Biting in Eng v Ire

First topic message reminder :

Just a quick post to clarify that there was no gouging in the Eng-Ire match. It's come out that the Irish players were complaining of biting, specifically on Ferris's finger.

Full story here:

http://www.espnscrum.com/ireland/rugby/story/161365.html

Triangulation wrote:The most ridiculous ban in rugby was Matt Stevens' year ban for recreational cocaine use.

I know that players should be role models but it isnt a performance enhancing drug he wasnt trying to use it as such and i think he had a very clean record.

Now i know he was stupid. Very stupid. Reckless with his career BUT......

2 years!!!!

It is amazing that he made it back from there at all.

Seriously career threatening ban.

It can be used as a performance enhancing drug and used to mask others.
That aside the penalties in pro rugby are harsh, but you think thats bad you should look at some of the american school sports policies on canabis use.

Stevens was probably unlucky that he was one of the few to be caught out and who still had much of a career left. The Plank shouldve been banned long before anyway.

I thought it was common knowledge that the majority of that bath team were shoving peruvian marching powder up their hooters on a regular basis.

Compare stevens treatment to Tindal and Care

Steens - never actually caught with anything adn no criminal charges but he did fess up - 2 years
Tindal - 2 drink driving bans which is criminal. Not even admonished, Care three drink related offenses in a few months - drop but no ban.

Which one of those was likely to hurt someone else? Hint - not stevens

Gower:

Use the word "allegedly" when you are making accusing statements whether fact or fiction. You may upset Hersh.

If you work in a profession where drugs checks are mandatory, and you're stupid enough to fail one - then frankly you get what you deserve.

nobbled wrote:If you work in a profession where drugs checks are mandatory, and you're stupid enough to fail one - then frankly you get what you deserve.

+1

Never understood it myself either.

nobbled wrote:If you work in a profession where drugs checks are mandatory, and you're stupid enough to fail one - then frankly you get what you deserve.

Yeah but they also work in a profession where biteing people, smacking them in the face, spear tackling , eye gouging, knee dropping, hair pulling, elbowing, and generaly being violent toward other player checks are carried out almost continuosly. When they fail them they dont get as long bans.
Are we saying Warburton is stupid enough to deserve a 2 year band for a relativly minor infraction to which he admitted culpability and has made concious efforts to not repeat?

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

nobbled wrote:If you work in a profession where drugs checks are mandatory, and you're stupid enough to fail one - then frankly you get what you deserve.

Yeah but they also work in a profession where biteing people, smacking them in the face, spear tackling , eye gouging, knee dropping, hair pulling, elbowing, and generaly being violent toward other player checks are carried out almost continuosly. When they fail them they dont get as long bans.
Are we saying Warburton is stupid enough to deserve a 2 year band for a relativly minor infraction to which he admitted culpability and has made concious efforts to not repeat?

No, we aren't saying that. We are saying doing drugs (recreational or otherwise) when it could ruin your career is stupid.

As could elbowing someone in the head, they still do it. The point is that elbowing someone in the head has serious consequences on the field of play, taking a bit of coke for giggles doesnt.
Both are criminal acts, yet one gets a harsher ban than the other.

If they made eating pies illegal would you feel no sympathy for Ben Morgan when he got an 8 year ban for being stupid enough to tuck into a pasty? Or would you question the proportionality relative to other acts?

I read a book by a guy who owned an American Football team (San Diego). They sacked the team doctor for giving the players speed before they went onto the pitch. The doc apparently explained it by saying that players would come to him and say that their opposite number would take it and would come onto the pitch with their eyes popping and drooling at the mouth, and they didn't want to go out to face him unless they were in the same state themselves.

nobbled wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:

nobbled wrote:If you work in a profession where drugs checks are mandatory, and you're stupid enough to fail one - then frankly you get what you deserve.

Yeah but they also work in a profession where biteing people, smacking them in the face, spear tackling , eye gouging, knee dropping, hair pulling, elbowing, and generaly being violent toward other player checks are carried out almost continuosly. When they fail them they dont get as long bans.
Are we saying Warburton is stupid enough to deserve a 2 year band for a relativly minor infraction to which he admitted culpability and has made concious efforts to not repeat?

No, we aren't saying that. We are saying doing drugs (recreational or otherwise) when it could ruin your career is stupid.

Yes and it is a garbage argument. If stupidity were to be punished like this more generally in society there is not enough land in the world to jail us all.

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:As could elbowing someone in the head, they still do it. The point is that elbowing someone in the head has serious consequences on the field of play, taking a bit of coke for giggles doesnt.
Both are criminal acts, yet one gets a harsher ban than the other.

If they made eating pies illegal would you feel no sympathy for Ben Morgan when he got an 8 year ban for being stupid enough to tuck into a pasty? Or would you question the proportionality relative to other acts?

+1

Triangulation wrote:

Peter Seabiscuit Wheeler wrote:As could elbowing someone in the head, they still do it. The point is that elbowing someone in the head has serious consequences on the field of play, taking a bit of coke for giggles doesnt.
Both are criminal acts, yet one gets a harsher ban than the other.

