Shame... If I had a club I would not include that in my contact and hire all the best players regardless of their personal lives and win.

I did, but you beat me to it.

What do Aussies/Brits call it when someone takes the ball away from the quarterback before he's able to pass or run?

I always thought John Hopoate should have got a job with the professional "wrestling" of the WWE/WWF whatever it is. He's mad, bad, tough ... and he's got the signature move from hell... bahahahah

(see wikipedia for details of the most suspended rugby league player of the modern era: drunk at training, abusing refs, abusing ball-boys, a head-high tackle, and the infamous "finger" incident : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hopoate )

Bad luck? ;)

Srsly though, in most codes played here, we have half backs or full backs. They sometimes have the ball stolen and if it's a one on one tackle, the opposing side gets to keep the ball.

If there are more than one opposition players in the tackle, it's a penalty to the side that had the ball in the first place.

That's for rugby league anyway. The rules are different for other codes.

Yeah, or that maybe the drugs he was taking made him better than he normally would have been.

And don't forget, the player whose mother runs onto the field the most if he gets tackled.

Rugby Union is a better game... :p

But regardless, Ali your points are valid. A point to consider is that often these guys get held to a higher standard regardless of their previous history. Some are bad boys and should be hammered. I think that is right. Others have no previous history and do one bad thing and get hammered because they are high profile people so the law wants to make an example of them. I think that is wrong. Just because someone makes money and is a high profile person I don't think they should be held to a higher standard unless they are a person with whom a certain public trust has been given, i.e. Policeman and certain public officials. All of this should be taken in consideration of the crime as well.

I think most clubs take all those other factors into consideration and give them far more weight than they should in general. The Broncos are about the only club in the league who have sacked players for poor behaviour, and they are the ones who have the least problems with players acting like dicks in public.

I would also add that they provide players not only with coaching for the field, they also provide them with counselling and financial advise because they're cognizant of the challenges these young players face. I think that's a good thing, and as the team manager stated, there's no reason for them to say they don't know what's expected of them when the club spends a lot of time and money on teaching them these things.

We have some professional sports teams here in the US that could use that approach to their players. My guess is most don't.

I don't think ecstasy is a performance enhancing drug, unless you're in a "dancing like a wanker" competition.
What else did he take?
His style was speed, agility and skill, not brute strength, so I doubt steroids were his thing. Was he ever on stimulants, do you know?
I remember a few times when we was knocked semi-conscious, got up, played brilliantly (but glazed-eyed), and later had no recollection of that period. Maybe PCP? Hell, I'd want it if I was playing any form of rugby (see the "how much do you weigh" thread for explanation).

Well don't you think that's an even worse example for kids and society at large?

Besides that I believe there were a number of different drugs, some of which would be performance enhancing if you wanted to just go and go and go...

So, the spectrum seems to be:
Recreational drugs will turn you into a loser, so they are bad.
Have this beer, it will make you drunk, it is good.
Have this protein supplement, it will help you perform, it is good.
Performance enhancing drugs will turn you into a winner, so they are bad.

Can you explain how we make non-arbitrary distinctions between the bad drugs and the good ones?

But I'm all with you on the violence bit. Violence is bad.
Although, hang on... just because they finsihed it, doesn't mean they started it.
Don't they have the right of self-defense? And a fair trial?

As I said, the club did their own investigation. Do you think they would have dumped them if they felt they'd acted in self defence for example? Probably not after they've already invested a great deal of money in the players.

With regard to drugs, I can't explain how the distinctions are made other than how quickly they will kill you if you get a bad batch. I don't know of anyone who has ever keeled over after a bad drop of red, but I do know people who've died because they snorted something impure. I believe that's probably a similar distinction that a lot of other people make when they think about good and bad drugs.

Legal protien supplements aren't classed as drugs if you're just having whey powder. It's when they lace them with steroids that they become illegal.

Anyway, one of the players involved has been charged and he'll front court. The other was simply involved in the melee. Maybe a tough call for him to have been dumped, but maybe the club wants to send a clear message to other young players.

NB Paragraphs rearranged by theme. Hope you don't mind.

Some good points, I grant you. The club would probably prefer to keep players than have to dump them. But even a friendly club investigation still doesn't constitute fair trial. And particularly tough on the non-charged guy.

I'm probably :dedhorse: but the lethal overdose argument doesn't cut it (so to speak). Sculling a bottle of spirits will kill you (and quite a few people die this way). smoking an ounce of cannabis won't.
If it is the impurities that worry you, they are there because the drug is illegal.
:blah: If you haven't heard this all before then I congratulate you on recently emerging from your 20 year coma.

You've ducked the issue there. I am asking why they are classed as drugs and made illegal.

I offer this olive branch: the distinctions between good drugs and bad drugs are arbitrarily placed. There is no non-arbitrary way of placing them. Yet we need distinctions, the only other option being anything goes. Therefore we have to make do with arbitrary distinctions. But, since we acknowledge that they are arbitrary, it is legitimate to argue about where they should be drawn and to argue in favour of moving them.

Whaddayareckon, mate?

OMG! I think my plumber got a parking ticket!!!