pled guilty today and received a ?300 fine for possession of cocaine.  not too sure of all the details yet but the judge accepted that it was a one off and an error of judgement.  i'm sure this has been a big lesson for him - one that will never be repeated.

i for one hope the club stand by him....

It's supposed to be a free country isn't it? Ritchie hasn't harmed anybody here.

Its a free country when you stay within the laws of the land, when you fracture them you might be lucky and get away with it, or you might not. If caught, you pay the penalty. Having said that, I agree there are far worse crimes than using "recreational drugs" but at the end of the day its still a class "A" drug.

His personal life is his own. The only way it should affect his contract is if the gaffer feels it's affecting his performance on the park.

Yes and No. As I said in my first post on this thread, if it were you or I who had been caught there would be no media interest and we might claim a paragraph in the Courier come sentencing time.

Our employment status would be solely down to how our bosses viewed the incident as it is unlikely that it would have been in the paper as "<accused>, who works for <company>" but he is a professional footballer and his actions, like it or not, whether in his business or personal life will reflect on the club via the media. The club have issued a statement and gone as far as to reassure sponsors and corporate partners about their stance - that suggests that one or two might not be happy about being associated with the club if a firm stance isnt taken. It may not be fair to treat him differently to the treatment we might get, but then again, how many of us get some of the perks of life that a footballer gets .....

I don't buy into any of the 'role model' arguments. When I was a kid I wouldn't have been swayed to take A class drugs just because I read in the Courier that a Caley player did.  :017:. And there are other ICT players who aren't exactly role models - and whose allged mideeds weren't so victimless.

I would agree here. The role model thing isnt a big issue for me, but then again, I dont have kids and perhaps my viewpoint would be different if i did.

Coke is quite a mainstream drug in Inverness now. I know people from all walks of life who use it. You see people taking it or asking for it in pubs and clubs every weekend. While we aren't exactly Leith, Inverness does have a problem with increasing drug use and abuse.

Doesnt make it right. Its still an illegal class "A" drug and there are consequences if you are caught with it. The fact that others use it is a feeble non-excuse.

I don't think it'd be fair to scapegoat Ritchie Hart. He wasn't dealing the stuff, he was using it. How would any of you feel about losing your job just because you were caught taking a recreational substance at Rock Ness? There were ALOT of people doing the same thing. I would also be suprised if he's the only ICT player to have ever dabbled.

Not scapegoating. he had it and from the reports it seems he was going to use it and he got caught. His employment status, as i mentioned above is down to his bosses and although he may get more harsh treatment because of his occupation and the fact that his actions are in the public eye, the simple fact is that the end result - whatever it may be - is a consequence of his actions, nobody elses.

I say he deserves a chance to redeem himself. I've always considered him to be one of our better players. A bit of a poser, and perhaps not the most well liked off the park - but still someone who can do a job for us, and perhaps someone who can use this experience to do some good by using his public platform to proclaim the error of his former ways, and set an example by going on to achieve success now that he's 'clean'.

As I said above, my opinion keeps switching from support to sack and back again - I like him as a player, I think he can still do a job for us, but the question has to be whether his position is tenable or not. Can the club save face while supporting him given the firm stance comment ? or do they have to make an example of him? I really dont know the answer and I dont want to kick the guy when he is down but he has put many people in a very hard place. There are plenty of examples of top level players being given second chances after drink, drugs or other offences so maybe he could be fined whatever the maximum the club can apply is or maybe he has to go. I think on this occasion we really have to let the club decide the way forward and back their decision, whatever it may be.

I might be being completely niave, but I don't believe it was his.

Why would he risk everything - especially when he knew he had tests probably coming up,

and was already struggling to break back into the first team.

Just because it was found in his car does not mean it was his!!!!!!!

I might be being completely niave, but I don't believe it was his. Why would he risk everything - especially when he knew he had tests probably coming up, and was already struggling to break back into the first team. Just because it was found in his car does not mean it was his!!!!!!!

Not naive Mrs PB, but what made me doubt what I had heard previously was this portion of the article on the BBC Website

"Police officers thought Hart was acting suspiciously in his BMW car and found cocaine placed on a CD at the Rock Ness Festival in June. He admitted a charge of possessing cocaine and was fined £300.

Inverness Sheriff Court heard the midfielder had bought two half-grams of the drug for £80 and was in the process of using one of the wraps when caught. Police found the other wrap of the drug after a search of his car."

- I went to school with Ritchie, he was in the year below me, he certainly wasn't a "druggie"

and I believe his only mistake was trusting people, who I believe are the real culprits that he has taken the fall for.

I too went to school with many people who werent "druggies". Cant say the same now. Many are walking adverts for the dangers of drugs. Point being, people change!

