Bob Dwyer "100 per cent behind" Hunt keeping contract

Fair enough Betterredthandead , and even fairer would be to drug test every politician, sports administrator, lawyer, judge, reporter (and blogger). Then we would have an interesting discussion when the results came in. And a new drugs policy and punishment regime. I'm reminded of Henry Lawsons poem from many years ago - he had been gaoled (prisoner number 103) as a drunken vagrant and spoke of his experience in Darlinghurst Courthouse "where drunkards in judgement of drunkards sit, keep step one hundred and three"

This argument is quite simple. This is all about character and there is no place in Aust rugby for people who use drugs. Contract cancelled and he can then snort away with his halfwit druggy mates as much as he like. And as the one who buys merchandise, foxtel and financial member of club rugby I think my vote counts?

Social drug user??? the stuff is illegal and in any other job he would have been shown the door.

I would love to know that

so for everyone saying that Hunt shouldn't be playing Rugby as he "doesnt set a good example for our Children" well, I'd say that any kid who happens to have the money and access to buy cocaine, will have seen the way that Hunt has been pilloried in the press and on sites like this, and think that if this is how the Aussie public treat a social drug user, then it's probably not worth the bother.

first time in a while i agree with something Combesy says.. :)

I think you are making a tough call there. Out of season let alone in contract period. ARU sanction could surely be challenged. I suppose the Reds themselves haven't done much other than drop him from VC. It'll be interesting how they reintroduce him to the squad.

I'm not strongly against the issue. I have noted previously I have used cocaine myself. I don't use it any more due to the cost. In Hunt's case he should have refrained due to the potential career impacts. In order to have a strong culture, you need to set strong standards. The Reds have not done this with their penalty.

So the Reds would have had no issue signing him had this occurred prior?

Out of curiosity FOS how many emails of yours have been responded to?

far more entitlement down reds way also more arrogance which is funny juxtapositioned with their performance

Most people who have no knowledge of these things would feel that the punishment handed down by the courts is fairly lenient. What would the punishment have been were it marijuana? and what would the reaction be to that instance? Can anyone enlighten me? If it's similar sort of offence, I certainly don't think that I'd want to see players sacked for having a joint. I understand (but do not necessarily agree with) the role model argument but are sporting clubs deemed to hold people to so much higher standards than the community.

Your team wants to play the bad boys of Australian rugby, full of arrogance and entitlement, and you worry because you get called on it occasionally?

But the approbrium that would of ensued had it been the Tahs, never ending.

Yes.

TWAS, I was generally avoiding comment as I see more or less a polemic and no "side" actually interested in listening. Arguments have been largely emotion rather than convincing. I comment here as someone who doesn't agree with you, but want to state you have a valid point. No, Hunt would not have been employed if this had been out, or at the very least his potential value would have been stripped. I think however you talk about "what if's". Reality was different, and I still believe that the matter dealt with quite well.

We shall see. If Hunt is true to his word and has genuine contrition I will accept this as a reasonable decision. However the fine is inconsequential when you consider how much he is being paid by the Reds and the ARU, it is merely a drop in a bucket for Hunt. And I note that there was not a conviction recorded, very lucky for Hunt as he would not have been able to obtain a visa to travel if there had been one recorded. That alone would have put paid to his rugby career with the Reds. Also I hate to say this but Hunt in the past has had some nefarious exploits when he was with the Broncos. That he is in trouble again would suggest that he is a slow learner when it comes to making responsible choices and decisions. Ah time will tell. On the subject of his attempt to play at the WC, reality should tell us that due to this suspension he would have buckley's to make the WC squad. I see on Rugby HQ last night Kayfer talking him up which disappoints me a tad, Kayfer made light of his indiscretion making reference to recreational drug use as apposed to performance enhancing etc. While Greg Martin was adamant that he should not being playing rugby. I am swayed to the Greg Martin view simply because it does not present a good image to our kids and parents what I would like to think rugby as a sport is and my thoughts that leopards not too often change their spots. I would think it justice if he does not make the WC squad, this would be a fairer penalty IMO. I really thought that he was a distant outsider to make it anyway. I am not with the masses that rave over his ability as a rugby player simply because he hasn't played all that much and hasn't in his appearance with the Reds set the world on fire. Nothing that I have seen suggests to me he is better than a top club player, there are probably 5 backs running around in clubland that are his equal at this point in time of his career. His brief sojourn in France was OK and he did OK then but that was 4 years ago. I reserve my judgement on him for now and would be more inclined to make a judgement on his ability at the end of the season. But in marketing stakes he will put bums on seats for whatever reasons

Perhaps he wouldn't have been signed... but the reality is that the ARU has an illicit drugs policy and the punishment for a first offence does not include terminating a contract. Fox reported early yesterday that first offense for recreational use of an illicit drug for a player on about $400K was a $20K fine and counselling. Hunt is apparently on about $600K, so a $30K fine fits the policy (tick). He has been ordered to attend counselling (tick) and I suspect the 6 game suspension is for bringing the game into disrepute (tick) - he hadn't previously been issued with any ARU warnings. If they had torn up his contract whilst their written policy is for a fine and counselling then they would have faced a legal challenge and just may have had to pay out his contract in full and pay all the court costs.

First time in a while I have agreed with anything Bob Dwyer says. I think he's hit the nail on the head. People make mistakes, it says more about a person on how they react moving forward.

considering the fine was handing down in conjunction with the ARU I'd say you're a idiot for attempting to start a petty provincial argument