Two-year ban for Stevens

GloryHunter07

Full Member
Joined
Oct 11, 2007
Messages
12,156
England and Bath prop Matt Stevens has been handed a two-year ban by the ERC after testing positive for cocaine.

The 26-year-old has been banned from all rugby and rugby-related activities until January 18, 2011.

A disciplinary hearing in Glasgow handed out the sentence as a result of a drugs test revealing metabolites of cocaine in his system.

The European Rugby Cup described the ban as the "prescribed sanction" for failing a drugs test, and now Stevens' career has huge question marks hanging over it with him sitting out the game for the next two years.

"After considering the evidence, and in light of Mr Stevens' admissions, the committee determined that an anti-doping rule violation had occurred in that the player's sample had contained benzoylecgonine and methylecgonine, which are metabolites of cocaine," an ERC statement said


Big ban, thats a serious deterrent.
 
I had no idea that was the standard punishment, seems very heavy. That said, serves him right.

Is there a standard in football for doing coke (and getting caught)
 
Harsh, considering it's a recreational drug. I could understand if it was peformance enhancing.

It was expected I suppose.
 
I had no idea that was the standard punishment, seems very heavy. That said, serves him right.

Is there a standard in football for doing coke (and getting caught)

I don't think so Rio got more for missing a test than Mutu did for getting proved of taking a drug!
 
If it's not performance enhancing it's none of their business.

Do you think so?

It's an interesting question, IMO. If the drugs aren't performance enhancing, then presumably the ban is for health/public relations reasons. I guess they're trying to be seen to make the players behave as role modes etc. But anyone of a mind to take coke, probably won't be influenced by Ben Stevens, one way or the other.

I can understand the fact that drugs like coke can adversely influence the healt of players, and having a player keel over of a heart attack on the pitch isn't something they want, but it's an odd one nonetheless.
 
If it's not performance enhancing it's none of their business.

Exactly man!

Social drug use shouldnt deemed on par with using performance enhancing drugs in sport, its rediculous!

Look at Michael Phelps, he got banned for 3 months but thats still for social drug use, yet the fella Stevens gets 2 years :confused:

Commonsense should play its part in these situations. Coke is everywhere in society. The local pub on a Saturday will have a few off their heads on coke, weed, speed or whatever, but very few on steroids & the like!

I feel sorry for the guy. He admitted using, that he had a problem & was sorry. They should of placed him on a rehab programme & helped the guy - not make his life worse!

The difference between Rugby & Football is that the toffs that run Rugby are out of touch with the realities of life. Football is traditionally a working-class sport, whereas Rugby is Middle/Upper class. Football seems to have realistic views on the society we live in - Rugby seems to pride itself on looking down on the weak & they have punished Stevens to make an example of him for shaming their sport!

Would the same have happened if Stevens was a Rugby League player - tradtionally a working class code of Rugby?
 
Look at Michael Phelps, he got banned for 3 months but thats still for social drug use, yet the fella Stevens gets 2 years :confused:

Indeed.

Ban a swimmer or athlete for 3 months, and as long as it's not just before the Olympics/World Championships, it means nothing.

Ban a footballer / rugby player for 3 months and they'll miss 12-15 games.

There's a significant voice calling for footballers and athletes to always receive the same punishment for drug use (which is probably why Stevens got the two-year ban). However, this fails to appreciate the differing competitive natures of athletics / swimming and team sports like football / rugby.