Can anyone explain why a hair sample is not taken when drug testing ?
I am aware that Paul Cullen announced on television last night that blood testing catered for a larger number of different drug types than urine testing but from what I understand a hair sample is the best of the lot.
[url=http://www.drug-aware.com/articles/14/hair-drug-testHere is some information[/url

There is a rumour of a person from another sport avoiding a test because he feared a hair sample may have been taken.

Because of the ability to shave/remove hair from the body.

Not just that, the reasons that the armed forces gave for not using the hair test as opposed to a urine test was the expense.

Stuffing Imac up your nostrils can't be very pleasant, though, not to mention the sack and crack wax...

Beware the man with no eyebrows.

Ouch !!!

Not the kind of publicity Trinity or the sport needs right now, if its true or not.

Funny I posted the comment below back in June of last year when the subject was Hock and still the same applies.

[i"It does'nt matter if it's a social drug or whatever. Hock is a professional sportsman and well paid to boot,which prohibits the use of drugs.
He should pay the price.

What gets me they use cocaine because it can pass through the system pretty quickly compared to other drugs so why don't the authorities use a simple hair folloicle test which can go back up to six months on drug testing.
For example all casinos in the States do a six monthly test on all of there staff by this method".[/i

I think people should really think about what they are posting until we are ALL aware of ALL the facts. At this moment in time TN is a Wakefield player, and as so deserves our full backing until anything has been proven for SURE. I am not stupid enough to think that the RFL would suspend him, if in their opinion they didn't have a pretty 'cast iron case' but at this present time he is innocent until proven etc. From an ethical point of view, I am more worried about the example it sets to young kids such as my own (if indeed he is guilty of anything), my lad is 9yrs old and idolise's all the Wakey players, so this sest a bad example (again, if true), and the last thing anybody wants is their child thinking that drug use of any kind is acceptable. Also from a team point of view I think it will restrict JK's plans for the season which imho would have seen Latu spending a bit of time at LF, this may now not be an optoin



But again, lets back TN until all the facts are available.

I think it's great that we have soooooooooooooooooooooo many referee's and now judges on these forums. The referee's can help Mr Cummings and the judges can help the disciplinary panel. Cos they need it.

Very true Outwood Vic but I do think most of the responses are directed at how we can rid or more control the drug issue in our sport rather than the person involved.
We had the SL chap last night telling us they are taking 650 tests this year as opposed to last years 628. with those figures it still becomes a bit of a lottery in catching the cheats.
I agree with Cullen we have to test everyone involved in the sport and educate from a young age. It's the only way or else we will always return to Go.

One of the reports (BBC I think) did acknowledge that RL is relatively rigourous in its testing, being 3rd behind athletics and football in terms of tests carried out.

Let's be first then !!