the point is 'chap' that the discussion had moved on to the merits of being banned for taking social drugs, there was no dispute to whether or not he should be banned.



hence 'chap' H20's post claiming we were missing the point, was itself missing the point.



hope this helps, 'chap'.



if you need anything else explaining i'm here all week

all drugs are performance enhancing..they alter the brain..life ban for me..stupid boy..

There is no discussion, as is the rules TAKE DRUGS, GET BANNED. Whats to discuss.

It is a discussion forum.



If I want to see what Hock will get if/when his guilt is confirmed, then I will consult the RFL's rules or check it with a news site. Quite clearly, in respect of that point there is nothing to discuss. No one is saying, will he get 2 years, or 5 or just a letter advising him to change his snorting technique?



What is being discussed though is the relative merits of the mandatory sanction as it applies across social drugs. There are other points in this worthy of discussion.

Merits of taking social drugs??? As I see it there is no merit that outweighs a career dive/tarnish.



I bet you hate to see the sunday chicken carcass go in the bin.





Take drugs whether recreational or enhancing and pay the consequences picking the bones out of the arguement alters nothing.



Chap

Merits of being banned for taking social drugs. Not quite the same thing.

See post i reply too Merits not my wording.

[url=http://www.wada-ama.org/rtecontent/document/2009_Prohibited_List_ENG_Final_20_Sept_08.pdfThe WADA Prohibited List[/url



They class it as a 'stimulant' - and go into further detail elsewhere on the website regarding suitable punishments which may be enforced should the case be put forward that the 'stimulant' was not used for performance enhancing reasons.

I assume by that you mean that I should see the post you replied to, and that the use of the word 'merits' isn't your wording. I had already considered the post you were replying to:





to which you replied:





Which is why my emphasis was on the banned for, not the use of the word merits. As they are quite different things, and quite different discussions.

I'm sure they have their own reasons for trying to extend their sphere of influence.

No they are not.



As for a life ban, why? Is taking a recreational drug more worthy of a life ban than say punching a woman in the face, glassing somebody, beating someone up outside a nightclub or causing mayhem in a city centre to a point where you have to be escorted out of town by the police?

tobacco?