Cronulla players have never been offered a deal to plead guilty to using performance-enhancing substances and accept a six-month ban, and face a suspension of up to two years if charged with a doping violation.
It has been widely reported former Australian Sports Anti-Doping Authority chief counsel Richard Redman, engaged by the Sharks to represent their players, had negotiated six-month bans for them if they pleaded guilty.
However, Fairfax Media has been told that is incorrect and Redman merely advised the players of their options if they were to be charged at a meeting three weeks ago, which was also attended by several player agents.
It is understood the players were told if they successfully challenged the charge they would be free to continue playing but if they were found guilty of inadvertent drug use they would face a ban of between one and two years. A third possibility was a six-month ban if they provided significant assistance to the ASADA investigation.
Advertisement
Up to 14 Sharks players and a further 17 others playing in the NRL are due to begin interviews by ASADA this week.
Among them are believed to eight former Cronulla players and it is understood Redman's services have been made available to them.
Sydney barrister Andrew Coleman, who has been hired by the Rugby League Players Association, is thought to be representing the other players. Redman and Coleman are working closely together. They will attend the interviews and provide legal advice.
While ASADA does not have the power to compel players to submit to interview requests, NRL rules require them to provide ''reasonable assistance''. Players who fail to do so are liable to be banned until they agree to co-operate. ''That means that they have got to go along, answer the questions and be truthful but it doesn't mean you have to go in there and throw your hands in the air,'' a source familiar with the process said.
''You just have to be truthful and if there are certain things you don't want to talk about you don't talk about them. If there are certain things you do, then you do.
''If the player doesn't provide reasonable assistance the NRL can ban them anyway until they do. If someone takes the attitude of, 'Stuff this, I am not going to bother' they will be banned anyway so they are cutting off their nose to spite their face because they will be out of the game.''
The key here in who article is reasonable assistance and what does that mean it is a NRL guideline, it might mean just attending the interview, who knows but that is key to whole interview
