Thomas Minns Drug Test fail

[RP London]

6 minutes ago, Adeybull said:

As far as I can see, none of us know the full circumstances, and none of us know what the substance was.? The statements imply a "recreational", not performance-emhancing, drug and imply a single instance.  But they imply, not confirm.  What IS clear is that the guy admitted he did it, and admitted he knew it was wrong (not that he could think otherwise, of course).  Any arguments can therefore only be in mitigation. Once you start introducing subjective mitigation, especially based on "moment of personal weakness" grounds, you've effectively debased the whole penalty system IMO.

BUT...we also surely need to remember that these guys are just human beings, like the rest of us. And indeed, in many cases nothing like as "educated" (in various ways) as many who post on this forum. It is all to easy to expect a higher level of conduct than "ordinary people" because they are "professionals" in the public eye and role-models.  But they are still just ordinary blokes, with faults and flaws and weaknesses - and personal problems and issues - just like the rest of us. And, sadly more often than perhaps we appreciate, also sometimes with mental health issues like some of the rest of us. 

People will sin in their own ways, and in different areas.  But surely the old adage of "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is pertinent?  In any case, hanging him high on the internet is hardly likely to serve any useful purpose, and has potential to seriously aggravate any such issues that may be there?

Reading some of the posts on here, especially the callous OP which - as JD says - did rather set the tone for the thread - I do feel maybe not everyone sees it like that?  I wonder what the OP's view would be if (heaven forbid, and hopefully not) we ended up with another Terry Newton here?

Because, whenever I read stuff like this, I can't help but think of Terry Newton. No-one but the guy himself knows what personal demons he may or may not have been or be contending with. There may be none, and it might just be manufactured excuses deserving of zero sympathy or mitigation.  Or there might be some serious issues needing serious help.  Or somewhere in between. We just don't know.  That is for the due process to determine.

Which is why I am content to take the - to me, responsible - public statements made at face value, and leave it to those close to the issue and those charged with determining the outcome, to deal with it.  In the manner most appropriate to the factual circumstances.

totally agree and he MUST be given the help that is needed here, it is responsible for the RFL to help him out and to make sure he gets the best care or at least the best diagnosis so that he can understand what he needs to do and the help he needs to get. 

 

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, Adeybull said:

As far as I can see, none of us know the full circumstances, and none of us know what the substance was.? The statements imply a "recreational", not performance-emhancing, drug and imply a single instance.  But they imply, not confirm.  What IS clear is that the guy admitted he did it, and admitted he knew it was wrong (not that he could think otherwise, of course).  Any arguments can therefore only be in mitigation. Once you start introducing subjective mitigation, especially based on "moment of personal weakness" grounds, you've effectively debased the whole penalty system IMO.

BUT...we also surely need to remember that these guys are just human beings, like the rest of us. And indeed, in many cases nothing like as "educated" (in various ways) as many who post on this forum. It is all to easy to expect a higher level of conduct than "ordinary people" because they are "professionals" in the public eye and role-models.  But they are still just ordinary blokes, with faults and flaws and weaknesses - and personal problems and issues - just like the rest of us. And, sadly more often than perhaps we appreciate, also sometimes with mental health issues like some of the rest of us. 

People will sin in their own ways, and in different areas.  But surely the old adage of "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" is pertinent?  In any case, hanging him high on the internet is hardly likely to serve any useful purpose, and has potential to seriously aggravate any such issues that may be there?

Reading some of the posts on here, especially the callous OP which - as JD says - did rather set the tone for the thread - I do feel maybe not everyone sees it like that?  I wonder what the OP's view would be if (heaven forbid, and hopefully not) we ended up with another Terry Newton here?

Because, whenever I read stuff like this, I can't help but think of Terry Newton. No-one but the guy himself knows what personal demons he may or may not have been or be contending with. There may be none, and it might just be manufactured excuses deserving of zero sympathy or mitigation.  Or there might be some serious issues needing serious help.  Or somewhere in between. We just don't know.  That is for the due process to determine.

Which is why I am content to take the - to me, responsible - public statements made at face value, and leave it to those close to the issue and those charged with determining the outcome, to deal with it.  In the manner most appropriate to the factual circumstances.

Yep, agree with pretty much all of this. I too think of Terry Newton whenever there are calls for throwing people on the scrap heap. I think this is where the education work is really important, and also the support network when things go wrong. I commend the likes of Wigan and the support they gave to Hock for example.

