What are some of these blokes thinking of? How many offences have to happen and be punished before players and their clubs & the RFL really do start to pull themselves together to cut out such stupidity?

One SL player jailed this week and another arrested ten days ago for drink driving.

I find it perverse that a player can get a 2 year ban from the RFL for using a 'recreational' substance, but you can break the law of the land and be jailed yet not be banned by the governing body.

Nothing to do with the rfl.

It may have missed your eagle eye, but players are human beings just like the rest of us.

Do you think Martin Aspinwall saw the flashing blue lights in his mirror and thought, "oh no, I should pull over because I'm a rugby league player and a role model"?

I'd say someone losing their liberty is sufficient punishment for breaking the law of the land. If their employer chooses to keep their job open for them when they return then that's up to them, just like it is for every other employer in every other field of work.

I'd be no more in favour of the RFL intervening and banning people once they've served their time than I would any other professional body dictating to its members who they can and cannot employ.

If you want to know why players get bans for taking recreational substances, have a look at the WADA anti-doping regulations the RFL are signed up to.

Why is it nothing to do with the RFL? Do you not find it strange that a player can commit an act that is not illegal yet be banned from playing for 2 years, yet can break the law of the land and be convicted by a court yet face no sanction from the governing body?

Of course players are human.

Do all industries ban people from working within them for using recreational drugs? If it's not to set itself up as some sort of arbiter of morals and acceptability, why does the RFL ban players for doing something that is not illegal?

The RFL's compass is shot to pieces IMO. Law breakers bring the game into a far greater level of disrepute than recreational drug users.

Again, it may have escaped your attention but possession of Class A narcotics is breaking the law. That the police and CPS choose not to prosecute is down to them, still means the players have committed a criminal offence.

totally agree, should be banned from bringing the game into disrepute.


Funny how clubs tend to stick by senior players, yet young lads if they do it get binned

Possession with intent to supply yes, but is taking a recreational drug illegal? Police and CPS don't take action but RFL bans for 2 years? How does that work then? If you set yourself up as a moral arbiter, how can you ignore court convictions?

And part 2 is, how do they clear the CRB checks afterwards, or doesnt that matter with sports stars

Is having taken them the same thing as possesion?

They do not get clear CRB checks, all offences are shown on any-ones CRB....however it is down to the discretion of the Barla/RFL if they are allowed to be involved with youngsters (if any offences are committed against children they will not get cleared) if the CRB has offences on not related to children then it is down to the welfare officer/club secretary to decide if the volunteer can be involved in coaching in an amateur club....Often people have made silly mistakes when younger this is all taken into account.

Well i think the RFL should get tough on players. RL has built a fantastic reputation over many years. But it doesn't take much to ruin it. Look at the state of affairs the NRL has had. To me the RFL should have a zero tolerance stance. They are highly paid professionals. We've had Tansey, Gleeson, Apsinwall and Moore this year.

Pundits were saying they were glad Jordan Tnsey got a second chance with the Crusaders. Sorry he had 3 chances at Hulld and blew them all. Same with Gleeson, he just staggers from one club to another. Why should these players get chance after chance when we have some bright young talents who would do anything for a chance in the championship. If i turned up to work drunk or got sent to prison, i'd be sacked on the spot, as would many of us. It's time for the RFL to get tough.

Not a fan of Hock, he was stupid for what he did, but how annoyed must he feel that he got a two year ban by the RFL for using a recreational drug (not cheating) yet we have players turning up to training drunk and getting arrested and the RFL turn a blind eye. If you are sacked for alcohol or drug offences by your club, you should be suspended for a year and be sent on a course teaching youngsters about drugs alcohol etc. This will hopefully mean we won't have another tragedy like Terry Newton, but also the players know that there is zero tolerance. Right now they can do what they want it seems, and look what happened in the NRL!!

Why should the RFL punish players if they have already been punished by law?

I think they should get involved if something extremely serious has happened eg rape but the club should have the right to re-employ if they wish.

You can have posession with Intent to suppy and posession. I would suggest he has comitted an offence. I also dont like the term recreational drugs. Its a class A drug!

I think anyone convincted of a drugs offense should be banned for life personally.

I reckon even the Sky commentary team should boo 'him' when he crosses the white lines again on Friday.

[url=http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2003/jul/22/rugbyleague.duncanmackayAnyone ?[/url

The RFL need to employ a respected former player or coach as a guidance mentor for young, impressionable players. However, given their astonishing lack of good judgement and awareness, they'd probably end up appointing someone like John Elias.

The fact the RFL is signed up to WADA doesnt in and of itself justify the hypocrisy in the two stances.

IF the RFL are in no position to moralise about a players legal indiscretions, why are they in a position to moralise about the recreational use of drugs?

However having a controlled substance in your system, whether that be class A, B, or C or ungraded like Tobacco or Alcohol does not constitute possession of said substance. There is no law broke by being under the influence of a control substance.

Psilocilbyn is a Class A substance. Im not sure what it could possibly be other than a recreational drug.


You must have a very interesting job for it to possibly be performance enhancing, or a very strange illness for it to be medicinal.

Doesn't count Count. He was given it by the RFL's doctor. If anything the RFL should have paid compensation for that.

Pfffft

used to be medicinal but I would suggest Ileagal drug. I personally dont like the term recreational. Its not You are breaking the law to possess it, and for me recreational makes it more acceptable. I dont disagree thats probably a catagory it would fit in I just dont like the term.

recreational is used to describe the reason it is used, not its legal status. Alcohol is a recreational drug.

The law on drugs is as pointless as it is counter productive. There is no sense or logic behind it. Psilocilbyn is a class A substance even though it has next to no toxicity, they dont actually know at what level it would be fatal, because nobody has ever been able to take enough of it. It is naturally occurring and none-addictive. Alcohol on the other hand (similarly grouped as a psychoactive drug) is pretty toxic, can cause heart disease, can be fatal in relatively small doses, is carcinogenic, physically addictive, can cause diabetes, strokes, dementia, around 33'000 people in this country alone die as a result of alcohol's toxicity. That's not to mention the thousands who die because of the impaired decision making (accidents, falls, violence, drink driving etc)


The laws position on a certain drug, bares no relation to the harm that drug can cause.