Well in the space of days, two top-flght players have tested postive for cocaine. Adrain Mutu of Chelsea and Alexandros Kaklamanos of Liege in Belgium. While Kaklamanos has been sacked by the club, you would suggest a similar fate for Mutu. Now everyone will be thinking, how long will they get banned for. But should they be banned? Let me put this way: Cocaine is a recreational drug, purely to get high and nothing else. It doesn't enchance a players perfomance or make him into a better athlete - if anything the exact opposite. In the real world, the clubs are right to sack these players. If you were found smoking dope, then I'm sure your bosses would be asking you to clear your desk. However there isn't a ban or order out on you, that stops you from going somewhere else and aplying for another job. Obvouisly, with your record still in tow. Is 2 years fair? If i took performance enhancing drugs - then this is cheating. I am conning the game. Whereas if I take heroin or cocaine - I am classed the same. The two are very different. Should the FA have a right to step in. This is surely a more social problem for the courts to decide. I'm sure a judge would offer a rehabilition programme or awareness scheme rather than stop your livelihood for 2 years. The FA should IMO, allow the club and courts to deal with this themselves. I will admit, they are the governing body - but how many times do we see footballers with drink/driving fines and GBH charges against them. In those cases, the FA keeps their mouth shut and allows the club to take action. Why isn't it the same here? Paul Merson openly confessed that he was a cocaine addict - and he was helped to overcome his problems. He wasn't sacked by the club or banned by UEFA. I understand Mutu or Kaklamanos could not have problem, it could have been a daft mistake, but surely we can't treat a person who takes steriods in order to cheat rather than someone who has taken a snort of cocaine in the heat of the moment. We all do daft things and wish we hadn't done that - but do the higher powers have a right to stop these players playing without even hearing their side of the story. A person who comes clean and offers to change his actions is much better than a arrogant prick who gets a battery and assault fine and/or community service. What are your views on this, should we take a firm and decisive action or should we assist players over their social miscreancies?