: Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:00 am  

No1 Saint wrote:

Does anyone really honestly think that he used it to enhance his performance??? seriously.

that is irrelevant. whatever his reasons for taking it, it will have had a "positive" impact on his performance, even if it just caused him to be slightly more alert.

: Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:01 am  

Bless, they are now trying to compare it to the King's situation

Bless, they are now trying to compare it to the King's situation

: Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:13 am  

No1 Saint wrote:

Does anyone really honestly think that he used it to enhance his performance??? seriously.

So we should have a policy that sends a message out to young sportmen that taking recreational drugs is ok?

: Wed Jun 24, 2009 10:32 am  

Ski wrote: Bless, they are now trying to compare it to the King's situation Their nutritionist told him to take it like KC? what did he say, "use this instead of sugar on your cornflakes"?

Ski wrote: Bless, they are now trying to compare it to the King's situation Their nutritionist told him to take it like KC? what did he say, "use this instead of sugar on your cornflakes"?

: Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:41 pm  

Harry Pinner wrote:

So we should have a policy that sends a message out to young sportmen that taking recreational drugs is ok?

While your playing sports it's obviously not ok , then again if you wanna make it to the very top and stay there it's not really a good idea to smoke or drink large amounts of alchohol. What I'm saying is why have a draconian 2 year ban for all offences - with a first offence a smaller ban and a condition they stay clean (plus the condition they cant play until they prove there clean) plus the usual fine etc etc

: Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:45 pm  

No1 Saint wrote:

While your playing sports it's obviously not ok , then again if you wanna make it to the very top and stay there it's not really a good idea to smoke or drink large amounts of alchohol. What I'm saying is why have a draconian 2 year ban for all offences - with a first offence a smaller ban and a condition they stay clean (plus the condition they cant play until they prove there clean) plus the usual fine etc etc

I think the ban is as much about warning others not to do the same as it is a punishment. At wigan for example what do you think Ainscough or tomkins reaction would be if thay were offered anything now? Compared to if Hock got a 3 month ban or something similar? I don't believe in life bans, people can change, but 2 years is a good deterent

: Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:45 pm  

saints35 bulls0 wrote:

that is irrelevant. whatever his reasons for taking it, it will have had a "positive" impact on his performance, even if it just caused him to be slightly more alert.

You have no idea if it did or didnt. That would have depended on when he took it. The performance enhancing element is a joke tbh, if he wanted a performance boost he could have taken a trip to plenty of 'suppliment' experts for much better results.

: Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:45 pm  

No1 Saint wrote:

What I'm saying is why have a draconian 2 year ban for all offences - with a first offence a smaller ban and a condition they stay clean (plus the condition they cant play until they prove there clean) plus the usual fine etc etc

Because how does anyone know how many times a player has taken cocaine? Cocaine has an effect on performance whether it is taken once or a hundred times. How then can a differentiation be made?

I'm not usually in favour of one rule fits all but on this occasion I think it is spot on. The message must be communicated that cheating and putting your team mates at risk doesn't and shouldn't pay.

: Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:46 pm  

Saint Simon wrote:

I think the ban is as much about warning others not to do the same as it is a punishment. At wigan for example what do you think Ainscough or tomkins reaction would be if thay were offered anything now? Compared to if Hock got a 3 month ban or something similar? I don't believe in life bans, people can change, but 2 years is a good deterent

I see your point but I still think 2 years is a bit draconian for a first offence.

: Wed Jun 24, 2009 12:49 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Because how does anyone know how many times a player has taken cocaine? Cocaine has an effect on performance whether it is taken once or a hundred times. How then can a differentiation be made?

I'm not usually in favour of one rule fits all but on this occasion I think it is spot on. The message must be communicated that cheating and putting your team mates at risk doesn't and shouldn't pay.

If he was a serial user he would be on massive amounts of the stuff to just get a tiny performance increase. It's always difficult in these situations but there should definatly be a line drawn between performance enhancers and recreational drugs even if you do count coke as an enhancer