Justin Harrison banned for 8 months.

thomond2006

http://www.skysports.com/story/0,19528,12331_5445361,00.html

Former Bath lock Justin Harrison has been suspended for eight months after admitting three drug-related charges.

Harrison, 35, was suspended by RFU disciplinary officer Judge Jeff Blackett for "actions which are prejudicial to the interests of the game".

The former Australia international admitted taking a prohibited substance during an end-of-season celebration in London and of subsequently failing to submit to a drugs test.

He also admitted to shouting: "Class A, it's OK, everyone's doing it" in the vicinity of Bath's academy players.

The suspension was back-dated to May 14, the day Harrison resigned from Bath and withdrew from the Barbarians tour.
He is banned from playing and coaching rugby until January 13, 2010.
Regret

A contrite Harrison said: "I wish to express my acceptance of my suspension by the RFU. I deeply regret the incidents of Sunday, May 10, 2009 and the subsequent damage to Bath Rugby Club and the game itself.

"My situation highlights the dangers to elite rugby players of excess drinking and illicit substances.

"Whether in season or out those dangers should be avoided. I am grateful for the opportunity to remain involved in the game and I fully intend to use my own experiences to educate younger players in the future."

Harrison has not been banned from all rugby-related activities because the charges related to an incident that was out of competition and therefore did not fall under the World Anti-Doping Agency code.

Three of Harrison's former Bath team-mates - Michael Lipman, Alex Crockett and Andrew Higgins - face similar charges at an RFU hearing later this month. All three deny any wrongdoing.

Harrison requested a separate hearing and in return agreed to abide by the judgement of the RFU's disciplinary officer.

What a plank.

leeroybrown

I think Harrison is more of an interesting side show compared to Lipman, Crockett and Higgins who are allegedly caught up in the same circumstances but don't have the easy option of ending their careers. If Harrison gets a short eight month ban for requesting a personal hearing and owning up, then I'd expect the book to be thrown at the other three if there's a shred of evidence.

Crash

Oh they're very much screwed, the plank just has the option of retiring at his age.

Gelio

What a fool, why say that to the young academy players?

anonymous_joe

What depresses me about all this is that so many people do this kind of thing and don't get punished for it.

They got high and caused fights, I know people who've done that before, and they've never lost their jobs, their places in college or anything like that.

At the end of the day, this guy's not really a role model, he's merely someone paid to play rugby.

laugh

anonymous_joe wrote: »

At the end of the day, this guy's not really a role model, he's merely someone paid to play rugby.

Obviously even a privately owned club doesn't feel like that, long may it last.

justsomebloke

leeroybrown wrote: »

I think Harrison is more of an interesting side show compared to Lipman, Crockett and Higgins who are allegedly caught up in the same circumstances but don't have the easy option of ending their careers. If Harrison gets a short eight month ban for requesting a personal hearing and owning up, then I'd expect the book to be thrown at the other three if there's a shred of evidence.

Truthfully he may have opted for his own hearing so that they could give him a longer ban and thus leaving the way open for the remaining 3 to get shorter bans in their own hearings

justsomebloke

anonymous_joe wrote: »

What depresses me about all this is that so many people do this kind of thing and don't get punished for it.

They got high and caused fights, I know people who've done that before, and they've never lost their jobs, their places in college or anything like that.

At the end of the day, this guy's not really a role model, he's merely someone paid to play rugby.

Nah they all know what they are getting into before they sign up to play sport. All professional sports are about selling an image to the public so that the clubs can get more money through endoresements and most clubs want a clean image so that they target the family market where the money is.

So if this is the sort of thing a players wants to do then fine go ahead, but don't play rugby instead go take an ordinary job where the financial stability of your employer isn't dependent on how the public perceive your private life.

zAbbo

"Class A, it's OK, everyone's doing it"

Back to crim island for JH.

anonymous_joe

laugh wrote: »

Obviously even a privately owned club doesn't feel like that, long may it last.

Nothing to do with the owner trying to get rid of a group of players he dislikes then?

