B
-
Help Support The Rugby Forum :
A
An Tarbh
Guest
Only right, would have been a complete farce had it been anything else, especially in the wake of what Sailor got.
B
Bullitt
Guest
"Anybody got a twenty?"
V
Vambo
Guest
Clubs will be queuing up for his services two years from now. His SA background must make Sarries fave 
A
An Tarbh
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Vambo @ Feb 26 2009, 07:46 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
yeah but he knows the value of the pound so no SA wages for him, especially with a habit to support.
Clubs will be queuing up for his services two years from now. His SA background must make Sarries fave
yeah but he knows the value of the pound so no SA wages for him, especially with a habit to support.
S
shazbooger
Guest
Does no one think that 2 years is a bit severe? Seems a bit daft branding a social drug user with a rampant drug cheat. I'm not saying let him off or anything, but maybe a 12 month ban would be more appropriate.
A
An Tarbh
Guest
I say it's fair given that's what others have got for the same offence.
G
gingergenius
Guest
harsh but he's got to live with it.
Stephens to play American Football now?
Stephens to play American Football now?
A
An Tarbh
Guest
either that or he'll try his hand at the singing again.
C
Cymro
Guest
Wish him all the best with his rehab and hopefully a better Stevens in 2 years time!
A
An Tarbh
Guest
yeah poor fella, it was probably a bigger boy who made him do it!!!
C
Cymro
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (An Tarbh @ Feb 27 2009, 12:41 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
<_<
Post of the year!
<_<
Post of the year!
S
shazbooger
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (An Tarbh @ Feb 27 2009, 11:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Well then I'd ask is it fair that the others got that treatment? I mean there is a clear difference between recreational drugs and performance enhancing drugs. One's a blatant form of cheating that undermines the game, the other is a personal choice that has no positive impact on your player. I'm not saying its good (never done it myself) but its stupid that they paint them all with the same brush.
Maybe steroid abuse should lead to a lifetime ban?
Well then I'd ask is it fair that the others got that treatment? I mean there is a clear difference between recreational drugs and performance enhancing drugs. One's a blatant form of cheating that undermines the game, the other is a personal choice that has no positive impact on your player. I'm not saying its good (never done it myself) but its stupid that they paint them all with the same brush.
Maybe steroid abuse should lead to a lifetime ban?
A
An Tarbh
Guest
well given that the risk of stroke or cardiac arrest are far higher for professional athletes who use cocaine than I've no problem with that stupidity being punished severely.
S
shazbooger
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (An Tarbh @ Feb 27 2009, 02:23 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Again, I understand where your coming from. I'm just questioning the fact that we either (depending on how you look at it) treat cheats as leniently as recreational drug users, or we treat recreational drug users as severely as drug treats.
All seems a little daft to me.
Same could be said for energy drinks. Either way, you cant justify a 2 year ban on stupidity.
Again, I understand where your coming from. I'm just questioning the fact that we either (depending on how you look at it) treat cheats as leniently as recreational drug users, or we treat recreational drug users as severely as drug treats.
All seems a little daft to me.
A
An Tarbh
Guest
I suppose we're waiting for the rugby player who does fail a test for performance enhancing drugs, if in that case they get a far heavier ban than it's all good and we're not being lenient either way.
M
MunsterMan
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (An Tarbh @ Feb 27 2009, 11:33 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Two wrongs don't make a right and all that stuff. I saw in the paper today 'Drugs Cheat Stevens', which annoyed me, call him what you like but you can't call him a drug cheat. 12 months would have been plenty.
Two wrongs don't make a right and all that stuff. I saw in the paper today 'Drugs Cheat Stevens', which annoyed me, call him what you like but you can't call him a drug cheat. 12 months would have been plenty.
A
An Tarbh
Guest
<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MunsterMan @ Feb 27 2009, 07:36 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div>
Two wrongs don't make a right and all that stuff. I saw in the paper today 'Drugs Cheat Stevens', which annoyed me, call him what you like but you can't call him a drug cheat. 12 months would have been plenty.
[/b][/quote]
why should he get 12 when Sailor got 24, just cause you don't agree with the severity of the sentence doesn't mean Stevens should get off lightly for the same offence.
Two wrongs don't make a right and all that stuff. I saw in the paper today 'Drugs Cheat Stevens', which annoyed me, call him what you like but you can't call him a drug cheat. 12 months would have been plenty.
[/b][/quote]
why should he get 12 when Sailor got 24, just cause you don't agree with the severity of the sentence doesn't mean Stevens should get off lightly for the same offence.
M
MunsterMan
Guest
Just because Sailor got 24 doesn't mean Stevens should get 24, Like I said two wrongs don't make a right. I am not familiar with what Sailor did (he always looked like he was roided up!) but if was a recreational drug the I don't think he should have been given 24 months either, 12 would have been plenty.
A
An Tarbh
Guest
fair enough you may think the sentence is too harsh but you've got to have consistency in terms of the bans that are given, what makes his case so special that he only deserves half of what Sailor got, who failed a test for cocaine as well.
