh no matter what they do are not big news. If 20 of the squad got 'done' for drugs it wouldn't be as big news as the guy that has come out as gay this weekend.

If they are the big news maybe that tells us everything about where RL is as a sport.

A fat gobsh*te as chairman, an arrogant coach....a club that overrates itself, which has missed out on finding any form of humility.

Anyway what is the big news

I think 2 years is a just punishment for a first offence, though I do think it should increase for subsequent offences.

I wouldn't favour a life ban for 2 reasons:
1. I believe that people can make daft decisions but still deserve a second chance
2. Taking a banned substance isn't always as straight forward as people think and it can be done by accident quite easily.

In this case if he's done it before then he deserves little sympathy in terms of punishment and perhaps the punishment should increase each time you offend? So 2 years for 1st offence, then 4 years for the 2nd maybe?

Having said all that, the sport shouldn't abandon him entirely. I have no idea what his general life is like but whether he has strong family and support networks or not this is a tough time for him so his friends and the sport should look after him.

While I can see your point for things like pseudoephedrine, Stanozolol and HGH are pretty hard to ingest accidentally in amounts that would generate a positive test.

I'd be in favour of a 4 year first offence ban, and a lifetime ban from all levels of involvement in the game for a second one.

Let's not get into the situation athletics is in with Justin Gatlin, where a bloke who has been dirty virtually his entire career is now back and looking likely to win medals on the world stage.

You shouldn't make the same mistake twice. Why should we look after him? If you took drugs at work and lost your job you wouldn't hear from them again. Why does RL feel the need to support drug cheats.

I read an interesting article about D Chambers from a fellow competitor that said athlete may still benefit from the drugs they have taken 2 year later in the way its molded there body shape etc. Not sure how true it is.

"Can't emphasise how big a story in the league express tomorrow. It's huge"

Someone keep tabs on this guy in case a big story does actually break. He won't be able to contain himself.

was he off sick the day you learned about not taking HGH for gains if you're a professional sports athlete?


I'm like that now at 34, i couldnt' tell you what primary colours are in French, damn you tonsilitis

I think you are all wrong, I think the big news is that Marwan has finally deleted his twitter account

That's not how it works but steroids (and HGH, though not other PEDs) do provide long-lasting, possibly even permanent, benefits even if not being used anymore.

Simple-ish explanation: If you exercise or take steroids, you get more nuclei and gain muscle. However, nuclei are very very difficult to lose. So while you may lose the muscle mass when you stop taking the steroids, you keep the nuclei. This means further training has a greater effect than if you hadn't taken steroids: your body doesn't have to create nuclei for new muscle cells, merely enlarge the cells around the existing nuclei. It's very similar to how if you go to the gym for years and then stop, when you start back, you'll reach your original level of strength/muscle mass in significantly less time than it took for you to reach that level of strength/muscle mass the first time round.

The implications for doping in sport are huge. However, I still feel that a lifetime ban for first time is too severe because mistakes DO happen. 4 years first time and life ban second time round. If you get caught doping having already had a four year ban, chances are you didn't even stop doping.

Isn't the big news story re. the 1st openly gay player in pro RL?

Ian Roberts?

I have to assume that's what he was referring to; the Leigh player is of interest, but hardly earth-shattering.

Keegan Hirst was on 5Live this morning with Adrian Chiles - gave a very good account of himself and spoke well about his experience; sadly, that's the most attention RL has had on 5Live in as long as I can remember.

Why should we look after him?

Because he's still a human being. Rugby League is a very macho sport that doesn't allow much, if any, space for players to be normal human beings with normal emotions and problems.

So really nobody knows what's going on in most players lives and what their "real" mental state actually is.

The fact that regular workplaces don't give a flying one about their employees doesn't mean we should follow that example.

Rugby League takes a lot emotionally and mentally from players, we have a duty of care to look after them when they go through rough patches, even when it's of their own making.

It's having a morality at the heart of the game, something which makes our game stand out from others.

Do we need another example of the likes of Terry Newton to actually realise that sometimes players need a helping hand?