Zero tolerance: If Titans are found guilty, ban them for life

In a recent response to a survey I congratulated the contributors to this site for their diverse and generally sensible comments on sporting matters, particularly in contrast to the rubbish published by the professional sports journalists of the yellow mainline press. However when it comes to matters of the morals and behaviour (of sports people) the amateur Hadley/Jones/ Rothfield clones really come out of the woodwork screeching for career destroying retribution. One would presume that this hanging jury have never had a speeding fine (broken the law) or been sufficiently under the influence of alcohol to do something stupid, and that this justifies their outrage. The NRL should let the justice system look after broken laws of the land and restrict themselves to adjudicating off-field breaches of the code's rules and regulations with a prescribed set of penalties as they do for on-field offences, rather than re-acting to the media frenzy.

Maybe I should be a shock jock Pat. Point taken and as stated in the reply above, maybe life is a tad knee jerk. But 3 years minimum would be enough to send the message that this kind of behaviour is unacceptable...

melbourneterrace, I understand what you are saying and fair enough...maybe a life ban is a bit harsh. But we have to have some sort of strong deterrent to make the players think twice about indulging in illegal substances... I'm not sure about you, but I for one am sick and tired of these guys bringing the game we love into disrepute!!! Sure, we can sit there and say "well it's only a bit of coke" or play it down like it is not a major incident...but it is. If found guilty then they have broken the law and in a time when reputation management is critical, we should be making an example of these blokes and draw that line in the sand. I take the feedback onboard and agree that life might be too long, but a straight up 2 or 3 year ban should be the bare minimum.

Dogs maybe rugby players get better legal representation than league players...

whilst I think this is a good idea in principle I think the impact to the sport would be devastating. I certainly think cocaine is pretty mild when it come to drug use and has been tolerated for so long in the sport. I believe the horse has bolted..

Sorry mate, you're wrong. He was initially charged with supplying cocaine to himself. The charge was downgraded to possession on his admission; he was never found with cocaine on his person so without his confession the possession charge wouldn't have stuck, and given the prosecution tendered no evidence on the supply charges, he could well have been found not guilty. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/mar/06/karmichael-hunt-initially-charged-with-supplying-cocaine-to-himself

One of the worst articles I've ever read. Alcohol has been illegal many times and is currently legal. Getting completely wasted and bashing some random/the miss's is a-ok, small fine and move in. Having some coke for a good night out = banned from your profession for life? Oh lord, get a grip.

Pretty sure the author hasn't watched Wolf of Wall Street either.

Oh please. The game gives blokes more than a second chance. Look at bird, look at ferguson; and now look at carney. People were saying good riddance when he was deregistered and now everybody wants him back. Everyone is saying the game has gone soft. Guess what? It has.

Wow, didn't know you could get on a horse that high. Good for you. Sheesh.

If you bash a bouncer and don't get suspended how can you be suspended for this.

That's not quite correct either Dogs. He pled guilty to buying four times. Three full weights and one time of two small deals. But the semantics aren't really the issue. At no stage is it suggested that the bloke is Mr Asia in charge of a drug cartel, he is just a bloke with a high profile that scored some coke for his friends and himself. The magistrate made her ruling, the ARU have made theirs too. End of. I just wish the Titans boys start listening to good advice in their cases.

The initial charges at least what came out of the original news was that he was the leader of the group, & report was that he was the leader or head of a distributing group of football players. That was before the first two TIttans players were named, It certainly has been downgraded since then, but my point in this is that he was considered the lynch pin in the group, so if he gets off that lightly, from the courts, & nothing yet from the ARU or his club as to any furter penalties then the others should get lesser penalties. But, as for drugs no matter how small the distribution is or the amount, they have got off very lightly compared to what they should, while they might not have taken it nor affected by it, what about those who purchased it from them & what happens to their lives?

It wasn't a gram of coke. It was 12.5grams of coke (bought in 2 batches). He bought it to distribute to others who were going to share it with him. Either way, he was smart enough to take it on the chin and now he get to move on.

I think we were just fooled again by a holier than though media with too much time on their hands and an axe to grind.

Where are you getting this information the Hunt was the ring leader or involved in the syndicate. He was charged with buying around a gram of coke. Long way from distribution.

Hunt was probably advised very well by the ARU to plead guilty, accept what comes and get on with life. The Titans players who are fighting it, are just being badly advised as they are just drawing it out, and with that comes a higher penalty for bringing the club and game into disrupt. It doesn't matter if you think the cops don't have enough evidence to convict, the NRL doesn't need that standard of evidence to fine/ban you.

PS, I also do not like drugs & think that it has no part in society let alone sport, this has done nothing to stamp out the distribution of drugs & making it a crime, its a real joke overall.

While I agree with this to a point, the whole scenario has changed with the feather slap on the wrist given to Hunt, I would love to say what I think is the real underlying reason for the decision as I know where that will take me to. That said, a high profile player is let off even though pleads guilty & is basically the key person in the drug syndicate, he is charged as the one caught out. In other aspects the others are merely mules, but all are linked. If Hunt was guilty of the major part of the syncicate & gets away even as being guilty to me, how can the NRL do anymore to the the players if they cop similar or what should be very much less penalties than Hunt received in the court, therefore they should also get less from the NRL than what Hunt gets from the ARU, that is being fair based on the charge & what their part was in it all. If Hunt is allowed to play again in the squeaky code, then the NRL should be allowed to play earlier in the NRL. Simple as that.

Very poor article. So is that what a civilised society does? Writes people off for the rest of their lives because of things they did when they were young? It's very alarming to hear you say you wouldn't hire someone with a criminal history. Imagine if every employer had the same attitude. The welfare system would send the country broke. But I'm sure if you had your way they wouldn't be eligible for that either. You even use Danny Wicks as an example. Wicks served time in prison for his crime, he has been back in society for a while now, stayed clean, worked hard and started a family. Are we supposed to just say "Sorry Danny, but the things you did in your early twenties can never be atoned for." Let these guys serve an appropriate punishment. Let them demonstrate that they have turned their life around. DON'T write them off for life!