A paradox that I cannot get my head around?

[MrDave]

Basically there is a governing body who set out guidelines for drug use in sport and the RFL follow those guidelines.

There is no governing body for players who commit crimes out-side of rugby league so the RFL has no guidelines to follow nor any obligation to punish players.

The legal issue of drug taking is completely different substances on the WADA prohibited list can be bought or found legally in medicine and other treatments. Hock could be found guilty of breaking WADA code without breaking the law but in the case of Reardon, Pryce etc they were breaking the law but not breaking any RFL rules.

I don't think the RFL would be allowed to make rules that enforced a punishment on player who broke the law since punishing crimes is the job of the Crown Prosecution service. It's up to the employer to decide whether or not having a criminal record is grounds to sack an employee.

[highland convert]

Violence should not be condoned. A national ban should be upheld internationally. NRL are trying to clean up shop. We hire the offenders. Alcohol fuels many problems but we still put the drunks on a pedistool. The next step is the quick fix. Why drink 10 pints if a quick sniff will give you the same effect. Drugs are looked on two teer. First the rec user who can handle it. Second the addict that needs it. Sorry but the two merge with sickening reality. Lives are shattered. Not just the user. Family, friends, workmates, all bare the consiquences of a single users actions. The ban is just if the B is poss. . Standards have to be set. The standard was known. Just like a poss breath test removes your licence to drive drug failure removes your right to play. The time must come when violence off the field is treated in the same fashion.

Remember we are talking about peoples heroes and idols. Their example can and does affect the lives of people they have never met. How many of the multitude of RL juniors dreamt of being the next GH. Where are their dreams today?
Jim

My staff were well aware of the fact any recreational misuse of drugs meant instant dismissal. I operated a zero tolerance policy.

[Matthew]

As Mr Dave said; the RFL operates according to a policy set by another organisation. In order to keep the "clean" image of RFL; they have to play along.

Given what has been suggested about recreational drug use being rife in professional sport; it seems that the RFL is not really that interested. It pays lip service to drug testing and does the minimum required. If it didn't HAVE to ban players; then it wouldn't.

The biggest damage that drugs do are to their country of origin. The desperately poor South American country are run by drug lords who kill without thought. The process of refining cocaine is incredibly damaging to the environment. Extortion, murder, kidnapping - from source to end user there is a trail of blood and broken lives.

The RFL couldn't care less about that.

The violence demonstrates this very clearly. An attitude of "boys will be boys" clearly exists. Pryce and Reardon should have gone to prison and both been banned. Regrettably Feka should have been banned too. However the RFL is never going to do this. Because the second they were banned for League; they would invariably be snapped up by Union. If you're caught taking cocaine playing rugby league - than you are banned from all professional sport. If you are banned for smashing a glass in a woman's face, chinning a bus driver, breaking into someone's house to attack them; it doesn't matter - any ban will not be honoured by another other sport. I dare say that had stains sacked Pyrce, then another club would have welcomed him with open arms; stating that they were keen to "help him through this difficult period"

stains comments that Pryce is a "good person" are an absolute joke. You need only look at his disciplinary record to disprove that. "Good people" don't sexually assault opponents in an attempt to gain an advantage.

[THE JUDGE]

Just as a matter of interest the judicial system in this country has the following sentencing guidlines;
Section 39:- (Common Assault) The range is between a small fine up to a custodial sentence, depending on level of seriousness.
Section 47:- (ABH) (a) 1st level = medium level community order to 26 weeks custody. (b) 2nd level = 12 weeks custody to Crown Court. (c) 3rd level = Crown Court to 5 years max custody.
Section 20:- (Wounding) 24 weeks to 7 years custody, depending on seriousness.
Possession of Class `A` Drugs. Small amount one tablet or bag for personal use = Fine.
Up to 6 bags = Medium level community order
Large amount = High level community order up to Crown Court.
Possesion of a class `A` drug for personal use very rarely attracts a custodial sentence.

[Wigan_forever1985]

I think you raise a great point cp. I have watched the footage of the cockayne assault and it is truely sickening yet he is allowed to play, and Hock who you would assume is only harming himself is banned for 2 years. I think as i said on the Hock thread i think we should have a zero tolerance to anything like this for professional sportsmen, how joey barton is allowed to earn 5 times my salary a week after all the things he has done is beyond me, what message does this send to youngsters. It needs to be 1 strike and your out, you break the law and you should then be banned from your relative sport for life, no srecond chances. I know that seems very harsh but as i said in the other thread these people are privilledged to be in a position where they get paid very good money to do a job that most of us can only dream of, and as with any privillidge you should have to earn it and if you abuse it you should lose it. You have to put the message across to these athletes that if you slip up you will be punished if you think thats unfair go work a 9-5 job in which your unlikey to be tested for drugs.

