You should be sacked regardless of what type of drug it is.

If I was to be caught under the influence at work then I would be sacked on the spot and would struggle to get another job. Why should someone who happens to be good at a sport be able to take drugs and then return to their job in 2 years or less and carry on as normal? That's before you factor in that they're a role model to Children everywhere who may start to think that drugs are cool because their favourite sportsmen do it.


Gaz Hock has been in superb form this season (my player of the year so far) and I'd rather see him in a Wigan shirt than any other, but IMO he shouldn't have been given another chance.

I agree performance enhancers should carry more consequences than recreational though both should be treated with the contempt they deserve.

On topic why do we get this every now and then? Why would a super league player try and bite someone?

I know he is going soon but still, biting? If you mean to damage why not throw a punch or something?

The Sam/Hudson incident isn't about drus its about biting.
SW was asked at the press conf about the on report incident being about biting.
He said he hadn't seen it and wasn't prepared to comment until he had.
He did say that if it was found to have occured then he'd be disappointed.

What you must understand is that sportsmen, especially at the elite level, are role models. If say Gareth Hock was found to have taken cocaine and the sport did nothing about it 'Oh well, boys will be boys, he didn't cheat' What type of message does that send out to the thousands and thousands of kids who watch, and more than likely, idolize their favourite Wigan players and be just like them?

'Oh Hock does coke, so it's okay for me to do it'

That could be the reasoning of an impressionable young boy or girl when offered a line of coke, or a pill, or anything else for that matter. These drugs are dangerous, VERY dangerous. Cocaine is cut with god knows what when you buy it on street level, or in clubs. Pills are the same.

The fact of the matter is that although it gives them no advantage, these drugs are illegal and dangerous, if players want to do it, they're taking risks with their own bodies, which is fair enough, as they have to live with that. I'm glad we as a sport are governed by WADA because I wouldn't want my children thinking it's okay to do drugs, because we, as a sport, allow our elite players to do so.

I fairness anyone that thinks "oh hock does it so it's ok for me to do it." is a bigger idiot than hock.

People know its illegal if they suddenly changed their mind just because a professional sportsman did it then they're a pure idiot.

Not condoning the drug use it's an idiotic thing to do especially considering the ban but to say kids are gonna do drugs coz hock did is silly.

You sound like those Americans who claim that the columbine massacre was because they played grand theft auto and listened to Marilyn Manson. Guess what I've done both of those today and I do not feel the need or urge to go and kill people. If they do drugs and say that they "did it coz hock did" they would've done it anyway they just want to hide behind an excuse.




Anyway on topic biting?! Jesus Christ what a coward.

imo there should be a fixed penalty for biting.....having all your teeth removed, and the use of anesthetic will be dependant on the severity.....ie.deliberate biting to hurt an opponent = no anesthetic

just been on the rfl disciplinary site and the only incident from Friday is the 'no case to answer' against Eric.
if the rfl are still investigating, surely there should be a reference to the incident on the site ? or do they only put them on once the initial review has been completed ?

EDIT : found it on the front page.

But it's fine for players to get drunk every other weekend? It's been proven that alcohol is far more damaging than all but the most serious of narcotics. Would you want your kids thinking it's ok to get so bladdered they don't know what they're doing?

Whilst part of me agrees with the sentiment regarding deliberate cheating (steroids,HGH) and recreational drugs.........

Over 10,000 people die in drugs related crime every YEAR in Mexico alone.

All would be avoided if no-one took the drugs. Arguably use of cocaine should relate in a ban for life.

is nowhere near as dangerous as many narcotics, and even legal drugs! Cigarettes are far more dangerous than a couple of pints at the weekend.

Now if we get into binge drinking 10 pints a night with 10 shots of Sambuca, yes, this is harmful. But by the same token, if you went to McDonalds 10 times a day, this would be just as, if not, more harmful. It's everything in moderation. Yes a few pints won't hurt, that is, largely why it's legal. People have died after trying narcotics ONCE which is why they're illegal, mostly.

this is what coke does to you

Quote ="Jeff the God of Biscuits"Please show me your 'Proof' that alcohol is more damaging than any other drug? '" Study done by Imperial College last year www.dailytech.com/Study+Alcohol+ ... e20038.htm

Quote ="Jeff the God of Biscuits"Please show me your 'Proof' that alcohol is more damaging than any other drug? '" Study done by Imperial College last year www.dailytech.com/Study+Alcohol+ ... e20038.htm

alcochol can do all that too...

back on topic

[urlhttp://www.sportinglife.com/rugby-league/news/article/480/7953468/no-bite-charge-for-hudson[/url

no charge, insufficient evidence.

i guess we can let this one die now then

but part of the intrinsic problem of alcohol is the level of consumption. it would be illogical to talk about the associated problems without referencing the frequency and widespread use as they are the base cause of the problems. to turn it around, if alcohol and cocaine were swapped around in there volume, frequency and spread of use, would not the problems then associated with cocaine be far greater than those currently associated with alcohol, and also would not the problems associated with alcohol be almost negligible?

Basically saying that Alcohol is only the most harmful as it is readily available and the most consumed.

Thats like saying the worst cars for pollution are Ford Fiestas just because theres more of them sold than anything else at the moment.