But as long as there are rules, they should be applied, and as you say, the case will be looked at and punishment applied as relevant, but it would be very very easy to create a case for mitigation for anybody.

As long as education has taken place in advance, and the game has support networks following events, I have no problem with punishments being applied.

[Adeybull]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Yep, agree with pretty much all of this. I too think of Terry Newton whenever there are calls for throwing people on the scrap heap. I think this is where the education work is really important, and also the support network when things go wrong. I commend the likes of Wigan and the support they gave to Hock for example.

But as long as there are rules, they should be applied, and as you say, the case will be looked at and punishment applied as relevant, but it would be very very easy to create a case for mitigation for anybody.

As long as education has taken place in advance, and the game has support networks following events, I have no problem with punishments being applied.

Indeed. And hence why I made it clear in my first paragraph the slippery slope that is reducing penalties because of "mitigating factors". 

I very much agree that it is the support and support network after the event - if justified and necesary - that is crucial here, not penalty mitigation.

And I absolutely agree about the need for ongoing player education - and not just about drugs, but about so many other "real world" issues as well.  I have seen too many examples of full-time players who basically have never grown up, and act in many ways like too many students do, insulated from the challenges of the real world and - let's be frank - sometimes acting daft.  Except into their early thirties, whereas most of the latter have to grow up pretty quickly a good decade earlier? 

It is perhaps all too easy for (some?) clubs to abdicate any real responsibility for player welfare outside rugby, so that the guy enters the "real" world after his professional career ends, seriously unprepared for what awaits?  Although, against that, of course while you can lead a horse to water...

I guess my point is that, to apply a punishment unmitigated does necessitate the support mechanisms being in place that you indicate in your last paragraph.  I know the RFL took the Terry Newton catastrophe very very seriously indeed, and you would hope that clubs and the game do have those mechanisms in place. But I need to be convinced that they always are.

[RP London]

22 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

you are conflating separate things. No-one is suggesting that Minns was unable to discharge his duties because of recreational drugs, nor are they arguing that he was under the influence whilst at work. There are many 'high functioning' alcoholics and people are rarely fired for simply being alcohol dependent.

Turning up to work drunk is different, doing something bad whilst drunk is different, being unable to do your job because of drinking is different,

if a player goes home and drinks a bottle of vodka a night but turns up to training and plays well on a weekend nobody wants him sacked. The only thing here that Minns is reported to have done is had recreational drugs in his system. Something that isnt a crime.

I dont believe I am conflating seperate things. People have claimed that there wouldnt be this fuss over alcohol. I have pointed out that there is when players keep going out at night, even if they are performing. I am also simply pointing out that there are people who do get punished for alcohol my point being that if it is something you are told you cannot do and you are caught doing it you get sacked. in our firm you cannot have a drop of alcohol, it doesnt impeded you to have 1 beer but you arent allowed one and you are sacked for it, they arent drunk but they have broken the rules and are sacked. I am not saying people turning up drunk.

I dont disagree with you re what he has done.. it isnt a crime.. it is against the rules of the competition he is playing in though and it carries a punishment. 

 

[Wellsy4HullFC]

The only way I think there should be mitigating circumstances is if a player shows clear remorse by admitting what he's done. And by that, I don't mean admitting what he's done AFTER being tested, or whilst he's about to be tested. I mean, he's done something stupid after being vulnerable, realised he shouldn't have done it and admitting doing it whilst asking for help there and then.

If we give players an avenue to admit mistakes, rather than waiting to be caught, maybe we'll be able to help them quicker. It's either full ban or hopefully not get caught.

What we can't do though is give players excuses after being caught because then everyone will look for them and no one will learn.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

4 minutes ago, RP London said:

I dont disagree with you re what he has done.. it isnt a crime.. it is against the rules of the competition he is playing in though and it carries a punishment. 

And that's the point.

Just because you don't agree with the rules, doesn't mean it's ok to break them. If you want them changing, you can't complain about it after breaking it having known it already as it just sounds like you're trying to avoid getting into trouble.

[Adeybull]

5 minutes ago, Wellsy4HullFC said:

...What we can't do though is give players excuses after being caught because then everyone will look for them and no one will learn.

And everyone will look to previous mitigations as precedents, although the circumstances are very unlikely to be identical and so neither should they expect any mitigation to be.

 

[Tex Evans Thigh]

This thread must be almost identical to every thread that gets trotted out when someone inevitably gets caught taking recreational drugs. Could it just be pinned so everyone knows where each other stands on the rec drug  issue?

