Surely we should look to prove that was case rather than just deciding so. Isnt there an argument that some rapists wear balaclavas, therefor all people who wear balaclavas should serve a prison sentence and sign the sex offenders register?



the rules being rules, doesnt by definition mean that the rules are useful, right, just, fair, or worthwhile.

OK, lets let players miss drug tests - if we don't test them we can't PROVE they took drugs, so might as well not bother eh?







Nor does it make them wrong.

whether or not he took it for that reason, cocaine is classified as performance enhancing by WADA, and the RFL is signed up to the WADA charter, which I suspect is why the RFL is concerned about it.

Really??



Why should it?



No I haven't, I didn't even mention it.



Quite true that the morality of performance enhancement isn't always black and white but then you don't have a clue what I believe.



What has caffeine got to do with a player taking cocaine?

I havent said we shouldnt test them, Im not sure where to got that from. Im comfortable with us testing them. Im not comfortable with us automatically deciding without putting any effort in to find proof or provide even convincing argument that someone who admits they are addicted to recreational drugs isnt actually addicted to recreational drugs but is actually using them to mask the use of performance enhancing drugs.



indeed it doesnt. In fact rules simply being rules makes them neither right nor wrong nor just nor fair nor worthwhile nor worthless. Which is why the argument that Hocks punishment needs to follow the rules simply because they are the rules holds no water. Our aim should be for a just, fair and proportional outcome. If the rules dont allow that it is the rules which are wrong and the rules which must be ignored, not our aim for a just, fair and proportional outcome.

Yes, and WADA are a bastion for fairness and proportionality arent they?



WADA are like the neighborhood watch who got drunk on the power and thought they were policemen. They and the likes of Dick Pound are an embarrassment to sport.

I have, havent you? do you have any evidence or even a convincing circumstancial argument otherwise?



Because you contrasted the legality of caffeine with cocaine in a discussion of their physical affects. Indicating that that contrast made the comparison with caffeine irrelevant. I then pointed out there was no mention of the legality and such a contrast was itself irrelevant.



Indeed, you generally dont mention points you have missed. You generally bang on about the irrelevancies like you have here by mentioning the legality.





I can only go on what you have said. If this is different to what you believe then i really cant do anything about that can I? What you have said indicates a very black and white attitude.

erm, as was explained, it was an example of an everyday substance that can be performance enhancing but is more likely to be used recreationally, like cocaine.

Can't you just.













and on.....







and on.....





and on..........

You still havent told me why im not allowed a cup of tea Barry?



Did you stay away cos you were a little embarrassed?

For once Barry, I actually agree with you.



Smokey and mirrors diverts the discussion from Cocaine to Caffeine then tries to bore people into giving up the will to debate.



Probably thinks that having the last word makes him right.

Why is the debate different from Cocaine to Caffeine, both enhance performance?

Which is on WADA's list? That might give you a clue as to why people think its irrelevant.



Passing something forward at Tesco's till isn't against the rules either, but it is on a rugby pitch.