And I dont for a minute accept the excuse you are trying to engineer for him by saying "his only mistake was trusting people, who I believe are the real culprits that he has taken the fall for"

Ever heard the saying "Fly with the crows... you get shot with the crows"

I am sorry to say but Mr Hart has to go, I have a son who idolises every player who pulls on the ICT shirt and if ICT let Richie back into the team then I am afraid they will no longer be seen as a family club.

Don't get me wrong as a recreational substance user I believe that people should be free to decide how to treat their own bodies but as a father I think that if someone wants to do drugs regardless of whichever kind it should be kept out of sight of children and my kids read the paper so Richie failed to do this.

FFS why could he not have gotten wired before going out, he is in the public eye and as such he should have known that lining up in a car park is just a little too risky.

And as a note for those of you advocating random drug tests for the players employer drug screening only catches out people who are stupid enough not to know how to beat the tests, granted the tests used by FIFA and the olympic organisations can find anything but I don't think ICT would pay the costs of that type of testing on a regular basis as it is very expensive, besides Class A drugs are normal out of your system within hours of use.

People do realise that if he got injured, and medical staff found illegal drugs in his system it automatically invalidates his, and the clubs, insurance?

I would have thought that with Brews clean cut health image that maybe Mr Hart will now be surplus to requirements.  No one else to blame for this.  It's a tough old life out there.  I always liked Harts style and aggression driving through the middle of the park and ferocious shot at the end, rarely on target but it always raised your hopes. 

Shame Richie, but I am sure you would have had a fair idea what the consequences would be.  Maybe some other club would be interested but my bet is ICT will say cheerio, and you could have no complaints if that is the answer.

:009:

Says it all, tm4tj.

One of my favourite players over the years. It's the Club's call now.

You may be closer to the head of the nail with the hit than you think Mrs PB...

Get rid of [**removed**]

I really do not care what he does in his personal life but he is(was) a professional sportsman who was regarded as a football hero and worshipped by many schoolchildren.

ICT claim to be a community based football team. How can they retain the services of such a person and show themselves to be sports leaders in communities where drugs are a serious problem.

Perhaps a personal and public apology for the next six home games and then a year relegated to that of being a ball boy would serve as a salutary lesson and show the community that ICT will not tolerate drug abuse by any team or management members!

Nil by mouth has to be the message!

neksor

[modbreak=Scotty]offensive reference removed. Please read terms and conditions of site use.[/modbreak]

"a professional sportsman who was regarded as a football hero and worshipped by many schoolchildren."

he wasn't a hero and certainly aint worshipped by many. if you went up and asked  a school child in p5 - 1st i bet that not a lot would even have heard of him.

he should be chucked out of the club anyway cause he's a disgrace.although it could not be his and it isn't that much drugs and he could well have been drunk at the time Mrs PB!

[***removed***].  If any schoolchildren take drugs because Richie Hart did then it's their own stupid fault not his.  And I doubt many schoolkids worship Richie Hart  :015:

For the person above who says the drugs would have stayed in his system for a long time, they wouldn't have, coke clears within a couple of days.  Marijuana stays in your blood for months. 

I don't think we should get rid of Richie, all he's done is get caught doing what I would wager a sizable proportion of professional footballers do. 

[modbreak=Scotty]namecalling removed. Please read terms and conditions of site use.[/modbreak]

If any schoolchildren take drugs because Richie Hart did then it's their own stupid fault not his.  And I doubt many schoolkids worship Richie Hart  :015:

For the person above who says the drugs would have stayed in his system for a long time, they wouldn't have, coke clears within a couple of days.  Marijuana stays in your blood for months. 

I don't think we should get rid of Richie, all he's done is get caught doing what I would wager a sizable proportion of professional footballers do. 

Mariuana stays in your blood for a few days, it stays in your urine for up to 18 weeks.

Also, no one has said that it stayed in your system for ages.

[modbreak=Scotty]nothing wrong with this post but had to remove part of the quoted comment[/modbreak]

Sorry, I don't buy this 'Private Life / Working Life' argument. In my job I can't even have a drink in as much as I have to allow at least eight hours between my last pint and going on duty. I am subject to random drink and drugs tests (the drink limit is more severe than that for drink driving) and if I fail them I get the sack, no arguments, no excuses. I dare say its like that in many jobs out there and will be clearly shown somewhere within the contract of employment.

If Oldham can take that [***removed***] Lee Hughes and play him like they do after being in jail for mowing down and killing someone and running away from the scene of the crime and to top it off being released early, then surely ICT can find it in them to forgive a man who made a mistake and has only been fined ?300.

feck sake we all do things we wish we hadn't in our private life's, I'm not saying Richie was right pissing about with drugs but the fact is, Richie has not killed anyone and if Oldham can give someone a 2nd chance (personally i dont think Hughes deserves one back in football) for a crime much much worse, maybe we should have it in us to forgive Richie and let him get on with his career.

