H
Hall
Guest
I can see an argument for legality of Cannabis - even though personally I don't think it should happen - but Cocaine? No way.
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
B
Bullitt
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nidhogg @ Jan 20 2009, 11:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Wow, it's Tom Boonen all over again (top Belgian road cyclist). C'mon, give the man a break. They're talking about two year bans! If anything I'd say a night on the town and a snort of the white gold isn't really performance-enhancing
I appreciate a doping ban, but don't treat sporters as kids, they're people two. And yes, I'm one of those "zomg legalize drugs" types.
[/b][/quote]
Yet you use the arguement of Tindall getting caught driving over the limit (not drink-driving, he was caught the day after) as a valid reason for not being selected?
Come on, double standards?
Wow, it's Tom Boonen all over again (top Belgian road cyclist). C'mon, give the man a break. They're talking about two year bans! If anything I'd say a night on the town and a snort of the white gold isn't really performance-enhancing
I appreciate a doping ban, but don't treat sporters as kids, they're people two. And yes, I'm one of those "zomg legalize drugs" types.
[/b][/quote]
Yet you use the arguement of Tindall getting caught driving over the limit (not drink-driving, he was caught the day after) as a valid reason for not being selected?
Come on, double standards?
N
Nidhogg
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Teh Mite @ Jan 21 2009, 11:23 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Wow, it's Tom Boonen all over again (top Belgian road cyclist). C'mon, give the man a break. They're talking about two year bans! If anything I'd say a night on the town and a snort of the white gold isn't really performance-enhancing
I appreciate a doping ban, but don't treat sporters as kids, they're people two. And yes, I'm one of those "zomg legalize drugs" types.
[/b][/quote]
Yet you use the arguement of Tindall getting caught driving over the limit (not drink-driving, he was caught the day after) as a valid reason for not being selected?
Come on, double standards?[/b][/quote]
The BBC article mentions him failing a breathing test, funnily enough, while injured with a bruised liver (?????).
Regardless, this has nothing to do whatsoever with Stevens' case. I am all for personal freedom, and if someone wants to drink alcohol (which has been such a great influence over the ages),
smoke a joint, or some other harmful thing to his body, by all means, let them.
I DO have a problem when it effects other people, when an intoxicated driver runs someone over, or when an idiot high on some drug starts wailing around and ends up breaking
someone's nose, they should be punished accordingly. Stevens wasn't caught disturbing the order, driving under influence, dealing, et cetera. What I gathered from the article, was that he
used a non-performance enhancing drug in his spare-time, and failed a drug test a few days later. An lawyer once called drugs a victimless crime. If you're only hurting yourself, go right ahead,
just don't bother other people with it.
He probably should receive a ban for inappropriate behavior, since he wasn't exactly being the greatest role model, but to slice two years of his career for this feels wrong on so many levels.
So yes, if I had the choice I would leave him out of the squad, just like Tindall, I just wouldn't ban him from rugby for two years. Make an example of the guy the other way around, have him to
community work with kids, and show that you can make the right choice. Make it about him beating drugs, not about him being punished. People are animals, praise is usually worth more than punishment.
Wow, it's Tom Boonen all over again (top Belgian road cyclist). C'mon, give the man a break. They're talking about two year bans! If anything I'd say a night on the town and a snort of the white gold isn't really performance-enhancing
I appreciate a doping ban, but don't treat sporters as kids, they're people two. And yes, I'm one of those "zomg legalize drugs" types.
[/b][/quote]
Yet you use the arguement of Tindall getting caught driving over the limit (not drink-driving, he was caught the day after) as a valid reason for not being selected?
Come on, double standards?[/b][/quote]
The BBC article mentions him failing a breathing test, funnily enough, while injured with a bruised liver (?????).
Regardless, this has nothing to do whatsoever with Stevens' case. I am all for personal freedom, and if someone wants to drink alcohol (which has been such a great influence over the ages),
smoke a joint, or some other harmful thing to his body, by all means, let them.
I DO have a problem when it effects other people, when an intoxicated driver runs someone over, or when an idiot high on some drug starts wailing around and ends up breaking
someone's nose, they should be punished accordingly. Stevens wasn't caught disturbing the order, driving under influence, dealing, et cetera. What I gathered from the article, was that he
used a non-performance enhancing drug in his spare-time, and failed a drug test a few days later. An lawyer once called drugs a victimless crime. If you're only hurting yourself, go right ahead,
just don't bother other people with it.