For what it's worth I think Minns is clutching at straws with this excuse. It's obviously not the first time he's done this either, just the first time he's been caught.

Whether it is driven by depression from his mum's death, only he knows. It does sound like he's going to accept his punishment and hopefully he will get help and support from HKR and RL in general.

As with most of these I think a 6 month ban and some community outreach is ample punishment as it shouldn't be in the same category as PEDs who are actual cheats. 

Hopefully sense prevails.

[Industria ditat]

This is one that doesn't have an easy answer. Should he be heavily punished or given full support in a difficult part of his life?.

Well.........it has to be both.

He is a grown adult who made a conscious decision to do what he did. We all have tough times in our lives but we still bear full responsibility for our actions at those times, so he must do the same. His statements since make it clear he had full knowledge of what he was doing and the possible consequences. He has to take the punishment that comes with making those decisions to ensure others don't abuse the system in future, by trying to use various excuses to get lighter bans than they deserve.

On the other hand, he must be supported through the whole process - the last thing we need (God forbid) is another Terry Newton situation. The sport also needs to show it's commitment to mental health is more than just words and headlines.

[Angelic Cynic]

If the death of his mother had such an impact on him,then people at the club,including his teammates,would,presumably have been aware.

In that case,the club does have a player welfare officer,( I have checked the KR website and coincidentally,this person is female so,perhaps better than a male given the circumstances,though I accept both genders will,presumably,have the same training .)

The club will also,presumably,have the services of a chaplain.

On the KR Forum there is a posting suggesting that if the substance was taken on the day stated,then it should have 'cleared' by the Thursday night game.

As we don't know what substance has been taken I couldn't possibly comment.

There could be a lot of lessons to be learned from this...including further assistance offered to Thomas Minns.

[RP London]

17 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Do you have an example of player who was fired purely because of his drinking?

There is a massive difference to drinking, and drinking at work.

I understand it is against the rules of the competition, im questioning whether those rules are right, fair and sensible

Scotchy my initial response was to your post posing the point that people wouldnt be getting so annoyed if this was alcohol, I disagree as i see plenty of posts on this forum where people are getting wound up because of that and asking for players to be fired. (lets see how that Ryan Bailey thread twists and turns). I am sure you will have other issues with this example but players like Todd Carney are fired for things that have nothing to do with their onfield performance (and related to drinking) but it is about tarnishing the club and the sport etc There are blanket booze bans on some clubs in australia and of broken the player will get sacked.. 

then there are players like Lama Tasi https://www.dailystar.co.uk/sport/rugby-league/601131/Lama-Tasi-St-Helens-axed-me-for-drinking-problem

yes some of this will be turning up to training still affected by alcohol but equally that could be the case with drugs (we dont know the specifics)

The alcohol point was not brought up by me it was brought up (possibly by you, possibly someone else) to say people are hypocrits and they dont get on like that about alcohol where as actually on this forum as well as outside I disagree. its not just in sport that that aplies either the days of people finding boozing and acting like kn*bheads as acceptable are very quickly disappearing so I dont think there is that much hypocricy on this point at all. 

you might want to question the rules but that is irrelevant to whether he should get a ban or not as those are the rules as of today and should be enforced. 

I've said my bit on this and will bow out.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

1 hour ago, Tex Evans Thigh said:

This thread must be almost identical to every thread that gets trotted out when someone inevitably gets caught taking recreational drugs. Could it just be pinned so everyone knows where each other stands on the rec drug  issue?

For what it's worth I think Minns is clutching at straws with this excuse. It's obviously not the first time he's done this either, just the first time he's been caught.

Whether it is driven by depression from his mum's death, only he knows. It does sound like he's going to accept his punishment and hopefully he will get help and support from HKR and RL in general.

As with most of these I think a 6 month ban and some community outreach is ample punishment as it shouldn't be in the same category as PEDs who are actual cheats. 

Hopefully sense prevails.

As posted several times before....certain 'recreational' drugs are classed as performance enhancing by WADA (cocaine being the most obvious example and I'd take their over any being posted on here every time) if taken, or detected 'in competition' (the period covering 12hrs before the start to the end of an event). The standard tariff for a 1st time anti-doping violation is (and has been since the beginning of 2015) a 4 year ban. With cocaine the evidence of previous, recent punishments appears to be that if the athlete has taken it in a period that is 'out of competition' but is tested positively 'in competition' (and that is confirmed by the testing laboratory) the ban is mitigated to 2 years - see eg Rangi Chase.

