Rogues Gallery wrote:
Why should Barba not be banned for two years, ala Gareth Hock, and the young Saints academy player IF he comes to play in the same competition?
Because it wasnt the UK Anti Doping committee that he tested positive with, and the NRL dealt with the offence within their punishment guidelines.
If he was to test positive for cocaine over here (assuming he does sign for Saints/another SL club) his ban would be for the 2 years.
That said (and I am in no way advocating the use of drugs) I do feel the punishments of 2 years for a recreational drug that doesnt enhance performance is a touch harsh for a players' first offence. Especially in the case of Barba who took the drug outside of the season. 3 months suspension I think is about right...however if he was to do it again a longer ban (for stupidity as much as anything else) should be given. It just seems a tad harsh imo that somebody who takes cocaine recreationally is given the same length ban as plaers caught using steroids/growth to gain an advantage in their performance.
I also think the NRL are more leniant as there is a wider problem with rec drugs use down under than we maybe have in SL - in addition to Barba, players like Bromwich, Proctor, Kenny-Dowell to name a few have all been involved in drugs scandals lately to name a few, with players such as Andrew Johns owning up to frequently using rec drugs throughout his career. That said, when Mullen at Newcastle tested positive for steroid use, they banned him for 4 years and effectively ended his career so shows they have a tougher stance on performance enhancing.
As for Barba, it will be interesting but given that Super League has happily registered similarly banned NRL players to play in the past (Greg Bird, Todd Carney etc), and also allowed players involved in the Gold Coast drug scandal a few years ago (Dave Taylor, Beau Falloon, Steve Michaels) to play without problem it would seem harsh to make him serve his 12 match ban.
