Quote: sally cinnamon "I think a 2 year ban for recreational drugs has no logic behind it. If the idea is that its a criminal offence well let the law deal with it. Thats what they do with players like Briers, Morley and Gleeson who have got done for drink driving. The RFL did not get involved there and ban those players?
The idea is that we need to send a message to youngsters that rugby league has no time for recreational drugs. Fine, does rugby league have time for drink drivers? Why not ban them? What about players who go out and get completely wasted? Is that a good image for rugby league? 2 year bans for players who get caught bladdered?
2 year bans or even life bans, for taking performance enhancing drugs I agree with, but the way I would have dealt with it is said if a drugs test has shown Gareth Hock took coke, the RFL should have shopped him in to the legal authorities and said look we've got proof he's taken an illegal drug, and left it at that. If he has committed a crime then the courts can deal with him, and place whatever sanction they want to, it's not for rugby league to start being judge and jury.
Actually instead of all this talk about bankers bonuses, if they really wanted to put the cat amongst the pigeons they should say there's drug testing for anyone in the City and if you test positive for coke, the FSA gives you a 2 year ban.....there would be some pretty empty trading floors.'"
True, but what came out at the time was that this could possibly be used as a masking agent, or as a by product of a masking agent to cover up something else. Possibly something performance enhancing.
