Completely agree. The only issue for a sportsperson would be whether it impinged on performance in a negative way – exactly the same as if they turned up for training hungover etc. And that is an issue between themselves and their employer.

If you're comfortable with people doing drugs, particularly people who have such a big influence on kids, then that's your call. Personally, I'm not. I'm sure if these any of these 'teachers, doctors, nurses, firemen, social workers' were caught by the authorities, they wouldn't be given a second chance by their employers. Neither would I. But we know sports stars are treated differently as they have more value. I think drugs are illegal for a reason. But you're fine with drug use, so you won't be bothered either way.

this as got to be a wind up?

just read more posts,
it is, thank god for that. I was worried for a second a complete Moron had been let loose

Booze and tobacco?

He will still be classed as a drug cheat though, its in the RL laws of the game that drugs of any kind be it recreational or performance enhancing are not permitted in the game.
Certain players will always have a tag label attached to them when associated with high profile clubs popular to the media. Sean Long (Betting@Saints), Pryce (Assault@Bulls), Bailey (Convict@Rhinos), Raynor (Fraud@Hull)and now Hock (Drugs@Warriors) whilst the players such as Robbie Paul, Lee Briers, John Wilkin who make a big positive impact on the rugby league community outside of there clubs don,t get a mention in the column inches.

That may be true, but whether or not it would be justified or indeed morally legitimate to remove those choices depends on whether or not you agree with such nannyism. The idea that "unhealthy" or "some risk" are sufficient criterion for a government to prohibit something is highly contentious. In my personal view, a government's role in protecting (adult) individuals does not extend to protecting them from themselves.

But the public don't buy papers to read those stories.

If I was in charge of a department where we evaluated new products that would be on general sale to the public and someone presented a product to me that consisted of rolled plant leaves with about 500 psychoactively addictive additives (many of which had carcinogenic properties) and told me that allegedly each one would reduce the users lifespan by 10 minutes I think I would consider it to be a little more than 'nannyism' when I blocked the sale and production of them.

Why didn't Bailey and Senior get this kind of cr*p when they used a banned substance and were caught?

Damn right, we should ban coffee and tea forthwith.

Because they were told it was safe to take by a doctor, the drug itself is legal and available without prescription and it is about as performance enhancing as a nice glass of water.

Yet it would be exactly nannyism. Pointing out that something is harmful doesn't make it's prohibition something other than nannyism, it just means you agree with that nannyism because of that risk, and believe forcing people to abstain (via removal of a product or punishment for those who do not abstain) is the right thing to do for their own good. The issue (in my opinion anyway) isn't the risk attached to any behaviour but the question of wherein lies the jurisdiction over a person's body - with the individual or the state?

Well you have pretty much answered your own question, they were fined a tiny amount for taking a small amount of a cold cure and declaring it to the authorities. Hock regularly did cocaine and was only caught through random testing. Understandably people have looked upon these two differing events, differently.

Quite a statement. Any proof?

Hock himself said so in his interview with the news of the world.

His words [i"I am glad I have been caught because I'd have probably kept on doing it if not. Now something good will come out of it.

"It's easy to say you'll stop, but not easy to do it unless something like this happens - now I know I'll never do it again."[/i

Yes, which is when they were asked had you take anything, they said yeah, we took some over the counter cold medicine which were told was fine. The RFL said "These cases do not represent a widespread problem in rugby league, but we do feel it is important to clarify issues relating to ephedrine so that all players and relevant personnel have the maximum amount of information to guide them in this important area,"
and WADA describe Ephedrine [ias a "specified substance" that is "particularly susceptible to unintentional anti-doping violations"[/i in fact, they were caugh during a tri-nations in which Australia flat out refused to include Ephedrine on their list of banned substances.

There is, and was however, no question regarding the legality of admitted regular use of cocaine

how are you messing up quotations dan??? its not hard....lol

He's not a cheat, as Cocaine isn't performance enhancing, but he's an idiot. However he's served his sentence, so just move on and let it go. Other sports stars come back from drugs ban without any hassle.

Though the one thing that bugs me was that he was allowed to train with Wigan during his suspension.

Do you want to clarify that?
All of his suspension or the last 4/6 weeks?

It is certainly more performance enhancing than Benylin.