[cpwigan]

Where I disagree with Dave is when he says there is no Governing body. I know why he says that and what he means. The Governing Body is the RFL. If it takes the impact of a Governing Body and the need to comply in order to secure millions of pounds of funding then our sport is in a sorry state.

When violence was rife on the field of play, the NRL appointed an ex Judge Jim Comans to clean the game up. Many hated Comans because he was strict and deliberately heavy handed. He ran players like Les Boyd out of the game in Australia. Even back then we bypassed the ban and welcomed Boyd as some kind of hero. What Jim Comans and Australia did worked.

The NRL as most know now has an issue re the behaviour of players off the field. It was detrimental to the image of the sport and had a very negative impact on sponsors etc. David Gallop and the NRL took it out of the clubs hands and said you either take appropriate action or we will and whatsmore we will fine / take action against you the club for not doing so. It will not happen overnight but I believe it will certainly reduce such incidents to the bare minimum.

What is the point of having a Governing Body if it does not safeguard the reputation of the game. It actually seems to actively avoid confronting problems. By doing so it looks ridiculously out of sync with such limp wristed punishments for violence.

Pryce/Reardon, Cockayne, Bird and Feka brought the game into disrepute as much as Hock. The punishment should have been exactly the same.

The sad thing is that the RFL and member clubs are as guilty as any of these for bringing the game into disrepute by turning a blind eye. If you look closer every club is implicated. Leeds with several players for example. Worse, many times such incidents if not in the public domain have been swept under the carpet and players moved on, particularly if those players are talented.

[DaveO]

Hock could be found guilty of breaking WADA code without breaking the law but in the case of Reardon, Pryce etc they were breaking the law but not breaking any RFL rules.

An interesting anomaly.

I don't think the RFL would be allowed to make rules that enforced a punishment on player who broke the law since punishing crimes is the job of the Crown Prosecution service. It's up to the employer to decide whether or not having a criminal record is grounds to sack an employee.

I am sure the RFL could make it a rule players convicted of a serious crime were ineligible to play in the competition. That would not be the RFL punishing the player directly such as the RFL (as opposed to the club) sacking the player.

I see no difference in them banning a drug user and making a violent criminal intelligible to play the game. They could for example ban them for the duration of whatever sentence was handed down, suspended or not.

Dave

[cpwigan]

as the Judge states the RFL punishments are totally out of kilt with the law. The reason they are so is because the RFL has to get money from Sport England. Surely a sport that is prepared to set its punishments based on financial self need is a disgrace.

I am not against the punishments for drugs. If it was a lifetime ban I would not argue. However, why is Sport England so harsh on drugs. The Olympics / Athletics which Old Etonian Politicians heading these bodies and in Govt were horrified was being cheapened time and time again. Those very same politicians could not care less IMO that the problem was rife in other sports until it started damaging Athletics and their Chariots of Fire image of that sport.

Ironically, RL then embraced Dwain Chambers. What message did that send out?

How can anybody respect Mick Potter when he makes such statements? How can anybody respect Leon Pryce et al when they behave as they do? As WF states we have people like Joey Barton running amok in other sports and being paid a ridiculous salary for doing so.

The policians at the very top of society are currently setting an abysmal example with their expenses scandal.

For me, those at the top in every walk of society need to get their own houses in order and standards across society need to be tougher.

[stegy]

Lets all get into the real world i am an ambulanceman working for Northwest ambulance service if i took drugs or was stupid enough to get caught taking drugs when i could have masked them from being detected then i would have been sacked.So a two year ban is getting off very light IMO. Paramedics are in short supply i would not get another job in that field no-way no-how but sportsmen and women seem to think they can just walk staight back into a very high paid job and carry on being a ROLE MODLE for young impresonable kids well i think NOT how many of you would be treat the same if you took drugs or had a conviction for serious crime. Sportsmen and women don't have to have a CRB check why? are the better than say firemen doctors nurses or paramedics i think not.

[cpwigan]

So Stegy I think you are agreeing that the RFL is absurdly easy going re punishments. I work in Education. If I was convicted of violence it would be goodbye.