Oracle of Delphi
KC Hill
Arnold
Paladin
Craig HillNRL clubs divided over recreational drug use
January 23rd 2007 04:37
Five of the sixteen NRL clubs have vehemently rejected the "three strikes" drug testing policy tabled to them last November, declaring that the League must take a tougher stance on recreational drug use.
North Queensland, Canberra, Gold Coast, Cronulla and Melbourne have all vetoed the proposed introduction of standardised drug testing, with only Brisbane, Canterbury, Newcastle, South Sydney and the Sydney Roosters supporting the NRL's proposal.
The "three strikes" policy means that players who return their first positive recreational drug test, will receive a suspended sentence for thier initial failure. The second positive test will see them receive a 15% fine of their salary, while a third positive offence will see them receive an automatic 12 week suspension.
The move by the NRL to introduce more stringent drug policies comes in the wake of a string of positive tests for recreational drugs, with the most recent being the sacking of Cowboys forward Mitchell Sargent last year.
North Queensland Cowboys cheif executive Peter Parr commented yesterday, "We accept that a uniform policy would be a good thing for the game but we would like to see some more stringent penalties imposed,"
"We are not in favour of three strikes."
While all sixteen NRL clubs are in favour of a uniform drugs poilcy, most of the clubs cheif executives agreed that the latest proposal was too lenient. Some cheif executives compared the outcome of the initial positive test, to be more leninent than that of a player missing a training session, which in most cases results in an automatic fine from the club.
Cheers,
StephenP
So what do you think - is the NRL's proposal too lenient, especially considering the recent cases of recreational drug use by NRL players?
Please feel free to leave your comment below.
North Queensland, Canberra, Gold Coast, Cronulla and Melbourne have all vetoed the proposed introduction of standardised drug testing, with only Brisbane, Canterbury, Newcastle, South Sydney and the Sydney Roosters supporting the NRL's proposal.
The "three strikes" policy means that players who return their first positive recreational drug test, will receive a suspended sentence for thier initial failure. The second positive test will see them receive a 15% fine of their salary, while a third positive offence will see them receive an automatic 12 week suspension.
The move by the NRL to introduce more stringent drug policies comes in the wake of a string of positive tests for recreational drugs, with the most recent being the sacking of Cowboys forward Mitchell Sargent last year.
North Queensland Cowboys cheif executive Peter Parr commented yesterday, "We accept that a uniform policy would be a good thing for the game but we would like to see some more stringent penalties imposed,"
"We are not in favour of three strikes."
While all sixteen NRL clubs are in favour of a uniform drugs poilcy, most of the clubs cheif executives agreed that the latest proposal was too lenient. Some cheif executives compared the outcome of the initial positive test, to be more leninent than that of a player missing a training session, which in most cases results in an automatic fine from the club.
Cheers,
StephenP
So what do you think - is the NRL's proposal too lenient, especially considering the recent cases of recreational drug use by NRL players?
Please feel free to leave your comment below.
| 61 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
Go to Craig Hill's home page by clicking here
Comment by StephenP
However, a second positive test should see their contract torn up immediately.
There is no excuse for a professional athlete to be caught with a recreational drug int their system - there is enough education these days as to the dangers of drugs in general, and these athletes MUST realise that they are being paid extremely well to be ambassadors of the game.
One mistake, lapse or dabble into recreational drugs must be treated as a mistake or bad personal judgement, and a fine should be sufficient.
However, a second positive result must be dealt with harshly, as these guys are role models for the younger generation.
Just my views - what are yours,
StephenP
Comment by Poindexter
Comment by StephenP
Fair calls you make about the severity and standard protocol procedures - the problem the NRL have at the moment is trying to devise a system that every club agrees on, and is also fair for the RLPA parameters.
Cheers,
StephenP
Comment by Anonymous