Joe the Santa wrote: »

Nah they all know what they are getting into before they sign up to play sport. All professional sports are about selling an image to the public so that the clubs can get more money through endoresements and most clubs want a clean image so that they target the family market where the money is.

So if this is the sort of thing a players wants to do then fine go ahead, but don't play rugby instead go take an ordinary job where the financial stability of your employer isn't dependent on how the public perceive your private life.

I don't agree really, we expect players to live like monks sometimes.

Let's face it, whatever your opinions about drugs, he snorted cocaine and started on some people. That's not something you can defend, but an eight month ban? Does it enhance his performance? Does it give an advantage to Bath?

Amabokke

He is 35. Never was a great player and never will become one. Make an example and ban him permanent from the game. End of.

thomond2006

How can Mat Stevens get 2 years and Harrison only get 8 months?

OldJay

zAbbo wrote: »

Back to crim island for JH.

*shakes head* :rolleyes:

justsomebloke

thomond2006 wrote: »

How can Mat Stevens get 2 years and Harrison only get 8 months?

stevens failed a drug test in competition. Harrison I think just refused to take a club one

zAbbo

thomond2006 wrote: »

How can Mat Stevens get 2 years and Harrison only get 8 months?

Stevens tested positive during season, and JH admitted taking drugs and as the result of disciplinary hearing has been suspended. He didn't fail a drugs test, because he didn't take one.

justsomebloke

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Let's face it, whatever your opinions about drugs, he snorted cocaine and started on some people. That's not something you can defend, but an eight month ban? Does it enhance his performance? Does it give an advantage to Bath?

As I said before it isn't about giving an advantage, it's about money. Rugby wants sponsor's to keep ploughing money into the game, if drugs are seen to be tolerated sponsor's will take a step back from the sport as they don't want to be seen to be involved with drugs. So if a player takes drugs and gets caught I have no sympathy for the stupidness.

People aren't forced to play rugby so if living under the pressure of these circumstances is to much for them, well grand leave the sport and do something else

OldJay

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Let's face it, whatever your opinions about drugs, he snorted cocaine and started on some people. That's not something you can defend, but an eight month ban? Does it enhance his performance? Does it give an advantage to Bath?

Cocaine is an illegal drug. A prohibited substance and not just in sport. It doesn't matter whether it is used recreationally or as a performance enhancer or even a masking agent, it is illegal to use it, supply, transport it or be associated with its use.

anonymous_joe

Joe the Santa wrote: »

As I said before it isn't about giving an advantage, it's about money. Rugby wants sponsor's to keep ploughing money into the game, if drugs are seen to be tolerated sponsor's will take a step back from the sport as they don't want to be seen to be involved with drugs. So if a player takes drugs and gets caught I have no sympathy for the stupidness.

People aren't forced to play rugby so if living under the pressure of these circumstances is to much for them, well grand leave the sport and do something else

In this case it seems to be more about the owners wanting to get rid of a group of players they disliked. (Justifiably disliked I reckon, looking at what they did.)

Justind wrote: »

Cocaine is an illegal drug. A prohibited substance and not just in sport. It doesn't matter whether it is used recreationally or as a performance enhancer or even a masking agent, it is illegal to use it, supply, transport it or be associated with its use.

Then he shouldn't have been banned at all, the matter should have been left to the police to decide if a punishment was warranted.

leeroybrown

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Then he shouldn't have been banned at all, the matter should have been left to the police to decide if a punishment was warranted.

There are two separate issues here. The first is that he took an illegal drug. This in itself is an issue between him, his employers, and the police. The second issue is that this drug is also a prohibited substance. This makes it a matter between him, doping control and the rugby authorities. He knew that it was a banned substance when he took it so he'll get zero sympathy from me.

There's a classic example of this from cycling where Cocaine is not a prohibited substance outside of competition. One rider, Tom Boonen, has failed drug tests because of it twice but has still managed to compete because they couldn't ban him for it.

AdeT

I think the suggestion that cocaine is not a performance enhancing drug is inaccurate.

Cocaine speeds up your metabolism - this means players can go out on the lash every weekend after games without worrying about putting on weight. The same can be said for speed, ecstasy and phedrine. Ephedrine tends to fall more into the performance enhancing category though.

