A: When Wigan are involved

[urlhttp://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/super_league/wigan/9440111.stm[/url

Why shouldn't a two year ban be served in full?
Why should the terms be changed?

Answers on a post card to the RFL!

and we never had the match result reversed did we

If memory serves he scored two tries against us in the game he was tested after?

wasn't exactly 'peformance enhancing' was it though?

Ever since the great cap swindle of 2006 i will always be skeptical regarding the judgement of the RFL.

That's a very debatable subject, why ban a professional sportsperson it if isn't considered performance enhancing? Yes it's an offence and a bad example to kids but they wouldn't ban a player from RL for dangerous driving. I read somewhere that cocaine can enhance a sportsperson's alertness if taken in low doses.

If someone gets caught taking an illegal drug before a game and they win, they should lose the points. Puts more pressure on the player not to take anything!

they are wigan so they along with saints and leeds can do what the chuff they like...

speaking to afew of the players ( including a couple who have recently served bans ).
they believe there is double standards when the RFL are handing out fines & bans.

Part of it is the Bigger clubs go ' mob handed ' - Player, coaches , Club Solicitor etc to the Review board. these clubs will cover the players fines and even stump up the appeal fees , whilst our lot are mostly left to fend for themselves.

Salford aren't in the same financial league as some of the big 4 or 5 clubs who have a pot of money over after spending upto maximum salary cap. Are you intimating that some of our banned players are unhappy about having to pay their own fines? I would imagine the club has other financial priorities before they spend money on extortionate solicitors fees at disciplinary hearings.

Nothing to do with the RFL, the appeal is to an independent committee.
[urlhttp://www.wigantoday.net/sport/wigan-warriors/banned_star_s_hearing_date_1_3230145[/url

"But the Warriors are using a precedent set in football to try and get him into the fold sooner."

Personally I don't have a problem with it. The length of the ban to me should be for playing competitive matches. The lad has virtually served his punishment and if he needs to go back a few weeks early to train and get fitter then fair enough. I remember seeing Hock in the crowd at the friendly game at the Willows in pre season and he looked in pretty good shape considering the ban.

I wonder if this is what Wakefield did?

But why would a club need a lawyer and legal bigwig, the guidelines are very simple for sentencing especially where it states that a fine can not be used instead of a ban, something that has been transgressed twice this year to my knowledge.
all the bigwigs can do is argue the initial case and if there is a video well guilty has to be the verdict if it is shwon in the video. The pressure on the joints is another one which is upto the ref. Makes you wonder about how they do it in football, more money but straightforward sentencing policy no matter which QC you take, and if you appeal and lose a the ban can be extended.

In which case Salford would've lost points over Ian Sibbit a few years back

Lost point, the match he was tested after was a 16-16 draw at home to Widnes in April 2008!



Bit of a difference imo between a lifelong asmatic struggling to breath due to a high pollen count that day and someone snorting cocaine. Supported by the fact he didn't get banned and Hock got 2 years.

Looks like in Yawnian you can ignore the rules about bans as well menmedia.co.uk/manchesterevening ... drugs-test

Looks like in Yawnian you can ignore the rules about bans as well menmedia.co.uk/manchesterevening ... drugs-test