That makes sense to me, however even if the Play Offs etc are standalone, they're still a sporting competition and must be governened by UKAD/WADA rules surely?

True, hard to dissect the little information I've heard, but it seems to around the days before/after a stand-alone event even if governed by UKAD. Very tough one to call as it really sets a precedent for future cases.

Say for instance his sample is from the day after the Saints game, then if the play off fixture was a stand alone event, the next stand alone event would be the Grand Final and between those two fixtures Zak would be OOC.

Sounds like his legal rep will have something to play with.

I completely understand that, although if it is the case it does set a dangerous precedent! It's obvious that the situation isn't straightforward as there's been no official ban yet has there? Unless I've missed something

Not really because it was after the Super 8's game vs Leeds a few weeks before that he failed.

If we want to as a club help someone with "issues" why don't we go and find a 16 or 17 year old lad with "issues" but with potential? It'll be just as hard but with less financial outlay.
I cannot agree with the signing of Hardaker in any circumstance other than perhaps he has served say a 5 year ban from playing and has also evidence to show that he has for example done lots of community work within the amateur game.

Cruncher nobody is perfect but where do you draw the line?
What does a player need to do before you say "Nah, no matter how good you are you are we wont touch you with a bargepole"?

How many other players have we signed where we knew for a fact that they take Class a drugs??

If it was a first offence then I would like to think that Cas or any other club would support him however, it isn't.
I very uncomfortable that this sounds like a done deal.

On Sky news Shaun Wane said he would be interested in Zac Hardaker.

I'll be the odd one out and say I'm quite happy we are linked with him.

He also said that he’s not heard anything and that he leaves that up to Rads and Lenegan sorry what? Our head coach doesn’t have a say in what players we sign?

if and its a big if he only gets 12 weeks how can they say walkers and chases bans are fair would open a big can of worms

If his case is treated similar to Hock's and he's looking at 1-2 year ban, it might make more sense that we're interested. By that time, Bateman is likely to have gone to the NRL and Lockers will have probably retired so there should be enough space under the cap. I'd be amazed if he gets anything like 12 weeks.

You can bet that there are lawyers involved and they may feel that he has a case to make sure he only gets a 12 week ban.

It’s very easy to take the moral high ground, it’s also a lot easier to stick to it if we a are talking about a mediocre player. Hardaker is a top class player, plenty of clubs will be clambering over each other to get his signature once whatever ban he receives is up. Looking at it pragmatically When a player of that quality is available we’d be pretty stupid not to see if we can lick up his signature. If we do he may end up doing something stupid again, he may not. These things come down to the quality of the player and Hardaker imo is worth taking the gamble.