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.

What you must understand is that sportsmen, especially at the elite level, are role models. If say Gareth Hock was found to have taken cocaine and the sport did nothing about it 'Oh well, boys will be boys, he didn't cheat' What type of message does that send out to the thousands and thousands of kids who watch, and more than likely, idolize their favourite Wigan players and be just like them?

'Oh Hock does coke, so it's okay for me to do it'

That could be the reasoning of an impressionable young boy or girl when offered a line of coke, or a pill, or anything else for that matter. These drugs are dangerous, VERY dangerous. Cocaine is cut with god knows what when you buy it on street level, or in clubs. Pills are the same.

The fact of the matter is that although it gives them no advantage, these drugs are illegal and dangerous, if players want to do it, they're taking risks with their own bodies, which is fair enough, as they have to live with that. I'm glad we as a sport are governed by WADA because I wouldn't want my children thinking it's okay to do drugs, because we, as a sport, allow our elite players to do so.

I fairness anyone that thinks "oh hock does it so it's ok for me to do it." is a bigger idiot than hock.

People know its illegal if they suddenly changed their mind just because a professional sportsman did it then they're a pure idiot.

Not condoning the drug use it's an idiotic thing to do especially considering the ban but to say kids are gonna do drugs coz hock did is silly.

You sound like those Americans who claim that the columbine massacre was because they played grand theft auto and listened to Marilyn Manson. Guess what I've done both of those today and I do not feel the need or urge to go and kill people. If they do drugs and say that they "did it coz hock did" they would've done it anyway they just want to hide behind an excuse.




Anyway on topic biting?! Jesus Christ what a coward.

imo there should be a fixed penalty for biting.....having all your teeth removed, and the use of anesthetic will be dependant on the severity.....ie.deliberate biting to hurt an opponent = no anesthetic

just been on the rfl disciplinary site and the only incident from Friday is the 'no case to answer' against Eric.
if the rfl are still investigating, surely there should be a reference to the incident on the site ? or do they only put them on once the initial review has been completed ?

EDIT : found it on the front page.

But it's fine for players to get drunk every other weekend? It's been proven that alcohol is far more damaging than all but the most serious of narcotics. Would you want your kids thinking it's ok to get so bladdered they don't know what they're doing?

Whilst part of me agrees with the sentiment regarding deliberate cheating (steroids,HGH) and recreational drugs.........

Over 10,000 people die in drugs related crime every YEAR in Mexico alone.

All would be avoided if no-one took the drugs. Arguably use of cocaine should relate in a ban for life.

Please show me your 'Proof' that alcohol is more damaging than any other drug? Cocaine can cause heart attacks, MDMA can cause you to drink so much your kidneys flood, LSD can give you such bad trips you jump off the nearest building, same for mushrooms. Weed can cause severe paranoia and speed can cause heart attacks and strokes [All proven by the way, and I can link you to the studies] I'd be interested to read your studies that state that alcohol, when taken in the same quantities is more dangerous than any drug.

The fact is people don't hammer Cocaine [i'm using that as it happens to be to fashionable drug at the minute] like they do alcohol. If people where to intake the same quantities of alcohol as they do cocaine, there would be no drunks in the world. That's in the majority of cases, there are obviously people who abuse cocaine, but, as it's much more expensive than a bottle of vodka, people don't tend to do more than a couple of lines at a time.

This is beside the point. If our players where stumbling about, being drunk, infront of their fans on a regular basis, I would not agree with that also. Josh Charnley had a picture of himself in a bar with a bottle of fosters after the game on Friday - I did not like this as feel that he shouldn't be drinking during the season, just my opinion, but, I know how alcohol can affect physical performance. The fact is that alcohol [in moderation] is nowhere near as dangerous as many narcotics, and even legal drugs! Cigarettes are far more dangerous than a couple of pints at the weekend.

Now if we get into binge drinking 10 pints a night with 10 shots of Sambuca, yes, this is harmful. But by the same token, if you went to McDonalds 10 times a day, this would be just as, if not, more harmful. It's everything in moderation. Yes a few pints won't hurt, that is, largely why it's legal. People have died after trying narcotics ONCE which is why they're illegal, mostly.