Is having taken them the same thing as possesion?

They do not get clear CRB checks, all offences are shown on any-ones CRB....however it is down to the discretion of the Barla/RFL if they are allowed to be involved with youngsters (if any offences are committed against children they will not get cleared) if the CRB has offences on not related to children then it is down to the welfare officer/club secretary to decide if the volunteer can be involved in coaching in an amateur club....Often people have made silly mistakes when younger this is all taken into account.

Well i think the RFL should get tough on players. RL has built a fantastic reputation over many years. But it doesn't take much to ruin it. Look at the state of affairs the NRL has had. To me the RFL should have a zero tolerance stance. They are highly paid professionals. We've had Tansey, Gleeson, Apsinwall and Moore this year.

Pundits were saying they were glad Jordan Tnsey got a second chance with the Crusaders. Sorry he had 3 chances at Hulld and blew them all. Same with Gleeson, he just staggers from one club to another. Why should these players get chance after chance when we have some bright young talents who would do anything for a chance in the championship. If i turned up to work drunk or got sent to prison, i'd be sacked on the spot, as would many of us. It's time for the RFL to get tough.

Not a fan of Hock, he was stupid for what he did, but how annoyed must he feel that he got a two year ban by the RFL for using a recreational drug (not cheating) yet we have players turning up to training drunk and getting arrested and the RFL turn a blind eye. If you are sacked for alcohol or drug offences by your club, you should be suspended for a year and be sent on a course teaching youngsters about drugs alcohol etc. This will hopefully mean we won't have another tragedy like Terry Newton, but also the players know that there is zero tolerance. Right now they can do what they want it seems, and look what happened in the NRL!!

Why should the RFL punish players if they have already been punished by law?

I think they should get involved if something extremely serious has happened eg rape but the club should have the right to re-employ if they wish.

You can have posession with Intent to suppy and posession. I would suggest he has comitted an offence. I also dont like the term recreational drugs. Its a class A drug!

I think anyone convincted of a drugs offense should be banned for life personally.

I reckon even the Sky commentary team should boo 'him' when he crosses the white lines again on Friday.

rlAnyone ?rl

The RFL need to employ a respected former player or coach as a guidance mentor for young, impressionable players. However, given their astonishing lack of good judgement and awareness, they'd probably end up appointing someone like John Elias.

The fact the RFL is signed up to WADA doesnt in and of itself justify the hypocrisy in the two stances.

IF the RFL are in no position to moralise about a players legal indiscretions, why are they in a position to moralise about the recreational use of drugs?

However having a controlled substance in your system, whether that be class A, B, or C or ungraded like Tobacco or Alcohol does not constitute possession of said substance. There is no law broke by being under the influence of a control substance.

Doesn't count Count. He was given it by the RFL's doctor. If anything the RFL should have paid compensation for that.

Pfffft

used to be medicinal but I would suggest Ileagal drug. I personally dont like the term recreational. Its not You are breaking the law to possess it, and for me recreational makes it more acceptable. I dont disagree thats probably a catagory it would fit in I just dont like the term.

recreational is used to describe the reason it is used, not its legal status. Alcohol is a recreational drug.

The law on drugs is as pointless as it is counter productive. There is no sense or logic behind it. Psilocilbyn is a class A substance even though it has next to no toxicity, they dont actually know at what level it would be fatal, because nobody has ever been able to take enough of it. It is naturally occurring and none-addictive. Alcohol on the other hand (similarly grouped as a psychoactive drug) is pretty toxic, can cause heart disease, can be fatal in relatively small doses, is carcinogenic, physically addictive, can cause diabetes, strokes, dementia, around 33'000 people in this country alone die as a result of alcohol's toxicity. That's not to mention the thousands who die because of the impaired decision making (accidents, falls, violence, drink driving etc)


The laws position on a certain drug, bares no relation to the harm that drug can cause.