Re: Zak Hardaker : Thu Oct 12, 2017 4:12 pm  

Willzay wrote:

I've seen some saying he should've played the GF regardless of what he did, which I find interesting.

If Cas had dropped him as soon as he failed the drugs test, they may not even have made the final.
After all, they barely squeaked past St Helens and that was with Hardaker at FB.

Re: Zak Hardaker : Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:04 pm  

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.

Re: Zak Hardaker : Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:07 pm  

Willzay wrote:

I've seen some saying he should've played the GF regardless of what he did, which I find interesting.

Failing a drugs test doesn't constitute to guilt,until proven. As a role model of the sport and to the youngsters seeing this,he'll get what he deserves. Hopefully his couple of years out of the game will see him supporting the sport that supported him.

Re: Zak Hardaker : Thu Oct 12, 2017 5:43 pm  

wrencat1873 wrote:

If Cas had dropped him as soon as he failed the drugs test, they may not even have made the final.
After all, they barely squeaked past St Helens and that was with Hardaker at FB.

He was suspended from all forms of RL (and I'd assume all sports in the UK signed up to anti-doping rules) AS SOON as The RFL received notification of the failed test from UKAD on the Thursday. Cas had no choice but to 'drop' him from their squad, although I would like to believe that if the decision had been theirs to make they would have made it. The fail result had not been passed on to the governing body before the St Helens game so he was completely free to play in that.

Re: Zak Hardaker : Thu Oct 12, 2017 8:24 pm  

rollin thunder wrote:

Well said, to put cocaine in the same category as alcohol is stupid, you can have 2-3 drinks (units etc) of alcohol just for enjoyment taste etc,With it having hardly any effect. You can't do this with cocaine, it's an instant and very effective hit.

I have used recreational drugs in my life pretty regular when younger, in clouding cocaine twice. And never again would I use it and absolutely condemn it it, its an awful drug, it leads to violence aggression like nothing else, it will be and should always be class A. They way kids use this alongside masssive amounts of alcohol that they would not normally be able to consume is dangerous and is the biggest cause of violence on nights out.
It's not at all like ecstasy, a euphoric drug or cannabis a relaxant or even amphetamines which have a longer but milder effect but similar to cocaine, this is bad poop, and needs stamping out.

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.

Re: Zak Hardaker : Fri Oct 13, 2017 6:54 am  

You think a harmful and dangerous class A drug should be legalised ? Wow. What am i reading ?

Re: Zak Hardaker : Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:09 am  

Towns88 wrote:

You think a harmful and dangerous class A drug should be legalised ? Wow. What am i reading ?

As he said

legalised and regulated, not left to criminals to control

Re: Zak Hardaker : Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:19 am  

King Street Cat wrote:

As he said

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

Re: Zak Hardaker : Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:28 am  

Mr Dog wrote:

He was suspended from all forms of RL (and I'd assume all sports in the UK signed up to anti-doping rules) AS SOON as The RFL received notification of the failed test from UKAD on the Thursday. Cas had no choice but to 'drop' him from their squad, although I would like to believe that if the decision had been theirs to make they would have made it. The fail result had not been passed on to the governing body before the St Helens game so he was completely free to play in that.

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 ?

Re: Zak Hardaker : Fri Oct 13, 2017 7:45 am  

Towns88 wrote:

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

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?