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....

I?ve been re-reading some of the coverage around this incident and the thing that strikes me is that he?s quoted as having paid ?80 for two half gramme wraps of coke.  Now I?m no expert (honestly :angel05: ) but that is way over the odds and would suggest that Richie is hardly a hardened user who might have been aware he was being ripped off.

What a mug eh paying that much, he should have shopped around a bit first! Surely all the drug dealers at these sort of events carry plenty of advertising, maybe they wear special t-shirts. I suppose its called supply and demand if you pardon the pun

This thread is hilarious

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?

Someone can drink a few pints, get in their car and mow down some kids. On your ""logic"" that makes everyone who drinks a pint of beer a lunatic.  Are you a lunatic?  :33: :sillywave:

They would be a complete idiot if they were drink driving but not if they had a drink and then did nothing.

What he's done seems profoundly stupid and can't be undone. However, how he reacts to it and how he gets on with his life now is even more important. If he genuinely regrets what's happened and apologises to the club, then I very much hope there's a way back.

As this is a first offense, he should perhaps be allowed to show that there won't be a second.

Whatever happens, good luck Richie.

How can people berate others for making assumptions in one sentence and then go on to assume that he is in any way remorseful in the next - pot and kettle???

I have made no assumtions CD. I said "I am sure"......not I assume.

You don't really get it do you RIG, was it proven in a court of law?

Yes it was. The players also admitted it themselves.

The physio that caught them told the club right away and Stewart Duff spoke to the players the next day where they admitted taking cocaine. The players were summoned to a formal hearing, before the whole story broke into the public domain, where they then denied taking drugs. This infuriated Saint Johnstone. They were then sacked for gross misconduct and breach of contract. This is when the story made it into the press.

Thomas and O'Boyle then contested their sackings and went from court to court (SFA, SPL and an employment tribunal) as they continuted to fight their sacking. One court actually found them guilty of taking drugs and O'Boyle dropped his case after this. Thomas however pressed on and was determined to claim in the region of ?90,000.  In the end he was awarded ?3,000 because of certain legal loopholes in the system.

Both players have since been in the papers admitting they took drugs. Neither have shown any remorse and lied to Saint Johnstone to try and get themselves off the hook.

And I'm sure he's done nothing to show any remorse whatsoever....without going in to the realms of how each of us can be so sure and who've we've perhaps been speaking to then I guess we just settle on stalemate!!!

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?

Someone can drink a few pints, get in their car and mow down some kids. On your ""logic"" that makes everyone who drinks a pint of beer a lunatic.  Are you a lunatic?  :33: :sillywave:

Its a well known fact that taking cocaine drives you insane immediately and makes you jump into the nearest car or plant machinery where you are compelled to go on a rampage along the High Street.

"What are you lookin' at? You're all a bunch of f***** ***holes. You know why? You don't have the guts to be what you wanna be. You need people like me. You need people like me so you can point your fuckin' fingers, and say "that's the bad guy." So, what'll that make you? Good? You're not good. You just know how to hide, how to lie. Me, I don't have that problem. Me, I always tell the truth... even when I lie. So say goodnight to the bad guy. Come on. The last time you gonna see a bad guy like this again, let me tell you."

Regards,

Tony Montana

With respect RIG, neither of the St Johnstone players ever admitted any offence nor was it proved against them.

For one thing the white powder allegedly in their possession was never recovered or analysed so there was no evidence that they were in possession of anything other than a white powder.

With respect RIG, neither of the St Johnstone players ever admitted any offence nor was it proved against them.

The players admitted it in the press and one court found them guilty of taking drugs.

No court ever found them guilty of taking drugs. No player admitted doing so.

Anyway, we're at risk of straying off the topic of Richie Hart who's future with the club hangs in the balance.

So to summarise this thread .........