He probably should receive a ban for inappropriate behavior, since he wasn't exactly being the greatest role model, but to slice two years of his career for this feels wrong on so many levels.
So yes, if I had the choice I would leave him out of the squad, just like Tindall, I just wouldn't ban him from rugby for two years. Make an example of the guy the other way around, have him to
community work with kids, and show that you can make the right choice. Make it about him beating drugs, not about him being punished. People are animals, praise is usually worth more than punishment.
B
Bullitt
Guest
Brains for one please.
Tindall was caught over the limit the following morning after a night on the ****. Alcohol stays in your system for a long time, even if it is no longer affecting your judgement (the biggest danger of driving with a hangover is in fact reduced awareness caused by the dehydration). Drinking is perfectly legal and so is driving, just not the driving after the drinking. Tindall was unlucky more then anything else as he was caught AFTER a full nights sleep when in most cases we'd all have worked it out our systems.
Stevens however was taking a class A drug. They ARE illegal and for very good reason. Not only for the long running problems they cause in the production and smuggling of them in the first places (I won't even bother on the columbians side of the discussion), but for the anguish they cause the users and their families. I have first hand experience of this as one of my uncles dies 4 years ago after being a coke user. He spent years of his life floating between the bottom rung and jail, all because he started taking Coke as a youngster. Now he's dead. Never coming back. Is that worth "a bit of fun"?
In other words, how dare you say "I am all for personal freedom, and if someone wants to drink alcohol (which has been such a great influence over the ages), smoke a joint, or some other harmful thing to his body, by all means, let them. " You don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Tindall was caught over the limit the following morning after a night on the ****. Alcohol stays in your system for a long time, even if it is no longer affecting your judgement (the biggest danger of driving with a hangover is in fact reduced awareness caused by the dehydration). Drinking is perfectly legal and so is driving, just not the driving after the drinking. Tindall was unlucky more then anything else as he was caught AFTER a full nights sleep when in most cases we'd all have worked it out our systems.
Stevens however was taking a class A drug. They ARE illegal and for very good reason. Not only for the long running problems they cause in the production and smuggling of them in the first places (I won't even bother on the columbians side of the discussion), but for the anguish they cause the users and their families. I have first hand experience of this as one of my uncles dies 4 years ago after being a coke user. He spent years of his life floating between the bottom rung and jail, all because he started taking Coke as a youngster. Now he's dead. Never coming back. Is that worth "a bit of fun"?
In other words, how dare you say "I am all for personal freedom, and if someone wants to drink alcohol (which has been such a great influence over the ages), smoke a joint, or some other harmful thing to his body, by all means, let them. " You don't have a clue what you're talking about.
A
An Tarbh
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Nidhogg @ Jan 20 2009, 11:47 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Wow, it's Tom Boonen all over again (top Belgian road cyclist). C'mon, give the man a break. They're talking about two year bans! If anything I'd say a night on the town and a snort of the white gold isn't really performance-enhancing
I appreciate a doping ban, but don't treat sporters as kids, they're people two. And yes, I'm one of those "zomg legalize drugs" types.
[/b][/quote]
It's all well and good promoting the cause of legalising recreational drugs but when you factor in the physical impact that such drugs have on sports professionals treating them like morons is spot on as is calling for substanital bans.
Wow, it's Tom Boonen all over again (top Belgian road cyclist). C'mon, give the man a break. They're talking about two year bans! If anything I'd say a night on the town and a snort of the white gold isn't really performance-enhancing
I appreciate a doping ban, but don't treat sporters as kids, they're people two. And yes, I'm one of those "zomg legalize drugs" types.
[/b][/quote]
It's all well and good promoting the cause of legalising recreational drugs but when you factor in the physical impact that such drugs have on sports professionals treating them like morons is spot on as is calling for substanital bans.
