Don't pop the champagne: Jennings' 300th game will be an embarrassment for the NRL

Maybe the 'third party' is the bank?

Yes I wouldn't have any issue if that had been a stipulated requirement of the contract.

Ultimately I can’t go with the NRL banning people due to civil court losses though. I don’t think there’s enough there for the NRL to block his registration They can enforce Jennings contractually to honour the civil court ruling though.

AFL is.

You don't think a player getting done in for PEDs is bringing the game into disrepute? Xerri wouldn't be warned off after just that, but the NRL could if they wanted to. It's surprisingly easy. They have enormous power. Like I said, look at Israel Folau. He's actually committed NO infraction against the NRL but can't get a look in. The NRL will weigh up the public opinion and make a call from there. I suspect if there was a greater push by the public at the time on Jennings, he probably wouldn't been welcome back. But he was forgotten by the public and slipped in under the radar. High profile buffoons like Ben Barba and Todd Carney made it easier for the NRL to warn off.

Let's just stick to players banned for doping. I don't think they'd get away with the "bringing disrepute" as a reasonable argument to add years to a sanction in the case of a black and white doping ban, if challenged. And the RLPA would likely also side with the player. Sure, the NRL could try, but I reckon they'd lose in the Xerri example after 4 years out.

i'm ok with players coming back after serving time for drug offences............. but domestic and sexual violence not so much.

Feel a bit different on these ones Tony. Coming back after drug convictions I'm not hugely concerned about. It's no slap on the wrist, these guys got 3 and 4 year bans, it's a long road back on that and no-one will let you forget. Xerri then I'm OK with. I'm not interested in celebrating his story but I can acknowledge that he's worked hard for a 2nd chance and I don't think the NRL has any reason to stand in the way. From the Bulldogs perspective, he's young and hasn't done anything malicious, give him an opportunity to redeem himself - they'd be no 3rd chance of course. Jennings is a harder case because of the moral issues. Ultimately I can't go with the NRL banning people due to civil court losses though. I don't think there's enough there for the NRL to block his registration I'm baffled why the Roosters are into it though. He's 36, hasn't played in years, has a poor reputation - sure he's a former Origin player but wouldn't you rather give a young guy a chance? Is Jennings going to be so much better that he's worth the effort? I don't see it.

no it is not. plenty of high-functioning drug abusers manage to hold down high-flying jobs.

If a local sporting body applies a ban greater than what would have been imposed by the international body and / or WADA, it can be challenged as an unreasonable restraint of trade. You can’t be a signatory to WADA and then apply your own set of sanctions This is not correct. What you can't do as a signatory to WADA is ban players for longer than the prescribed requirements for that infraction. It rightly stays away from the internal governance of sporting bodies on charges not relevant to WADA. For example, if the NRL wanted to slap and extra two years on Xerri for bringing the game into disrepute, they could have. They could also have rejected to register his contract for the same reason. It would be viewed as a separate transgression to the drug ban. Look at Sandpapergate. The actual ICC ban for that transgression is a match. CA, as a signatory to the ICC, adhered to that, and then put a year on top for bringing the game into disrepute, and entirely separate charge. The NRL operates in essence to a private members club. There is no inherent right to be an NRL player. It's not simply a case of just ticking boxes and meeting a threshold of qualifying points. The NRL retain the discretion to admit or deny anyone the right to enter. Look at Israel Folau - talent wise there was literally nothing stopping his re-entry to the game, and he broke no laws, broke no NRL policy. But the NRL retain the right to refuse registering any contract. It was made clear that they wouldn't register a contract. Folau would have had no rights. Todd Carney was always going to struggle to make a pathway back to the NRL with these reserve grade contracts because the NRL showed no inclination to allow him back into the top level...as is their right. Whether the NRL should do this, I'm in two minds. The reformist in me believes rehabilitation and second chances. That's the bedrock of liberal democracy. But the husband and father in me believes Jennings should be driven out of the game.

I don't think they would lose a challenge. There is no inherent right to be an NRL player. You are applying to be admitted, and as such the NRL can list whatever requirements need to be met, on a case by case basis. And there are plenty of examples of the NRL requiring players to have completed x or undertaken y before having their contract registered. For Michael Jennings, nothing would have stopped the NRL from saying "we will not register this contract until we receive proof Jennings has paid his ex-wife what is owed."

I've got relatively hard leanings on players such as Jennings being allowed back in to play the sport , the abuse his ex wife has suffered and continues to suffer having not been paid any of the money owed due to a seemingly deliberate redirection of funds from his property sales shows a total lack of wanting to redeem himself, more that he wants to play and be in the spotlight again. Professional sports people are in a very privileged position , they get paid for playing sport and in the likes of many paid very very well compared to the rest of us who clock in day in day out and would love the salary's these players get ( don't tell me is because they have short careers, they get to chose it or not, any one who goes to work each day could also have a very short working career due to any number of factors) , it annoys me when sport throws up so many bad eggs and they get given a second chance, or third etc etc, and the clubs always back them! A real job fighting to pay the bills is the other option, so maybe just keep your nose clean and enjoy a long career?, or get thrown on the scrap heap for another one to come along. just a guys opinion.

They can try. The NRL would likely lose a challenge. If a local sporting body applies a ban greater than what would have been imposed by the international body and / or WADA, it can be challenged as an unreasonable restraint of trade. A few athletes have challenged bans imposed by sporting bodies for this and been successful. You can't be a signatory to WADA and then apply your own set of sanctions.

I truly hope you're wrong about Amone, Tony. As you so rightly put it "Surely the game doesn’t need people like this.............there’ll always be someone else to take their place."

My fault....thought it was "recreational" stuff. Too much AFL on the weekend.