[li]He is not the first player to have been convicted of possessing drugs[/li]
[li]Most of us agree it was a stupid thing to do[/li]
[li]Most of us agree he probably isnt a habitual drug user[/li]
[li]Some feel he should be dismissed[/li]
[li]Some feel he should be given another chance[/li]
[li]Some (like me) change their mind every 5 minutes as our heart/head battle it out[/li]
[li]Some think he has shown remorse[/li]
[li]Some think he has not[/li]
[li]Most noticed the tough stance in the club's press release[/li]
[li]Many noticed the club put corporate sponsors ahead of fans in the press release[/li]
[li]Many will be unhappy with the decision no matter what it is.[/li]

Your right it's, not a criminal offence to consume an illegal substance. It is an offence to be in possession whether you intend to use the drug or not.

That's that position of the criminal courts. The various sporting authorities adopt a different position where they tend to penalise the consumption of either recreational or performance enhancing substances.

Could never understand the "consumption" thing.  Surely if you test positive then you are in possession, otherwise how could they find positive traces!!!

Possession is not proof of consumption, but surely consumption is proof of possession!!!

Be very interesting to see how the next couple of weeks pan out, hurriedly brushed under the carpet...or a full public apology?

What is the situation with Off-Season/On-Season - does it compare to "On-duty/Off-duty"?

Classified as works time as you are still "representing the club"?

Is it kinda like Christmas Parties, where you aren't "officially" in work time, but you can still be disciplined for any mishaps?

Just a thought!

It seems to me that the club must take into account, at least, the fact that the incident took place during the close season. It's clearly a mitigating factor.

I know everyone's entitled to their own opinion but i'm beginning to think there's been enough dissecting & analysing of the whole situation , should we not just put a lid on it for now & wait & see what decision is made from the powers that be

  I hope the powers are not the same powers that have nothing to worry about than those fans that are sitting in the wrong seat in a half full stadium.

p'raps the drugs were a ruse to distract attention from the Genesis tickets lying on his back seat? :023:

It seems to me that the club must take into account, at least, the fact that the incident took place during the close season. It's clearly a mitigating factor.

I would disagree here. He's an employee of the club 12 months of the year not 10. He is still being paid during the Summer by the club, so I can't see how it makes any difference.

If I was done for GBH, drink-driving, rape, murder etc, and the very leniant Judge didn't throw me in jail, I don't think I'd keep my job just because I happened to be on a day off when I committed the offence. It all comes down to how seriously the Club view the offence and not about when it was committed. 

  If you do not keep your job , do you not become a burden on society ?

And on that logicv...nobody should ever be sacked from their jobs ever again  :029:

Someone asked further back about whether he was tested at the time...it would seem that when your caught in possession it's not standard practice to issue a test unless your behaviour is also being called in to question (i.e. driving, being disorderly etc), so it is extremely unlikely Hart would have been submitted to a test at the time.

  Rob Ramage , an ex Pro Hockey player has just been found guilty of impaired driving causing death. I will be interested to see what

    the sentence will be as he now works as a financial adviser in St Louis U S A. They say he will lose his permanent -residence status

    in the US. So there gos his job . Trouble is he has a wife and 3 children , so they end up suffering as well.

  That's why I asked the above question.

  Has Mr Hart any dependants?

P'n'B Link

Just in case anyone didn't see it

  Rob Ramage , an ex Pro Hockey player has just been found guilty of impaired driving causing death. I will be interested to see what

    the sentence will be as he now works as a financial adviser in St Louis U S A. They say he will lose his permanent -residence status

    in the US. So there gos his job . Trouble is he has a wife and 3 children , so they end up suffering as well.

  That's why I asked the above question.

  Has Mr Hart any dependants?

I see where your coming from, but it is the thought of such consequences which act as the deterrent.  Remove the deterrent and people start to run amok.  You just have to look at the problems society faces just now when dealing with kids due to the deterrent of a good boot up the erse having been removed to see the kind of problems the kid gloves approach to punishment can cause.