The dirty sh@thouse pooped his pants when he saw Lima coming towards him, He won`t be missed by RL when he retires a less than average player at the best.

Oh dear.

Cocaine is a Class A drug, carrying up to 7 years in prison for possession.
Steroids are a Class C drug, which are (as a group), legal for personal use and/or importation.

However, at the risk of people calling me "knobcheese", etc. - I actually agree to a point with the original post.

Within sport, IMO, the use of performance enhancers should carry AT LEAST double the penalty of recreational drug use.

Coke, weed, etc. have no tangible positive impact on a sports professional (other than the possible dulling of pain from impact, but this is massively offset by the reduction in overall physical and mental performance).
Their use, whilst unacceptable, should be TREATED (e.g. 3 month ban, during which the abuser is attend counselling/drying out, with a medical case review before reinstatement).
If the player is then found to have the metabolites in his system for a second time, then an automatic 1 year ban should come in to effect, with the same rules as previously.

However steroids, HGH, etc. must be seen as straightforward CHEATING, which (again IMO) should carry at least the current 2 year ban and I would even look to increase that to 4 years, as in (I believe) athletics.

Additonally, proper random testing MUST be brough in for all players - Not just the England/GB team - with every player being tested at least once per year.
With the most "popular" steroids (at least the most commonly reported ones) seeming to be Stanozolol and Nandrolone, which remain in the system as a metabolite for 3 months (when injected) and 12-18 months respectively, this should give a resonable chance of catching the cheats within a 1-2 year period.
Currently, it appears that that if they stay out of the national team, they can pretty much go undetected for their entire career.

We must do more to dissuade outright cheating, whilst supporting those who may have a problem, and whilst I accept that some people will take the opposing view (as it remains - and always will be - a controversial subject), I think that it is only right to have a more reasoned argument than simply referring to someone as a "knobcheese" and/or "fool", simply because they don't agree with you.

Especially when you are using utterly incorrect facts to back up your end of the argument.

NB - For clarity. I am not currently, nor have I ever been a user of any non-prescription drug bar alcohol and nicotine.

The finest example of myopia I've ever seen! Kudos to your fellow fans who quickly ridiculed you- and rightly so!

It's a massive grey area that people will never agree on, but this post is pretty much what I think. If someone has taken recreational drugs they have been stupid but if they have been taking performance enhancers they have been actively trying to cheat to gain an advantage over their opponents and should be punished more severely IMO. Like I say you will never get everyone to agree on the matter, some people take the opinion that drugs are drugs and should all carry the same punishment. On the Footy Show last week they were even debating whether painkilling injections should be classed as performance enhancers and also be banned.

I'm not sure you are correct about only England players getting tested though, there is regular post game testing at club level.

Steroids are 80's stuff. If you want to test for HGH or EPO you need to do it a lot more often than once per year as it's pretty easy to mask them. Rugby league, like many other sports, pay lip service to this issue and are happy to brush it under the carpet. Cycling for instance has a biological passport, with the riders profile and numbers on it. Any variance from that and they're out (and they're tested alot!). That's the benchmark here.

Drugs used to give you any advantage of your competitor,should carry a big ban than drugs used in recreational use.

At the end of the day its cheating .

You should be sacked regardless of what type of drug it is.

If I was to be caught under the influence at work then I would be sacked on the spot and would struggle to get another job. Why should someone who happens to be good at a sport be able to take drugs and then return to their job in 2 years or less and carry on as normal? That's before you factor in that they're a role model to Children everywhere who may start to think that drugs are cool because their favourite sportsmen do it.


Gaz Hock has been in superb form this season (my player of the year so far) and I'd rather see him in a Wigan shirt than any other, but IMO he shouldn't have been given another chance.

I agree performance enhancers should carry more consequences than recreational though both should be treated with the contempt they deserve.

On topic why do we get this every now and then? Why would a super league player try and bite someone?

I know he is going soon but still, biting? If you mean to damage why not throw a punch or something?

The Sam/Hudson incident isn't about drus its about biting.
SW was asked at the press conf about the on report incident being about biting.
He said he hadn't seen it and wasn't prepared to comment until he had.
He did say that if it was found to have occured then he'd be disappointed.