Even smoking a joint is a relaxant and can be beneficial for a player who struggles to deal with stress or can't unwind without one

I know these drugs are not directly used as performance enhancers but they do have a direct effect on players physically and/or mentally. This leads to improvements they would not have seen had they not indulged...

anonymous_joe

leeroybrown wrote: »

There are two separate issues here. The first is that he took an illegal drug. This in itself is an issue between him, his employers, and the police. The second issue is that this drug is also a prohibited substance. This makes it a matter between him, doping control and the rugby authorities. He knew that it was a banned substance when he took it so he'll get zero sympathy from me.

But to use your cycling example, cocaine shouldn't be a prohibited substance in terms of rugby.

Thus any punishment should be the perogative of the appropriate legal authorities and not of Bath Rugby or the RFU.

There's a classic example of this from cycling where Cocaine is not a prohibited substance outside of competition. One rider, Tom Boonen, has failed drug tests because of it twice but has still managed to compete because they couldn't ban him for it.

AdeT wrote: »

I think the suggestion that cocaine is not a performance enhancing drug is inaccurate.

Cocaine speeds up your metabolism - this means players can go out on the lash every weekend after games without worrying about putting on weight. The same can be said for speed, ecstasy and phedrine. Ephedrine tends to fall more into the performance enhancing category though.

Even smoking a joint is a relaxant and can be beneficial for a player who struggles to deal with stress or can't unwind without one

I know these drugs are not directly used as performance enhancers but they do have a direct effect on players physically and/or mentally. This leads to improvements they would not have seen had they not indulged...

And I'm sure if someone did a line of coke before a game they wouldn't die of heart failure.

OldJay

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Then he shouldn't have been banned at all, the matter should have been left to the police to decide if a punishment was warranted.

Wrong.
As well as being a police matter, it would also be up to the club (ie. his contract co-signed and employer) to review contract and discipline accordingly.

danthefan

Justind wrote: »

Wrong.
As well as being a police matter, it would also be up to the club (ie. his contract co-signed and employer) to review contract and discipline accordingly.

Admitting to taking drugs isn't a criminal offence in itself.

anonymous_joe

Justind wrote: »

Wrong.
As well as being a police matter, it would also be up to the club (ie. his contract co-signed and employer) to review contract and discipline accordingly.

Well I personally wouldn't give a fcuk what someone does in their personal life if it doesn't impact on their professional life.

OldJay

danthefan wrote: »

Admitting to taking drugs isn't a criminal offence in itself.

The likely reason as to why no action appears to have been taken by the police.
Behaviour of their players including post-match is the club's concern and they acted accordingly.
Thats about it really.

Sangre

anonymous_joe wrote: »

Well I personally wouldn't give a fcuk what someone does in their personal life if it doesn't impact on their professional life.

You'd think differently if you were an employer. Especially if your employees were in the public eye.

leeroybrown

anonymous_joe wrote: »

But to use your cycling example, cocaine shouldn't be a prohibited substance in terms of rugby.

I think that we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

anonymous_joe

Sangre wrote: »

You'd think differently if you were an employer. Especially if your employees were in the public eye.

Ah yeah, I know that. But then, if I was an employed and some of my employees had a drug problem I'd consider trying to help them rather than fcuk them out of the club.

leeroybrown wrote: »

I think that we'll have to agree to disagree on that one.

Hmmm. If someone tests positive for weed, let's say, would you never ever want them to play again?

Again, my biggest issue with someone taking cocaine is the danger to themselves and also the lack of professionalism that shows, but given how regularly players go out and get rat-arsed, how is this worse? (And yes, I know this is a crime, etc, I'm merely talking about the fact that neither is exactly a sign of professionalism, but one's a hallowed part of rugby culture, the other's the worst crime ever.)

thomond2006

Did Harrison play well at Bath?

pucan

Amabokke wrote: »

He is 35. Never was a great player and never will become one. Make an example and ban him permanent from the game. End of.

He was a pretty damn good player in his day. But very prone to bursts of idiocy