That is just complete rubbish

Joe Egan, Bill Sayer, Nicky Kiss, Martin Dermott and Robbie McCormack were all better hookers than Newton.

And the beast is unleashed ....

It is far worse to take a performance enhancing drug than a recreational one and I am truely staggered that anyone thinks it is better. He took performance enhancing drugs which he thought were undetectable and so believed he could cheat without anyone knowing. This was to improve his game. I am no fan of Hock but he took recreational drugs, which were not an attempt to cheat on the rugby field. This was plain stupid but not an attempt to cheat. This is a big difference in my opinion and what Newton did is far, far worse.

Also how do you know that Newton only took it to get over an injury quicker? Just because he says so doesnt make it true. Drug cheats in a wide range of sports have said similar things when caught just to get a little sympathy. He could have been taking them for far longer for all we know. As a drugs cheat I would say he isnt exactly believable.



I can see why he took the drug, he took the drug to cheat so that he could gain an unfair advantage which is against the rules. There isnt really anything else to understand.



So it is okay to cheat as long as you, or the team, get a performance benefit from it?

Hock was just stupid but did not do it to get a competitive advantage. Newton did thinking he couldnt get caught.

Colin Clarke ?

Like i said each to their own.

You think it's worse than what Hock did and i don't.

You certainly aren't going to change my mind and i don't think i will change yours either.

One thing i will say tho is i really think enhancers will come more and more into the game to the point were they become legal. For me it's the next evolution of sport science.

Kiss wasnt as good as Newton

They've been making that argument in athletics (where cheating seems to be far more widespread than in RL) for years, and even THEY can't find a way to "legalise cheating".

Drug taking should NEVER be the next evolution of anything.

To do that, they would have to create 2 competitions - 1 for clean players and one without testing for the rest, just like they do in body-building.

Why don't you start a fan club up or something?

i must admit he gives an interesting interview in the back of the wigan observer tonight.

they are extracts from his autobiography..

to quote his views on St Helens...

" i've been fined a small fortune for smashing players high over the years,but when the fine was for hitting saints players, i never minded paying it"

Egan and Sayer were before my time and I can't make my mind up about Kiss. However, I agree that Dermott and McCormack were better hookers.

Now he has spoken to the media he should let the RFL have the details. I would especially want him to provide details of anybody who's been advising/pushing others to use these, and any other, substances as I wouldn't want them anywherenear our sport especially kids.

If he needs an example he could do worse than look at David Millar in cycling who was banned for two years but by admitting all it helped him to come to terms with what he'd done. He's now back competing cleanly and doing quite well.

But now you're entering into a whole other argument:

Would you condone the FORCING of drugs on kids aged 11 or 12 ???

That is what would HAVE to happen in your scenario.

If a kid like Sam Tomkins, with all the natural skill in the world, wanted to carry on playing rugby league after puberty, he would HAVE to take steroids in order to compete with less skillful players who are willing to take the drugs to artificially improve.

What if a kid doesn't WANT to take the drugs? Should the coach be allowed to demand that he takes them or stops playing?

And who would pay for the damaging consequences?

It's a well proven fact that steroids cause long-term, massive damage to takers.

Should the RFL be forced to have a pot of money to pay compensation to players as they (inevitably) succumb to the cumulative effects of however many drugs their coach told them to take?
Or should players have to sign a waiver to state that they admonish the clubs and RFL of all responsibility for whatever damage is caused by taking the drugs that are REQUIRED in order to play professionally?

Your argument is a complete non-starter, and is a farcical attempt to excuse the blatant cheating of a decent player (nothing more), who has pïssed his professional life away and is now trying to stay in the press by claiming to "know things" that he will never tell.

I personally would rather he wrote down the name of every single player that is using, even if it meant that Wigan lost ALL of our players, than for cheats in ANY team to go unpunished.

Good call.
Slipped my memory.

Bob Burdell