Re: If Hock gets banned for 2 years there will be double standards??.

OAMJSONA · Post by **OAMJSONA** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 11:07 pm

God wrote:Found this article in Rugby Union, the guy only gets an 8 month suspension for Coke, Hmmm something not right here.

http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/20072009/ ... e-use.html

interesting post God

cherrywarrior · Post by **cherrywarrior** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 11:17 pm

I think its cos he never actually failed a drugs test, just admited taking it, thats the only way I could explain it, but still it doesnt really make sense...

medlocke · Post by **medlocke** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 11:31 pm

Hock is guilty and deserves everything he gets, give it a bloody rest, if he was talentless nobody would be kicking up such a stink.

eccywarrior · Post by **eccywarrior** » Mon Jul 20, 2009 11:51 pm

God wrote:Your wrong, everybody deserves a second chance no matter how talentless they are. So get off your high horse.

Im simply asking if its double standards or not, that is the disgussion, not if Hock is guilty or not because we all know he is.

hear hear :eusa2:

THE 18th Man · Post by **THE 18th Man** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 12:09 am

maybe because it was the RFU that banned him

for example if the RFL said Hock was banned for 8 months for using Cocaine then maybe Hock cant get banned by the Aanti Doping Agency.

the problem is the RFL have no guts

they wouldnt even ban Cunningham for breaking another mans eye socket by punching him.

medlocke as much as i respect your opinion it makes no sense.

if one of your family members got done for taking drugs and gets banned from their job for 2 years which is a ridiculious amount of time anyway would you say he doesnt deserve another chance and deserves everything he gets.

medlocke · Post by **medlocke** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 12:21 am

God wrote:Your wrong, everybody deserves a second chance no matter how talentless they are. So get off your high horse.

Im simply asking if its double standards or not, that is the disgussion, not if Hock is guilty or not because we all know he is.

So in your own words the likes of Gary Glitter and Adolf Hitler deserve second chances, nice.

waterside glens · Post by **waterside glens** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 12:44 am

how long did ferinand get when he "forgot" his drug test?

pedro · Post by **pedro** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 1:09 am

God wrote:Your wrong, everybody deserves a second chance no matter how talentless they are. So get off your high horse.

Im simply asking if its double standards or not, that is the disgussion, not if Hock is guilty or not because we all know he is.

Not really double standards as he didnt fail a test he admitted it. It says at the bottom about Stevens failing a test and he got 2 years

pedro · Post by **pedro** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 1:10 am

God wrote:This is where i find it confusing and double standards. Who does the banning? The RFL or the Anti Doping agency? If the RFU has banned this bloke for only 8 Month surely the RFL sould see sense and follow suit.

But if its the doping agency thats banned him surely Hock and Wigan have the right to appeal the desigion??

Missing a drugs test is just as bad as being found guilty because you get banned for a considerable ammount of time, but then the union bloke to actually come out and say yeah im a coke fiend and still only get a short ban when clearly he was trying to get away with it is truely taking the mickey at the way they enforce the rules on drug abuse in sport.

I dunno it just seemes very double standard to me no matter how you look at it really.

It says the RFU banned him.

robjoenz · Post by **robjoenz** » Tue Jul 21, 2009 8:29 am

The RFL don't test players, the Anti-Doping Agency do. Therefore, the Anti-Doping Agency pick the ban. If it was within RL alone then the RFL could deal with it but this is outside of the world of rugby league.