N
Nidhogg
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Teh Mite @ Jan 21 2009, 01:26 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
This is not what I read in the reports I saw on this, so forgive me if I was misinformed. It does still seem strange he would drink heavily when he has a liver injury, and that he had so much he'd still get
busted the next morning with too much alcohol in your blood. I'm not a doctor, so I couldn't pass judgment on the effects of alcohol after a nights sleep, but this does seem to speak in his favor a bit (although I've being drunk still the following morning after a heavy drink).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
I was talking hypothetically. I know drugs are illegal, I just think not for very good reasons. Don't get me wrong, I don't condone people breaking the law, quite the opposite. I was merely talking about my personal feelings towards the use and abuse of drugs and alcohol. I think the laws should be changed, but that doesn't excuse people from not upholding them while they are still in place. It's what I think SHOULD happen (but won't obviously).
Don't even bother bringing in the colombians indeed, the biggest coke bosses in the world themselves find the war on drugs and illegality the best thing that ever happened to their buisness. It weeds out the little dealers, handing the power to the bigger cartels. No taxes, high demand, low supply, black market, great profits.
As for the anguish, I know more people who have gone to ground because of alcohol than anything else, but that's perfectly legal. People die when free-climbing or diving, but that's suddenly their own choice. I know a guy who got beaten deaf in a boxing match, no public outcry there. It seems to me hypocritical to single out drugs, when alcohol shares almost the same characteristics, and is in fact worse than most drugs when it comes to destroying your health.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
I do have a clue of what I'm talking about, a free society where people are responsible for their own actions, where drugs, like alcohol, are much more expensive, regulated, and the total amount of users lower than before (like with the marijuana use in my own country, the Netherlands).
I did in fact mention later on he should be banned, I just don't think that two years is appropriate (read my response in the main thread about this in the NH forum.
@Teh Mite, were drifting a bit of topic here, perhaps we should resume the discussion via pm or in the other Stevens thread?
This is not what I read in the reports I saw on this, so forgive me if I was misinformed. It does still seem strange he would drink heavily when he has a liver injury, and that he had so much he'd still get
busted the next morning with too much alcohol in your blood. I'm not a doctor, so I couldn't pass judgment on the effects of alcohol after a nights sleep, but this does seem to speak in his favor a bit (although I've being drunk still the following morning after a heavy drink).
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
I was talking hypothetically. I know drugs are illegal, I just think not for very good reasons. Don't get me wrong, I don't condone people breaking the law, quite the opposite. I was merely talking about my personal feelings towards the use and abuse of drugs and alcohol. I think the laws should be changed, but that doesn't excuse people from not upholding them while they are still in place. It's what I think SHOULD happen (but won't obviously).
Don't even bother bringing in the colombians indeed, the biggest coke bosses in the world themselves find the war on drugs and illegality the best thing that ever happened to their buisness. It weeds out the little dealers, handing the power to the bigger cartels. No taxes, high demand, low supply, black market, great profits.
As for the anguish, I know more people who have gone to ground because of alcohol than anything else, but that's perfectly legal. People die when free-climbing or diving, but that's suddenly their own choice. I know a guy who got beaten deaf in a boxing match, no public outcry there. It seems to me hypocritical to single out drugs, when alcohol shares almost the same characteristics, and is in fact worse than most drugs when it comes to destroying your health.
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div>
I do have a clue of what I'm talking about, a free society where people are responsible for their own actions, where drugs, like alcohol, are much more expensive, regulated, and the total amount of users lower than before (like with the marijuana use in my own country, the Netherlands).
I did in fact mention later on he should be banned, I just don't think that two years is appropriate (read my response in the main thread about this in the NH forum.
@Teh Mite, were drifting a bit of topic here, perhaps we should resume the discussion via pm or in the other Stevens thread?
H
Hall
Guest
Julian White has replaced him.
D
danny
Guest
Bad news follows bad!
N
Nidhogg
Guest
I wish I put a fiver on THAT!
It might be a step backward age-wise, but I heard Julian White is actually in very good form for Leicester. A selection based on form wouldn't hurt when people like Robshaw are already being left out.
It might be a step backward age-wise, but I heard Julian White is actually in very good form for Leicester. A selection based on form wouldn't hurt when people like Robshaw are already being left out.
D
danny
Guest
White is well proven to be out of his depth at international level. Robshaw has played well this season but hes still very young and needs to prove himself in the Saxons then Im sure he can make the break through. Hes good but not that good.
