Northern Edition
Select Edition
Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
New Zealand New Zealand
France France

Why some players are banned for 2 months and others for 2 years for cocaine explained

Logan to depart Ravenhill over the coming weeks

In the last 24 hours two rugby players, on two separate continents, playing at two very different levels, were given two wildly differing bans for the presence in their bodies’ of the same substance – cocaine.

ADVERTISEMENT

One was Wallaby and Reds captain James Slipper, who the ARU have sidelined for two months, despite testing positive for a second time for a cocaine metabolite.

Continue reading below…

Video Spacer

Slipper has claimed that his cocaine use was part of a wider struggle with depression.

Meanwhile in the UK – a player for Cheltenham Tigers was banned for two years after he was failed a doping control test in late 2017. Pattrick Hillier told the doping panel that he believed his drink was ‘spiked’ with cocaine at a friends wedding two days before his game in the Level 7 match in the lower rungs of English rugby. It was accepted that the cocaine was use was in ‘out of competition’ context.

Similarly, in 2009, Matt Stevens was banned for two years for cocaine use.

On the face of it, the 10 fold difference in the ban doesn’t appear particularly fair.

The reason for the disparity in bans is the testing regimes and the sanctioning mechanism involved.

The ARU used their own in house Illicit Drugs Policy programme, which they run their own testing under and which pertains to recreational drug use and crucially non-performance enhancing substances. According to the programme, a first violation will see the player forced to attend drug treatment programme, get placed on a targeted test list and be find 5 percent of their annual income (among other measures).

ADVERTISEMENT

Crucially, no ban is incurred.

A second violation incurs more measures, another 5 percent fine and a ban of 2 months. In the case of Slipper he was fined $27,500, which suggests that his salary is $550,000 per annum.

However in the case in England, the player was subject to the full rigours of the World Anti Doping Agency (WADA) code in an in-competition doping control test as carried out by the RFU.

Despite the panel concluding there was no evidence that the substance had been taken to enhance performance and that the player established to their satisfaction that the prohibited substance was used out of competition in a context unrelated to sports performance, he was still banned for two years.

Video Spacer
ADVERTISEMENT
Play Video

South Africa vs Black Ferns XV | Women's International | Full Match Replay

Play Video

Namibia vs United Arab Emirates | Asia/Africa Rugby World Cup Play-off | Full Match Replay

Play Video

Lions Share | Episode 5

Play Video

Classic Wallabies vs British & Irish Legends | First Match | Full Match Replay

Play Video

Did the Lions loosies get away with murder? And revisiting the Springboks lift | Whistle Watch

Play Video

The First Test, Visiting The Great Barrier Reef & Poetry with Pierre | Ep 6: The Ultimate Test

Play Video

KOKO Show | July 22nd | Full Throttle with Brisbane Test Review and Melbourne Preview

Play Video

New Zealand v South Africa | World Rugby U20 Championship | Extended Highlights

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

0 Comments
Be the first to comment...

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Long Reads

Comments on RugbyPass

S
SK 1 hour ago
Lessons the Wallabies must heed to turn Lions heartbreak into future success

Brett I love your fresh take on the picture that needed to be painted and ultimately wasnt. I agree there just wasnt enough in it for the ref to call it back and ultimately the ref was consistent the whole night at the breakdown. Australia are damned disheartened now but look how close it came to beating a team Campo said would thrash them by 30. This is the perfect prep for the Rugby Championship and the Boks and NZ. The Boks will be able to bring a scary pack to face the Aussies but it will be just as scary as facing these lads and so the Wallabies for me are making progress. They are not quite the finished article and the soft moments and tries and passive defence just proves it. Schmidt was brought in to make Australia better, he was brought in to make sure Australia improved in time for the Lions to avoid an embarrassment and look he has done that and taken them close so while the result is gutting its a job well done so far. lets see if they can take one step further and pilfer a test off these patchy Lions. Just a quick word on refs and the laws. Can we please tell World Rugby to simplify the game. At least 5 or 6 laws were examined in the wake of the last minute cleanout and several said Tizzano should have been pinged, others say Morgan should have been pinged. If former players and refs cant agree on what the right call was then it means the game is too complex. The refs have a clear mandate to let the game flow. I agree with that but the laws must support the refs. Right now they do not and leave too many holes for the refs to plug. The result is a furore after every major engagement between nations where the refs are abused.

35 Go to comments
I
IkeaBoy 2 hours ago
'The Wallabies only have themselves to blame': How the Lions sunk Australia in Melbourne

I’m a proud Irishman with a weakness for the underdog. My only stake in the game was an Aussie win to take the series to a decider. Even overlooking the actual clear out - which was the only thing Piardi instructed the TMO to review - I think it’s very easy to be objective and say that Australia got done on the calls.


It’s a phase of play that unfolds in less than 10 seconds but is fairly easy to breakdown.


1 - Ryan (#19 Lions) is tackled legally, goes to ground in possession of the ball but makes no effort to release the ball. He has to immediately once he goes to ground. PENALTY.


2 - Tizzano (#21 Australia) is first man to the ball (from either team) and forms the ruck with his own hindfoot. Side entry doesn’t apply to him as the ruck is not formed at this stage but rather it’s formed by him. NO PENALTY.


3 - Even to completely ignore the actual clear out (penalty/no penalty), foul play can still have occurred without the need for a HIA. The fact that Tizzano is walking around and available for the next match doesn’t mean he didn’t get emptied. His mouthguard data does seem to have registered an almighty force though. 50/50.


4 - Both Morgan (#20 Lions) and Genge (#17 Lions) go to clear out but both do so by driving through the ruck off their feet and falling over the ball. Sealing. PENALTY


5 - I still don’t understand why none of the coverage picks up on this - Morgan holds Tizzano’s feet in a wrap on the pitch after the clear out. On the match clock it’s 79.03 to 79.07 before he releases. Playing the player off the ball. PENALTY


Piardi controls the narrative when reviewing with the TMO and starts on the wrong foot. The discussion is all on the basis that both sets of players arrive at the same time (which changes mitigation around foul play) which they don’t. They clearly don’t as Tizzano is first to the ball.


For 79 mins that match was brilliant. The crowd was brilliant. The atmosphere seemed brilliant. It’s a loss on the sport that a gang of mic’d up officials can not get it right.

179 Go to comments
LONG READ
LONG READ Lessons the Wallabies must heed to turn Lions heartbreak into future success Lessons the Wallabies must heed to turn Lions heartbreak into future success