Basically, this topic reflects what i said in the 'Crisis at the REC' topic. Burger is found guilty for gouging an opponent. He later recieves an 8 week ban on the 29th June view the incident here Tom Williams of Harlequins is banned for 52 weeks for 'fabricating an injury' on the 20th July view the incident here Justin Harrison reveals to an RFU panel that he took cocaine at an end of season party, and (techically) advocated drugs to academy players on a team bus. He recieves an 24 week ban. Matt Stevens fails a drugs test and admits that he has an addiction to cocaine. He is banned from rugby for 104 weeks I am left absolutely dumbfounded at the lack of sense of the disciplinary panels. I really don't understand how, according to those who govern the game, eye gouging, potentially causing someone blindness, is less of an issue than someone faking an injury. I understand that had Harlequins gone on to win the game and the H-Cup there would be complete outrage, but seriously, it is crazy that someone who undertakes in a bit of gamesmanship recieves a stricter sentance than someone who could end another player's career. To continue, according to the RFU it is more acceptable for a player who is in the public eye to take an illegal drug than to leave the field with a fake injury. It makes absolutely no sense to me. I understand that the RFU are trying to advocate fair-play, but if players who attack other players or take drugs are getting off the hook (in comparison) it makes absolutely no sense. Furthermore, Matt Stevens is banned for 2 years for drug abuse, while Harrison is banned for only 8 months. Surely there should be some kind of consistency on the matter? If the issue is that he took it in the off-season rather than during competition, then that is completely ridiculous. They're basically saying that we don't mind if you take cocaine, but not if you're playing a match on the weekend. As you can see, im thoroughly ****** off.