B
Bullitt
Guest
Oh dear... Is England really that short on decent props?
S
stormmaster1
Guest
He is in good form, but not the most complete prop ever to play the game. For Tigers, his scrummaging has set the base for some great wins (e.g. beating Munster in Thomand park, or at home v Perpignan) but with some lightweight locks i wonder if England will actually have a destructive scrum?
S
Sir Speedy
Guest
P
Prestwick
Guest
Currently, Martin Johnson's England reminds me of this:
Only add an A&E department and some jealous Ospreys who could only wish that they could <strike>blatantly cheat</strike> win like Leicester can...if losing at the Liberty Stadium can be seen as winning...
...I'll get back to you on that.. :s
EDIT: Also, I've seen some of the comments victimising those what drink beer and as a card carrying member of CAMRA (and owner of a beard) I say:
LEAVE BEER ALONE!
Only add an A&E department and some jealous Ospreys who could only wish that they could <strike>blatantly cheat</strike> win like Leicester can...if losing at the Liberty Stadium can be seen as winning...
...I'll get back to you on that.. :s
EDIT: Also, I've seen some of the comments victimising those what drink beer and as a card carrying member of CAMRA (and owner of a beard) I say:
LEAVE BEER ALONE!
S
Sir Speedy
Guest
Hey, he was bound to choose the right player eventually! - the laws of probability demand it...
EDIT:
LEAVE JOHNSON ALONE!
EDIT:
LEAVE JOHNSON ALONE!
P
PGSGimson
Guest
I would have:
1.Sheridan
2. Mears (to be replaced by Hartley after 60)
3. Vickery
4. Shaw (considering that most other second rowers are injured and he is better than Borthwick)
5. Kennedy
6. Croft
7. Armatige
8. Haskell
9. Care
10. Cips
11. Monye
12. Geraghty
13. Not sure. Maybe Tindall because there is no other captin and he has been in good form
14. Banahan for the Italy game. Otherwise, not sure.
15. Armatige
1.Sheridan
2. Mears (to be replaced by Hartley after 60)
3. Vickery
4. Shaw (considering that most other second rowers are injured and he is better than Borthwick)
5. Kennedy
6. Croft
7. Armatige
8. Haskell
9. Care
10. Cips
11. Monye
12. Geraghty
13. Not sure. Maybe Tindall because there is no other captin and he has been in good form
14. Banahan for the Italy game. Otherwise, not sure.
15. Armatige
B
Bullitt
Guest
Everytime I see the majority of that pack written in the same place, I get a little more depressed.
H
Hall
Guest
Shaw five years ago yes, now he is too old.
It is a shame we have a dearth of good locks in this country but hey ho...
Wait... Haskell at eight? What in the name of Zeus' beard? :angry:
It is a shame we have a dearth of good locks in this country but hey ho...
Wait... Haskell at eight? What in the name of Zeus' beard? :angry:
P
PGSGimson
Guest
Haskell should be in the team. He has been playing at 8 for Wasps recently and I think that he is the best option. I think that Easter is past it and Crane is playing for the Saxons so can't play either.
Sorry about putting Shaw in. I don't like having him there, but there are other people like Blaze and Short who, I think, are injured. If there not, then I would prefer one of them to play instead. Shaw is definitly tempory and I wouldn't have him after this 6 nations.
I would prefer to have Stevens in rather than Vickery, but he failed a drugs test.
I'm a bit annoyed about the pack. Right now, the only options appear to be oldies or people who havce scarcly played at international level.
Sorry about putting Shaw in. I don't like having him there, but there are other people like Blaze and Short who, I think, are injured. If there not, then I would prefer one of them to play instead. Shaw is definitly tempory and I wouldn't have him after this 6 nations.
I would prefer to have Stevens in rather than Vickery, but he failed a drugs test.
I'm a bit annoyed about the pack. Right now, the only options appear to be oldies or people who havce scarcly played at international level.
B
Bullitt
Guest
What about the fact Haskell is a natural 6 who only gets shoe-horned into the charriot seat, and isn't a particularly good 6 anyway; He's famous and "good" because Don Lawrence Told the BBC and other Meeja he should be.
Easter may not be what he was a couple of years ago, but he's still a better option.
Easter may not be what he was a couple of years ago, but he's still a better option.
