Crazy to think he got that and Hock got 2 years for taking a social drug.

I can never quite get my head round drug punishments.

Careful, you will have half of the forums here telling you that it's performance enhancing too - about the same as a cup of coffee but don't let that stop 'em.

I'm not 100% on this, but i think it has some "masking" effect, hence the reason it carries a ban. But as you say, that carries an implication, whereas an actual enhancing drug is just that.

His name has come up a few times as a possible signing with the majority saying he would be too much of a risk. I just hope the guy is well and knows what he is doing, you worry what another relapse would do to his already fragile state of mind, or maybe he is genuinely past all of that, I certainly hope so.
Given our experiences with Moore and Watts I think the Club would be very wary of taking another chance.

My guess is he would have to knuckle down in the Championship and show he still had it before anyone would think of taking him back into Superleague. Millward may of course be the exception.

I just hope it goes well.
In some ways I think it's wrong that the others involved got worse bans than he did and the fact that he helped the cover up too but looks to have served a smaller ban than hock who took a non performance enhancing drug. Now I'm not saying hocks ban shouldve been shorter before someone jumps down my throat I mean that gleesons should've been much longer at least the whole 3 years.

The problem with Gleeson is that I can see him going down a similar route to Newton and I really don't want to see that and that's why I'm kind of glad he's been allowed back it does seem to show that the rfl learnt from what happened to Newton. But I worry that if it goes badly he may still go that way but here's hoping he doesn't. And that he doesn't tear us apart at some point too! Haha