[Oh Sully Sully]

2 hours ago, Tex Evans Thigh said:

For what it's worth I think Minns is clutching at straws with this excuse. It's obviously not the first time he's done this either, just the first time he's been caught.

It's obvious this wasn't the first time how? Forgive my ignorance if Minns has been known to have taken something previously.

[Tex Evans Thigh]

44 minutes ago, Les Tonks Sidestep said:

As posted several times before....certain 'recreational' drugs are classed as performance enhancing by WADA (cocaine being the most obvious example and I'd take their over any being posted on here every time) if taken, or detected 'in competition' (the period covering 12hrs before the start to the end of an event). The standard tariff for a 1st time anti-doping violation is (and has been since the beginning of 2015) a 4 year ban. With cocaine the evidence of previous, recent punishments appears to be that if the athlete has taken it in a period that is 'out of competition' but is tested positively 'in competition' (and that is confirmed by the testing laboratory) the ban is mitigated to 2 years - see eg Rangi Chase.

I get the WADA stuff but I'm saying it's too harsh. Its clearly not applied every time given recent mitigating circumstances cases and how did Barba avoid a long ban?

[Tex Evans Thigh]

32 minutes ago, Oh Sully Sully said:

It's obvious this wasn't the first time how? Forgive my ignorance if Minns has been known to have taken something previously.

I get where you're coming from and it shouldn't be taken into account unless it could be proven. I am just questioning the validity of the excuse because in the real world you dont just wake up one day and have a cocaine dealer's number and decide to start taking it. Granted he may have been out with friends etc and it just so happened to be Mothers Day and it was his first time but the chances are low.

[Tex Evans Thigh]

5 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Its doesnt really make sense to me that you think a) you don't wake up one day and have a dealers number and to start taking it and B ) the chances are low that he was out with friends and took it for the first time.

So you think the odds are this is an isolated incident and he's never taken XXX drug before?

[Oh Sully Sully]

39 minutes ago, Tex Evans Thigh said:

I get where you're coming from and it shouldn't be taken into account unless it could be proven. I am just questioning the validity of the excuse because in the real world you dont just wake up one day and have a cocaine dealer's number and decide to start taking it. Granted he may have been out with friends etc and it just so happened to be Mothers Day and it was his first time but the chances are low.

I wasn't having a dig, it was a serious question since you stated it was 'obviously' not his first offence.

Anyone who has read the Ryan Tandy book will know that bad influences are close at hand in a RL player's world, so it won't have been hard for him to find someone willing to supply if he was desperate enough to forget his troubles for a few hours. That's the 'real world' too just not yours or mine.

None of us know the depth of this and I think throwing around assumptions is pretty careless and probably reflects more on us than it does on Thomas Minns or anyone else.

[Oxford]

11 hours ago, Just Browny said:

calling him all sorts on social media.

Exactly all we need if that starts is a few queer bashers, signs saying no blacks and Irish, Muffin the Mule and Does the Team Think? on the radio and we could be there. No wonder so many hanker after yesterday.

Mind you given the price of beer at the time there'll be far too many saying "It's worth it!"

[Wellsy4HullFC]

3 hours ago, scotchy1 said:

Is it rugby leagues job to be teaching that? Remembering we are the sport of the Stones Bitter Championship, the Ladbrokes Challenge cup, the Silk Cut Challenge cup, the Betfred super league, the tetleys challenge cup, the kingstone press championship.

I'm saying in sport in general, not just rugby league. And not just for whatever it is he's taken - any drug. If you f*** up and admit it straight away and seek help (rather than hope not to get caught), that should be hugely taken into consideration.

You can keep banging on about the morality of alcohol being legal, but let's stick to what the current rules actually are and how we can help people avoid breaking them.

[Wellsy4HullFC]

9 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

Why? If it is rugby leagues job to be moralising about this then we should definitely also be trying to help the millions and millions who struggle with alcohol dependency and gambling addiction.

What the rules are now is the irrelevant thing. At one time it was perfectly normal that cynical vampire capitalists used RL to sell cigarettes to RL fans that they knew would kill them, something they spent billions to cover up and cost untold lives. Those were the rules then. We followed them. We were still allowed ourselves to be involved in an evil enterprise. Just because it was legal doesnt make it any less wrong. Even now we have an RL clubs stadium and shirt baring the name of a vaping company.

