Zak Hardaker

[gateman]

i am with the majority on here, time to put this one to bed in the many years i have supported our great club players come and go but the club will always be here

[johnnya]

I was in favour of putting the issue aside until I read that a Scottish Rugby Union player (from New Zealand) is back playing for his country after a 3 month ban for alleged cocaine use. Re 'alleged' he seems to have admitted it. Can anyone out there explain how what seems to be two decidedly similar cases using cocaine in sport can have two decidedly different scenarios? Rational replies would be preferred!!

[jackknife]

Was it out of season?

[johnnya]

Was it out of season?

I 'think' it was (not immediately!) before a match where he played from the start of the game. I don't think he actually mentioned the 'C' word in his 'apology' for unprofessional conduct though, so apologies if my original comment about his admitting it may be not quite accurate.
All the same , it would be interesting hear opinions on eg the length of ban...and why has it been sorted when the original 'offence' happened just after the ZH incident (which certainly has not been sorted!)

[nottinghamtiger]

It really is simple. Hardaker tested positive IN-COMPETITION. He had a substance that is banned in-competition in his system during a game. This is an anti-doping offence.

Others athletes mentioned have tested positive OUT-OF-COMPETITION. They had a substance in their system but not during a game. This isn’t an anti-doping offence.

IF the substance is a metobilaite of cocaine, it is not a banned substance unless detected in-competition. If he had provided a positive test for this substance on any day other than a match day he wouldn’t get a WADA ban. He might face action from the club or the RFL, but not WADA or UKAD.

[cogito ergo sum]

It really is simple. Hardaker tested positive IN-COMPETITION. He had a substance that is banned in-competition in his system during a game. This is an anti-doping offence.

Others athletes mentioned have tested positive OUT-OF-COMPETITION. They had a substance in their system but not during a game. This isn’t an anti-doping offence.

IF the substance is a metobilaite of cocaine, it is not a banned substance unless detected in-competition. If he had provided a positive test for this substance on any day other than a match day he wouldn’t get a WADA ban. He might face action from the club or the RFL, but not WADA or UKAD.

If we say this often enough, in might just sink in.

[johnnya]

Thank you very much, nottinghamtiger, for taking the time to provide a detailed explanation. That is basically what I asked for
As for the comment about ' if we say it often enough...', I have not seen the reasons explained anywhere (or I would not have asked), so I can do without the smart a^^e addendum.

[da_jimbob_7]

Thank you very much, nottinghamtiger, for taking the time to provide a detailed explanation. That is basically what I asked for
As for the comment about ' if we say it often enough...', I have not seen the reasons explained anywhere (or I would not have asked), so I can do without the smart a^^e addendum.

It has been written numerous times, but there are and have been multiple threads on the subject, so potentially easily missed if you don’t read every single post.

[gateman]

the ZAK saga rumbles on the guy as left our club letting himself and the club down big style why people want to keep talking about him is beyond me

[Lofthouse Tiger]

Correct Gateman

[yorky]

the ZAK saga rumbles on the guy as left our club letting himself and the club down big style why people want to keep talking about him is beyond me

not only that we have 2 threads running at the same time, surely the mods could merge or lock one of them ](*,)

[Upyerjumper]

For me you can lock both of them and move on.

We can’t change what has happened and we should be looking forward.

[lurcher]

For me you can lock both of them and move on.

We can’t change what has happened and we should be looking forward.

give over talking sense or you'll be ridiculed on here.

[bane73]

For me you can lock both of them and move on.

We can’t change what has happened and we should be looking forward.

give over talking sense or you'll be ridiculed on here.

:clap: :clap: :clap: but what will the naysayers do then...oh wait, theirs Jessie, let’s start one on the rumour thread, wait too late lol.

[HuddsTigers]

Interesting that there was a note in the RL paper this morning stating that there's a legal precedence for us to sue for a breach of contract and ensure that a transfer fee plus compensation is payable from his new club.....

[nottinghamtiger]

Interesting that there was a note in the RL paper this morning stating that there's a legal precedence for us to sue for a breach of contract and ensure that a transfer fee plus compensation is payable from his new club.....

Yep. All comes down to who made the first breach of contract.
In this case, it seems clear it was Hardaker as taking a banned substance would clearly be a breach of his contract.
There are a few problems though:
1. Does he have any money?
2. Can we prove his breach of contract cost us money? To win an ET you need to prove actual financial loss. It could be argued that we have actually financially gained as we don’t need to pay him any more. IF he signs elsewhere
3. We can’t sue his future club. I doubt we have any claim that another club has induced him into breaching his contract.

He’s probably in breach of contract, but I can’t see us getting anything.
Jon Wells does have a good knowledge of this kind of thing though..,,,

[tigerfeat]

Interesting piece by danny lockwood i thought , things may not be quite so cut and dryed as thought

[Dazzyb]

People have their opinions and some say he’s defo signed for Wigan, as for me. I think he will be back at Cas when his ban is up.

[HuddsTigers]

Interesting that there was a note in the RL paper this morning stating that there's a legal precedence for us to sue for a breach of contract and ensure that a transfer fee plus compensation is payable from his new club.....

Yep. All comes down to who made the first breach of contract.
In this case, it seems clear it was Hardaker as taking a banned substance would clearly be a breach of his contract.
There are a few problems though:
1. Does he have any money?
2. Can we prove his breach of contract cost us money? To win an ET you need to prove actual financial loss. It could be argued that we have actually financially gained as we don’t need to pay him any more. IF he signs elsewhere
3. We can’t sue his future club. I doubt we have any claim that another club has induced him into breaching his contract.

He’s probably in breach of contract, but I can’t see us getting anything.
Jon Wells does have a good knowledge of this kind of thing though..,,,

The piece was saying his new club would be payable, presumably through any future contract he has. Eg if he gets paid £50k a year, we will look to take money from that income until the appropriate fee is paid.

[gateman]

I know ZAK is no longer our problem, but I can not understand the length of time its taking from when the offence was committed to his appearance in front of the people that deal with these maters you will say his sentence will start from when the offence was committed but I think it still takes too long