Hang on a minute. I am getting heartily sick of this RFL sweeping under the carpet crap. Why would ST say he was bitten if he wasn't. I am sorry this is not acceptable. If he didn't bite him then surely ST should be banned for bringing the game into disrepute?

The RFL are a joke and the latest lets scrap the academy is another sign of incompetent governance by our beloved Yarkshire bigots!

How about cannabis v's alcohol for overdose risk for example? Should a player smoking a normal cigarette inside a place of work be banned? It's illegal after all.

The depressing thing about drugs being illegal is that the black market will always traffic the highest potency drugs by preference, highest cash per weight/risk. This was the same in prohibition in the US, spirits not beer were smuggled. Many of the studies around drugs have been based on some very flimsy evidence, the studies that lead to cannabis being banned used monkeys in a high cannabis / low oxygen environment at the end of the study they had lots brain cells, to be expected with oxygen starvation.

Personally I think that the evidence from places like Portugal show that the "natural" recreational drugs should be legal as this also erodes the market for new chemical drugs which are very high potency. Just because the law say's "no" doesn't automatically create something that's right.

Where performance enhancing drugs are used a higher ban should be enforced as they are only used by a player to artificially enhance and cheat. Recreational drugs without performance enhancing, less of a ban.

Where is your evidence for this? As far as I know (not that I'm a user) cocaine's popularity has been falling and it's relatively cheap.



And when have the players been under the influence of illegal drugs infront of the fans? Seem odd that it's OK to drink and spray drinks from the top of an open top bus in public and there's no concern at all but something which no fan sees is beyond the pale.



I bet if you looked hard enough there's evidence of people trying alcohol once and death occurring. Interestingly going to McDonald's 10 times a day has no ill health impacts the walk would probably do most people good. Eating excessive calories does - I suggest that you watch a documentary called Fat Head.

Incidentally, 10 beers + 10 Sambucas + whatever food is eaten in the day would be worse than the McDonalds trips with food.

Clearly you are very close minded on the whole issue and are not prepared to read the evidence around many of the social and health mis-conceptions. I don't use drugs or smoke but I do drink. I am very much of the opinion that if somebody wants to alter their conscious state, let them as long as they are not out causing fights, primary cause alcohol perchance? The legalisation of many recreational drugs would most likely, as seen in Portugal reduce drug use on the whole and tend to make the market for the man made high potency stuff from China largely go away, the very high potency cannabis strains which have been engineered could be kept out of the legal market just like high tar cigarettes - I don't see a black market for them.

Was never going to get punished without the TV cameras. Wigan should release the evidence they sent to the RFL and let the fans see it for ourselves. It's a complete joke how differently televised and non-televised games are treated by the RFL disciplinary. Video refs should be implemented at every game and it should have been done a long time ago.

Given the drink drive limit is scarecely over 1 drink it certainly wouldn't be too hard to find many such examples. To be honest I'm less concerned with the damage a grown adult does to their own body through their own free will than the damage they do to others through that same choice. The study I linked to before shows that alcohol does far more 'societal damage' than any other drug, ie it causes lots more harm to people not consuming than any other drug. So if players want to be good role models abstaining from

, at least in public, would be by far the easiest thing they could do (in terms of stopping bad behaviour I mean).

I mean there's another thread here talking about the success of Bradley Wiggins and how the club should be trumpeting the fact he's a fan. Trumpeting the disciplined lifestyle and dedication to his craft would also be no bad thing. He used to drink heavily in the close season. Then he got serious about road cycling, sorted his diet and lifestyle out all year round, and is now reaping the rewards. That there's a lesson to players and fans alike.

I think the drug argument has 1 decisive factor and 1 only. Forget legality and forget how much they harm or dont harm the body the decisive factor is this.
Recreational vs Cheating.

If you take a recreational drug then you are a complete and utter idiot but you are doing it for exactly this "recreation."

If you take a performance enhancing drug then you are deliberately taking a drug that is going to give you an edge over your competitors.

Now it doesnt take a brain surgeon to realise that theres a huge difference between the two. And before people say about how "steroids are prescribed but drug like weed, cocaine and heroin arent" you're wrong Morphine is very related to heroin and there are also pain killers related to cocaine.

I understand that this means that cocaine can help with pain relief but I think if a study was conducted they would almost certainly find that these pain relief effects would not still be in effect the day after or two days after whenever it was that Hock took the drug.

In my opinion, if someone is caught having used a recreational drug it should be left to the clubs discretion whether the player is punished but with a mandatory drug awareness course and a set RFL imposed ban that is of indeterminate length until the player completes the drug awareness course (a minimum of 3 months) then if the player still tests positive they are banned for life and they are also banned for life if they ever test positive again in the future.

I also feel that bans for HGH or Steroids should be supported with psychiatric help. They need to still be as long as they are now though as this is cheating whether you like it or not. Gleeson was a cheat. Newton (RIP) was a cheat. Simple as.

My thoughts to a T, only put a lot better than I could put it.

Well said Sir, I agree with almost every word you wrote.

I don't follow your argument. No-one from the RFL's said that Sam wasn't bitten, only that there was insufficient evidence to confirm whether or not he was.