If ICT sack him the club should be fecking well ashamed of themselves for not supporting him and getting him back to what he's good at, and that's playing football. :33:

[modbreak=Scotty]namecalling removed.[/modbreak]

If ICT sack him the club should be fecking well ashamed of themselves for not supporting him and getting him back to what he's good at, and that's playing football. :33:

:clapping03: :clapping03: :clapping03:

What Richie does in his private life is of no concern to me. What he does on the pitch is what matters.

And as for anyone who considers Hart a role model? As I've said before, I've yet to hear any of the local under 12s team I coach ever say they want to grow up and be a footballer like that Richie Hart!!

- Admission of guilt could be to sped things up and save the club anymore embarrassment?

So he's a liar too.

If ICT sack him the club should be fecking well ashamed of themselves for not supporting him and getting him back to what he's good at, and that's playing football. :33:

I think they would've done the right thing getting rid [*** offensive remark removed***]

Just because it was found in his car does not mean it was his!!!!!!!

He's pleaded guilty after at first pleading not guilty and I don't think that a manager leaving is worse than taking drugs.

Finally I think that ICT should be no place for this [***remark removed***] and others like him and I'm sure CB will see sense and give him his marching orders right away.

[modbreak=Scotty]several offensive references removed. Please read terms and conditions of site use.[/modbreak]

OK - since none of the board moderators are about to step in at the moment, I am going to do so.

Using the words "druggie", "junkie" and other derogatory terms to describe RH are bang out of order and go against our abuse/defamation rules. He has been convicted of possession of cocaine and that is it. There is nothing to suggest that he has an ongoing and regular "habit" that would allow the use of either of those terms (or others of a similar nature) as an adjective.

By all means discuss this situation, express your opinions, and allow others to express theirs (preferably without calling them "a fud"), but we will summarily delete posts that we find to be abusive.

I think calling someone a lunatic for taking drugs is about right.  What if he had taken the drugs and then drove off in his car killing some kids?

I think calling someone a lunatic for taking drugs is about right.  What if he had taken the drugs and then drove off in his car killing some kids?

Are you qualified in IHE's profession and able to make that diagnosis ? If so, then maybe I can reinstate the comment. but to call someone a junkie, a liar, and a lunatic in the space of three sentences is over the top. If you have a problem with the moderation of this thread please contact one of the moderators of this board (as listed above) or myself using one of the methods laid down in the terms of site use.

and to answer your question ... he didnt drive off, so "what if" scenarios are redundant !

I think calling someone a lunatic for taking drugs is about right.  What if he had taken the drugs and then drove off in his car killing some kids?

He didn't though did he?

Lets set the whole nature of the crime to the side for just one moment.

What we have is a player who was charged with a crime back in June (?).  He gave certain assurances to his employer that resulted in them continuing to employ him and he's drawn about ?9000 to ?10,000 in wages since then.  He then stands up in court and pleads guilty to the crime.

If I was the employer, that fact alone would piss me off no end.  Do you think for one second the club would have failed to suspend him at the time if he had told them he'd been caught red handed and was going to plead guilty?  I very much doubt it.

Those actions alone are grounds for dismissal IMO, regardless of the crime.

I doesn't take some Einstein-like being to know that drug taking is a stupid thing to do and he said at first that he was not guilty and now he has changed that so the fact that he has now given the real plead means that he was a liar at first but credit to him for finally telling the truth.

I doesn't take some Einstein-like being to know that drug taking is a stupid thing to do.

this I would agree with

(Puts on 'old fuddy-duddy' hat ) I agree with CaleyD - both first and second posts. As a professional sportsman you accept this from the word go.

No point in any sentiment about Richie being a nice guy etc. Also what Smee says about the crows is spot on.

It's bye bye Richie as far as I'm concerned.

Is it the case that the younger posters have a more relaxed attitude to this than old farts like me? Probably.

Not been on Pie & Bovril but I'll wager there's less sympathy there for Richie and that's amongst people who can take a more objective view. Apart from the St Midden fans obviously.

so far in this thread a lot of views have been expressed on how Richie acted since the original incident occured from what i can gather he hasnt made an official statment or been quoted in any way as to whether he was guilty, not guilty or in fact anything relating to the charge in question. from the article on the BBC it is evident that he he has been charged with possession of cocaine so other than that information how are we to know what is speculation, rumour and/or assumption? is the BBC gospel? do they have all the facts correct? have they interviewed RH? i for one dont know

to say RH has lied and/or decieved anyone including the club is unfounded as we do not know what RH has said to the police or the club.

he has been caught by the police with a drug, he has subsequently been charged it is now in the hands of the club to decide whether he has breached the terms of his contract and therefore what his future will be.