i want clubs to take responsbility in the punishment - points, cap, money deductions will mean that if another hock happened at wigan we wouldnt be in this airy fairy situation of he's a muppet but underneath it all we can change him - if he'd lost us points he'd be out on his ear which is where i think he should be.

that where i think the rfl need to go with this - turn some responsbility back on the clubs to run their own testing programmes? how about everyone gets an extra 200k on the cap with which they should do their own regular drug testing and if a player from your club gets done (either by you or rfl testing) you lose cap and points?

in terms of wigan and hock ive always said wigan should have made a stand and sent a signal. we didnt and havent which sends another message of drugs cheats/users/abusers are bad, but not that bad.

id also like to know whether hock is still being paid? either in full or as a retainer or as a renoufs wife type arrangement? if so then wigan are 100% taking a lax attitude and condoning hock. if he is unpaid then the argument becomes a matter of principal, does he deserve a 2nd chance? if hock is being paid then wigan are not just setting a bad example but you can argue are effectively condoning hock. youd never find your answer tho as IL wont answer anything he doesnt want to - which is why fans forums are like a soviet press conference without the gulag.

If I lost my driving licence due to drink driving, I would in all probability loose my job, and wouldnt get another in the field I work in.

After having completed my ban and getting my drivers licence back, do you think i should continue to be "banned" from working in my field?

No he thinks that if you took recreational drugs and got caught then you and your employer should be punished.

Apparently in RL when losing an international from the squad and potentially that player never comming back to the game it's just not enough to have the gap in the squad which must be filled by a less experienced player. For some reason the club must be punished for something that may have happened outside of the country nevermind outside of working hours. Something that the players already know what the punishment is and still manage to put their income at risk for.

For players like Newton who have a wife and kids where losing the major and possibly only income are at stake what exactly could the club do as a punishment worse than the potential to lose your financial security, house, future income etc. If the players can't see the risk to their family do we think they would care about a few point being docked?

Also with the fine/points etc, whats to stop a disgruntled player at the end of his career taking some perfromance enhancing "fat burner" and having a test to give the club he has fallen out with a kick in the teeth on the way out?

I like the Brisbane approach of appointing an indipendant agencey that they have no control over - the players can be tested 365 days a year at any time of the day and in 2007 over 800 players where tested.

Brisbane adopt a three strikes and your out policy but it is only quite recently that they have changed their approach to players that take drugs. As Wayne Bennet says there is an unwritten rule in the game that despite your off field activities if you turn up on time, train hard, play hard and are talented then you will be protected.

However i don't think that this is a problem just for rugby league but for sport generally and their will be coaches out there that simply want to get results and will be tempted to turn a blind eye to what players get up to away from the game.

At 31 and if found guilty then it would be a terribley said end to a great playing career.

www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... ement.html He did it.

www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... ement.html He did it.

Well, I guess there's something to be said for owning up to his actions.

so go on then. tell us something useful and give us a suggestion of how to solve this issue. cos at the minute all we have is a player getting caught and his club waiting to re-employ him. what a message that sends out!!! (that is if he isnt already still employed)

It's called a second chance. Taking a drug recreationally and taking a drug for its performance enhancing capabilities are two different matters. Each case has to be treated on its own individual merit. Although i'd like the Hock situation to be cleared up, i think we need to take however long is necessary. The guy probably needs professional help and it wouldn't be very fair to kick him to the curb without giving him a some support. Sure, if he stuffs it up, then it's out the door, but that's a clause that every prospective employer would have in Hock's new contract...

my thoughts exactly, wasn't it called the monday club or something

Still dont think hock should be banned from playing rl, however newton should never be allowed to cross the threshold of a rugby club ever again! Certainly not in an employed role.

Taking performance enhancing drugs, is the lowest of the low in sports. It is impossible to prove and he wont admit it, but he should as they do in athletics, be made to payback/giveback all monies and titles that he has earned in his time on the steriods!

If that includes our challenge cup win so be it!

That may seem harsh on his team mates, but cheats should never ever ever be allowed to prosper!

According to the reports at the time of the Hock story, cocaine has a performance-enhancing metabolite. In the light of that do you still think Hock shouldn't have been banned?

saints fan cocaine DOES NOT COME UNDER PERFOMACE ENHANCING and has never been taken for performance

This is exactly what Paul Cullen was on about on Boots N All - the myth that growth hormone can't be detected. All of you who have RL background, current or past, will more than likely of heard of this drug. Many players believe that it is un-detectable, although this belief stems from the amateur scene. There's no smoke without fire though and I suspect maybe a few more SL players will be counting thier lucky stars it wasn't them.

No he should have been and was banned to the extent of the law, I honestly dont think anyone believes hock took it as a steriod!

Anyone taking steriods by any mean intentional or not is responsible for what passes through their body, I said kc should have never played again, i said hudson should never have played again and i say newton should never be allowed to play again.

However hocks is and was a completley different thing so he should be allowed back after his ban, as a driver would after being caught drink driving.

ps also if the player in question was wearing cherry and white i would still say they should never play again.