Re: Zak Hardaker : Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:28 am  

DGM wrote:

You could do with reading up on the overwhelmingly positive effects legalisation & regulation have had in Portugal since 2001.

Indeed - that's what I was referring to in my earlier post; the wrongheaded, knee-jerk, "drugs are bad, m'kay?" attitude, is a big part of what's created the circumstances we now find ourselves in.

Re: Zak Hardaker : Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:28 am  

Towns88 wrote:

Biggest slippery slope of all time should that happen. Hopefully it won't.

I agree it's total liberal claptrap which as ever panders to the lowest common denominator.

The Philippines had a drug problem now apparently it doesn't - wonder why. Oh and believe me I am advocating the same for the UK and those gutters known as Europe and the USA.

Re: Zak Hardaker : Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:31 am  

Tharg The Mighty wrote:

Four things are certain.

Hardaker deserves a lengthy ban.

Hardaker needs as much help as the RFL can give.

Castleford need a new full back.

There are some unbelievable numpties on this forum.

Why!

Why does this selfish loser deserve any help at all - ffs when will people make other people take responsibility for their own actions - it's pathetic.

There are tons of players who navigate their way through RL life never needing a first chance let alone a forth.

Re: Zak Hardaker : Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:38 am  

wrencat1873 wrote:

Was that the second sample or, did results on both samples come through at the same time.
I understood that there was usually an initial finding and that this was then followed up on a test of the "B" sample, which, if found to have the same content, would lead to action and this is what happened on the Thursday.

When do the player, club and RFL find out that there is/was a problem with the "A" sample ?

Could be either, although I'd suspect 'A', from the information provided on the UKAD website:

"If the A-sample Adverse Analytical Finding is for a prohibited substance, other than a specified substance, a mandatory provisional suspension will be imposed. If the Adverse Analytical Finding is for a specified substance, the provisional suspension will be imposed at the discretion of UKAD.

A provisional suspension can only be imposed if the athlete is given either:
• an opportunity for a provisional hearing
• an opportunity for an expedited hearing."
_____________________________
Where the Notice of Charge is based on an Adverse Analytical Finding, the athlete has the right to request analysis of the B-Sample.


But whichever, you can absolutely guarantee that they've followed procedure to the letter.

Re: Zak Hardaker : Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:40 am  

vastman wrote:

I agree it's total liberal claptrap which as ever panders to the lowest common denominator.

The Philippines had a drug problem now apparently it doesn't - wonder why. Oh and believe me I am advocating the same for the UK and those gutters known as Europe and the USA.

WTF are you going on about?

Re: Zak Hardaker : Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:40 am  

DGM wrote:

You could do with reading up on the overwhelmingly positive effects legalisation & regulation have had in Portugal since 2001.

Do you have any basis, facts or supporting evidence for your "biggest slippery slope of all Time" comment?

Published by who exactly ie which vested interest - there is no evidence legalisation works - do people like you think that Americans get any less drunk now than they did during prohibition! Foolish nonsense.

Drugs are bad unless they are being used to cure an illness under medical supervision - a five year old could work that out. The real question that needs sorting is why do you want or need them.

Re: Zak Hardaker : Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:45 am  

vastman wrote:

Published by who exactly ie which vested interest - there is no evidence legalisation works - do people like you think that Americans get any less drunk now than they did during prohibition! Foolish nonsense.

Drugs are bad unless they are being used to cure an illness under medical supervision - a five year old could work that out. The real question that needs sorting is why do you want or need them.

You are so incredibly ignorant, that there's no response anyone could give to these inane, baseless ramblings of yours, that would ever help to open your mind even slightly. Go read some actual facts, reports, evidence & get back to us.

Re: Zak Hardaker : Fri Oct 13, 2017 8:48 am  

Gazemous wrote:

Cocaine is a horrible, harmful drug that causes misery throughout the production cycle and well beyond the people that end up taking it.

That's why it should be legalised and regulated, not left to criminals to control - that's how it gets into the hands of anyone who wants it.

As for Hardaker. Personally I think recreational drugs shouldn't carry the same punishment as performance enhancing ones (as cocaine isn't performance enhancing regardless of what some on here bizarrely make up), however the fact is that it does, and Hardaker knew that when taking it, so he deserves to pay that price.

For the umpteenth time: WADA (whose assessment I'd take over yours any day of the week) classify cocaine as a stimulant for the purposes of in-competition testing (that is over the period from 12hrs before the start, to the end of an event). Recreational, legal, illegal doesn't come into it.

Re: Zak Hardaker : Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:12 am  

Mr Dog wrote:

For the umpteenth time: WADA (whose assessment I'd take over yours any day of the week) classify cocaine as a stimulant for the purposes of in-competition testing (that is over the period from 12hrs before the start, to the end of an event). Recreational, legal, illegal doesn't come into it.

Absolutely correct sir, and I'm amazed that this still hasn't sunk in to some on here. We have gone through all this before with Hock, Barba, etc and their different punishments and still some are too dense to work it out.

Re: Zak Hardaker : Fri Oct 13, 2017 10:47 am  

vastman wrote: Published by who exactly ie which vested interest - there is no evidence legalisation works Literally the first Google search result. More recent information - Portugal's approach commended by the INCB.

vastman wrote: Published by who exactly ie which vested interest - there is no evidence legalisation works Literally the first Google search result. More recent information - Portugal's approach commended by the INCB.