If they made eating pies illegal would you feel no sympathy for Ben Morgan when he got an 8 year ban for being stupid enough to tuck into a pasty? Or would you question the proportionality relative to other acts?

+1

When they make pies illegal, Ben Morgan will indeed have my fullest sympathy.

Andy Goode would have to retire.

WELL-PAST-IT wrote:Andy Goode would have to retire.

Andy could be Morgan's alibi - "I couldn't have done it - Andy ate ALL the pies!"

Hmm, Cocaine is not just a bit illegal- it is very illegal because of the crime surrounding the trade and the social damage it causes across the World and UK. Crack (admittedly a specific type) Cocaine has been adjudged to be the 3rd most harmful drug in the world in terms of damage to people not using the drug in at least 2 multicriteria studies. It is the most harmful in terms of effects to the user. The use of standard Cocaine also has a significant economic damage to the UK and to the producers being horribly mistreated in other countries. A zero tolerance approach on the drug is absolutely correct and as heinous as biting and gouging and elbowing are, this does not mean that Cocaine use should not be hit with a massive ban, rather that other offences deserve longer ones. We should help addicts to Cocaine to get over their problems but we cannot afford to be overly tolerant regarding our approach to a drug that causes so much harm in a variety of facets.

The problem is that alcohol actually causes more social damage than any other drug but our attitude to it as a Nation is far laxer than maybe it should be and this affects the way young people like Care use it. This may need to change, but whilst doing things whilst drunk may be illegal at the moment, drinking alcohol is not. Taking even a tiny bit of Cocaine is, and that is why Stevens punishment was not disproportionate and why Care has not been banned.

Chequered,

The social damage caused by cocaine arguably only comes because of its illegality. Other drugs, such as tabacco, can be grown and distributed without the need for major criminal networks. Same goes for opium which is considered perfectly harmless in some countries and widely given to children without the entire universe imploding. Id also point to the history of prohibition in America, we've all seen Bugsy Malone. As for mistreated producers, doesnt the England team where a Nike kit?


Socio political arguments aside anyway surely if it should be a matter for the police and courts to worry about and deal with, not the RFU? Although sending Rob Andrew out to Columbia wouldnt be a bad idea. The law wasnt too fussed about Stevens' activities, as he did his level best to stop them and has taken a responsible attitude toward that.
All the same arguments you make have been advanced toward video piracy, would you have banned Danny Care for supporting terrorists if he had a dodgy copy of Invictucs on his hard drive?

In both Cares and Stevens' case though the effects on their long term health fitness and performance, and lack of judgement taking whatever it is they are taking would be cause for thinking twice before picking them. It was probably bad to bring Care into this btw since hes just been charged with sexual assault whilst drunk, something Im not aware Stevens ever did whilst on coke.
The rationale for hefty bans for cocaine use is that it is a performance enhancing drug even if it wanst being used a such.
We werent discussing the proportion between Care and Stevens anyway, but that between recreational drugs bans and ones for violent acts on the pitch.
Id see what happened in the LV final as a matter for the RFU, and then secondly for the law. What someone does away from the pitch is a matter for the law and then the RFU, its not for the RFU to dictate what this countries drugs laws should be and set excessive punishments for things that the law didnt see any value in pursuing. Except that cocaines on the banned list as a performance enhancer, its that thats made it the RFUs business, and quite rightly they are looking to ensure that such substances arent used for advantage in the game as well as taking care of individuals with addiction issues.

Pity they cant find out what the Welsh are feeding those teenagers and ban it!

Well at least this is no longer about biting

I only mentioned Care because you brought him, together with Tindall, up as an example to contrast to Stevens. The social damage caused by Cocaine can be attributed to its illegality, which of course causes its financial value and the market that harms so many, but in the UK the cost to the NHS must also be taken into consideration and given the role of Cocaine in addictive and cardiovascular disease it is fair to say that, like alcohol, even if it were legal it would cost the healthcare services more money than it makes (esp as tax doesn't go back to the NHS to treat the harm these drugs cause). Clubs cannot be seen to be endorsing highly illegal activities, and taking a Class A drug is inherently illegal. It can't be put down to a difficulty in realising ones limits or getting carried away like drinking offences (the difficulty being that once under the influence, the ability to make rational decisions is lost)- the first time you take the drug you are breaking a major law and your act was entirely within your own volition. whether the current classifications of drugs is fair is an entirely separate issue -http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0140673610614626, and a fascinating one, but not one that exonerates Stevens in any way shape or form.

If Care committed assault, then he should be banned from the Sport. But as of yet this is all allegation with no facts known to the public.

As for the effects on physical fitness for training purposes, alcohol is definitely bad for you but less likely to cause the taker to drop dead from cardiac arrest than cocaine, and it is less likely to cause short term health problems, dependence, psychological problems and deficits in intellect whilst not intoxicated, drug-related death or a loss of prioritisation of relationships and things outside of the drug in question (vital for any club member). Not that alcohol doesn't hold significant risks in these areas but Cocaine is very bad for your mental and physical health

Is the hearing today?

He bit his ear off?

Who's a what now?