Either we are doing a social good, and as such association with gambling and alcohol (among other things) is wrong and hypocritical, or we arent and as such have no need be teaching lessons on recreational drugs.

I don't believe there is an issue with drinking in moderation. Maybe those in charge of the game don't either. They may feel the same about recreational drugs too. However, they can't exactly go the same route as legal recreation. They can't go against WADA without consequences (to my knowledge, could be wrong). So surely educating them on how not to get banned is a pretty sensible thing to do?

I don't believe there's a hypocrisy in telling someone to not break the laws of sport and land. The hypocrisy may be with the law makers, but not with those that are required to follow them (and are tasked with helping uphold those laws).

[Tex Evans Thigh]

59 minutes ago, scotchy1 said:

I have literally no idea. How would I?

But if you accept that people don't just one day decide to call up a dealer and buy drugs, what other circumstances are likelier than being out with friends and being offered some?

Everybody who does drugs has to have a first time, the only time we know about is this one. I dont think its particularly unlikely that the circumstance you describe happened.

I think it's highly unlikely it's his first time purely from a statistical perspective. I don't think it should affect his case unless it can be proven but I am far from convinced this is a one off. It's incredibly bad luck if he happened to take it with his friends for the first time and then gets tested the next game. Also, if it's what we suspect it is, then it would likely have been out of his system by then anyway.

Recreational drug use is high in his peer group, it's easy to see how he could get into this especially if he was badly affected by his mum's death in general. I'm not sure the excuse he has provided is a good enough mitigation to avoid the standard punishment (which is too severe in my opinion).

[Tex Evans Thigh]

34 minutes ago, Oh Sully Sully said:

I wasn't having a dig, it was a serious question since you stated it was 'obviously' not his first offence.

Anyone who has read the Ryan Tandy book will know that bad influences are close at hand in a RL player's world, so it won't have been hard for him to find someone willing to supply if he was desperate enough to forget his troubles for a few hours. That's the 'real world' too just not yours or mine.

None of us know the depth of this and I think throwing around assumptions is pretty careless and probably reflects more on us than it does on Thomas Minns or anyone else.

You answered your own question. These types of things are rife and it's statistically improbable that the one time he decides to do it he gets tested a few days later. I'm not throwing round assumptions, I'm using logic to assess the validity of his mitigation claim, something which he is relying on the arbitrators to do.

I hope he comes through this and deals with the issues that are causing him problems. I hope he returns to the game asap.

[Les Tonks Sidestep]

3 hours ago, Saint 1 said:

Barba didn't fail a WADA test, he failed an NRL-administered one and hence they determined the punishment. I also believe that over here, internal tests aren't even considered by Super League beyond them being at the discretion of the clubs to apply and also punish. If Barba had done what he did in the NRL in Super League instead, he would serve 0 ban unless the club deemed it necessary. 

Was just about to post similar. His failed test sample was taken 'out of competition' and therefore it's irrelevant whether  it was an internal NRL or an official anti-drug test as WADA don't give a monkeys about cocaine in that circumstance and hence why he could sign for Toulon.

[Oh Sully Sully]

2 hours ago, Tex Evans Thigh said:

You answered your own question. These types of things are rife and it's statistically improbable that the one time he decides to do it he gets tested a few days later. I'm not throwing round assumptions, I'm using logic to assess the validity of his mitigation claim, something which he is relying on the arbitrators to do.

I hope he comes through this and deals with the issues that are causing him problems. I hope he returns to the game asap.

Statistical improbability or not, his track record is not 'obvious'. And given he has failed only this one test, surely the benefit of the doubt should fall in his favour when it comes to judging mitigation.

Like you, I just hope he comes out of the other side of this as close to 100% as possible regardless of how long he's out of the game.

[Brigg Rover]

On ‎19‎/‎04‎/‎2018 at 12:30 PM, scotchy1 said:

you are conflating separate things. No-one is suggesting that Minns was unable to discharge his duties because of recreational drugs, nor are they arguing that he was under the influence whilst at work. There are many 'high functioning' alcoholics and people are rarely fired for simply being alcohol dependent.

Turning up to work drunk is different, doing something bad whilst drunk is different, being unable to do your job because of drinking is different,

if a player goes home and drinks a bottle of vodka a night but turns up to training and plays well on a weekend nobody wants him sacked. The only thing here that Minns is reported to have done is had recreational drugs in his system. Something that isnt a crime.

Yes it is!