Has I have said on this subject before, anyone caught taking class A drugs, who is involved in RL should be banned for life. Drugs are the cancer of society and needs to be stamped out. Allowing Hock back sends all the wrong messages to the youngsters in our game. This goes for anyone including a Warrington player before someone accuses me of being biased. No excuses.

If he trains before his ban is up he sets the bar. Next time what's to stop a banned athlete continually training with their team whilst serving a ban.

Agreed. I think it says a lot about Maguire and Wigan that he is even wanted at their club. Would Smith and Warrington allow him back? Unlikely!

Disgraceful really.

No-one was saying this about Husdon...then again he didnt play for Wigan.

Hudson served his 2 year ban, and wasn't banned for a CLASS A substance!

Recreational drug, nothing to do with sport. Don't agree that the RFL should ban him. Matter between him and his club. If his club doesn't approve then get rid, upto them. I personally don't have a problem with players of other clubs smoking, drinking, getting high or whatever. Can't see any meaningfull performing enhancment from the drug (better off with creatine). Nobody elses business.

Of course he would. Smith has let players who have done wrong back into his squad on numerous occasions. Once someone has served their punishment, thats it the matter is over with. We all move on. Its far from disgraceful, its the right thing to do.

Gareth Hock had the potential to be the best forward in the country. He had the ability to dominate opposition, that is priceless. Will he still have that after 2 years out of the game? We will see. I personally hope he does. (Except for against Wire).

i think one of the things that was said at the time was its on WADA's list due to the potential use of coke as a masking agent for other things being taken, which sounds a bit daft when you read that, but they're the experts.

If you read through their prohibited list it comes under (s6) stimulants and does not appear on their (s5) masking agents.

Cocaine is classified as a performance enhancing drug by WADA. Why don't people seem to understand this?!

I understand it but don't agree with it. I'd place a bet that Hock wasn't using it as such and the rugby league don't have to adhere to WADA's list.

Completely agree that Hock probably wasn't using it to enhance his performance. But there are a number of reasons that it is classified as such drug. It raises aggressiveness, confidence, alertness and reduces tiredness to name a few.

Well then watching boxing, team talks and drinking caffineated beverages should be banned?
You'd have to be snorting cocaine just before kick off in a hope to get the kind of results you quote. Just as easily you could get -
[iThe few studies that exist suggest that little to no performance gains are incurred from cocaine and its amphetamine-like properties. Cocaine is notable for distorting the user's perception of reality; for example, an athlete may perceive increased performance and decreased fatigue in the face of actual decreased performance in both strength and endurance activities. An increase in heat production combined with a decrease in heat loss associated with cocaine abuse impairs the body's ability to regulate its temperature during physical activity.[/i

I am by no means an expert on the case and I can't be bothered trawling through the internet. The information I have came from WADA's website and so is a very reliable source. I'm sure their massive team of specialist scientists and researchers know exactly what they're talking about.

All i can find on their website is the list with no expansion on the specific effects of drugs. As for experts, i've grown very cynical of people being pronounced as experts, ideas change all the time. All i know about people taking coacaine is they feel euphoric (never aggresive) and don't appear to display any physical increases that could be described as being more athletic.

Isn't excessive caffine frowned upon (serious question)?
and what site you looking on ?

Quote ="Yed™"Isn't excessive caffine frowned upon (serious question)? and what site you looking on ?'" I think caffeine used to be on the WADA list but no longer appears. www.wada-ama.org

Quote ="Yed™"Isn't excessive caffine frowned upon (serious question)? and what site you looking on ?'" I think caffeine used to be on the WADA list but no longer appears. www.wada-ama.org

Like who? The club have been pretty tough on individuals in recent memory, one of the last being shown the door was Stuart Reardon for his behaviour off the field.

I hope not, read twitter and 90% of them are addicted to Costa. Nando's too but I cant see flavoured chicken being a performance enhancer.

I can remember a quote from him from years ago which went along the lines of they have done bad, been punished, now we move on. I cant remember the details of what that was about but Bailey and Senior were done for performance enhancing drugs under Smith's reign and were welcomed back.

What players have been shown the door at Wire for any form of offence ?

Reardon, Henare ?

phil Berry, drugs

Perhaps we can add to Yed's lists with a smacked off your tits 13

Gleason. I think he was part of enforcing a change of attitude in all players. Smith fixed an engrained attitude at Warrington that had been there for a long time. He has been tougher than what I think he would have been otherwise because of that.

I personally don't think he should be allowed to train for manY reasons, the main one being.... HE WAS BANNED FOR TWO YEARS!

HE hasn't served his punishment yet. Bottom line.

We could argue whether the punishment was too strict. I personally think it was too light. No one forced him to take cocaine. He knew what he was doing and should have been banned for life.

I'm struggling to see how I have managed to live my life not snorting cocaine and Hock hasn't and yet he should be given leniency. Not only is it madness, it is quite offensive.

He had a great talent and wasted it. However, if we put away the strange view that he should be let off.

It is an illegal substance- should be banned for that
It IS performance enhancing- should be banned
Could be used to mask something else- should be banned
It can (and does) kill thousands of people in Britain a year- should be banned.

If he plays rugby again it is too soon. Never mind the metaphorical slap on the wrist he got with the 2 years. He should be banned till the second he was banned two years ago.