Casforum • The Leading Castleford Tigers Community

TT Tiger wrote:

Scoopage wrote:Barba tested positive for cocaine and received a 12 game ban.what makes Zak different?should be same punishment no?

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-0 ... fmredir=sm

My assumption would be that this would be the basis of our appeal as the rfl chose to uphold their ban.

Barba tested positive 4 days after the gf ie not "in competition". Also Barba was not tested by UKAD,part of WADA but by the NRL's in house team. The rfl's policy seems to be 2 years so that's what Hardaker will get. Same as Hock.

TT Tiger wrote:

Scoopage wrote:Barba tested positive for cocaine and received a 12 game ban.what makes Zak different?should be same punishment no?

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-0 ... fmredir=sm

My assumption would be that this would be the basis of our appeal as the rfl chose to uphold their ban.

Well it will fail.
Barba did not break WADA rules. He tested positive for cocaine in an independent, out-of-competition test.
Hardaker has broken WADA rules. He tested positive for cocaine in a UKAD, in-competition test.
Whilst the substance is the same, the timing of the tests and the organisation that conducted them mean Hardaker has committed a WADA offence, whereas Barba didn't.

Spanishtiger wrote:

TT Tiger wrote:

Scoopage wrote:Barba tested positive for cocaine and received a 12 game ban.what makes Zak different?should be same punishment no?

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-0 ... fmredir=sm

My assumption would be that this would be the basis of our appeal as the rfl chose to uphold their ban.

Barba tested positive 4 days after the gf ie not "in competition". Also Barba was not tested by UKAD,part of WADA but by the NRL's in house team. The rfl's policy seems to be 2 years so that's what Hardaker will get. Same as Hock.

The RFL don't set the punishment as it was a UKAD test. WADA will set the punishment.

2 years then .....

Spanishtiger wrote:2 years then .....

More than likely.
He'll have to have some bloody good extenuating circumstances to get any less.

[quote= Personally, I'd make him clean the toilets and around the club every day for two years on minimum wage. This might make him realise what he has thrown away and not make the same mistake again when he resumes playing.
Then again, it might not.[/quote]

As much as i would love to see him doing odd jobs around the ground on a low wage i doubt his ego (or his agent) will allow it.

To settle an argument i am currently having, Where is Zak from? Ponte,Fev or Knottingley?

The club con not afford to pay ZACS wages when he will not be playing, we signed him up on a four year contact he as broken that contract say good bye to him for two years or any other length of ban he gets then welcome him back when he as served his suspension

Mysterio wrote:In the fullness of time Zak would be the PERFECT person to get across the message about the horrors of drugs to youngsters. Think about it.

There's a way out of this for everyone and an opportunity to grow as a person - finally - for Zak. Don't just dump him.

Exactly the conversation I've just been having with our lass. I'm with you here 100%. The club are stuck between a rock and a hard place though, as the subject of drugs will always divide opinion.

Just wsnt to know why there are a few posts about this saying that Hardaker "Has been unlucky that he got caught". I cant believe anyone could think this at all.

If he doesnt do it he cant get caught. Nothing to do with luck.

I think it’s due to fact it is rife

Still cant be seen as "unlucky" surely?

If it is so rife then why arent there loads being "unlucky?"

Because the short amount of time it stays in the body.

Having been where Zak is now (although not in the limelight like he is) the club should not give up on him. Yes reduce his wages but don't bin him

TT Tiger wrote:Because the short amount of time it stays in the body.

When Rangi and Walker both got caught you'd have thought other players would have stayed squeaky clean. Hardaker is the 3rd player in 3 months to be caught and I doubt he'll be the last either.

As he cited mental issues yet?

At what point does it stop been mental problems and become attitude problems?

Assume everyone on the sniff up town, Ponte, Wakie, Leeds have mental issues too?

He's had chance after chance and blown it, I genuinely thought he had settled down here and grown up, evidently not.

God Im so frustrated, annoyed and gutted with how this as ended and you know what, I'd rather lose it without out him than win it with that petulant, spoilt child.

Christ imagine the uproar had we have won the match and this would have come out today!

dancas88 wrote:Having been where Zak is now (although not in the limelight like he is) the club should not give up on him. Yes reduce his wages but don't bin him

Agree with this. We shouldn't give up. Offer him help and it may pay off in the long run

TheSheriff wrote:So if he failed on 8th September, which genius thought it wise to wait until 2 hours before the 19 man squad for the Grand Final was due to be announced, nearly a month after the failed test? Appalling stuff by UKAD. They could have done it weeks ago.

Not sure if this has been answered as going through the thread so apologies if it has. But: he was only tested on the 8th. The results won't have come back until later after it's actually been tested and lab results back.

will be interesting to see what punishment ban is imposed by rfl. they could find themselves facing a discrimination case if they impose more than a 12 game ban as they have allowed ben barba to join super league after is 12 match ban. if a longer ban is given it could therefore be seen as unfair against british homegrown talent by a top lawyer as both players are guilty of same offence and taking same substance would the rfl what to risk a discrimination challenge in court

tigers8rhinos wrote:will be interesting to see what punishment ban is imposed by rfl. they could find themselves facing a discrimination case if they impose more than a 12 game ban as they have allowed ben barba to join super league after is 12 match ban. if a longer ban is given it could therefore be seen as unfair against british homegrown talent by a top lawyer as both players are guilty of same offence and taking same substance would the rfl what to risk a discrimination challenge in court

Totally different case
Different rules in Oz
Barba wasn't caught by a governing body I think it was his club
Barba was caught off season not mid season
Different rules and regulations in Australia about recreational drugs to UKAD

sure some top lawyer could argue why he should serve a 500% longer ban in the same sport 60 games against 12 otherwise every aussie with a ban could come here