Josh Addo-Carr is facing at least three months on the sidelines should any club throw him a lifeline following his recent roadside drug test failure.
Addo-Carr’s camp is still awaiting formal notification of his B-test sample after he tested positive for cocaine in September.
The NRL and the Eels will wait on that result before any sanction is handed down.
While Parramatta are yet to make a formal decision on Addo-Carr’s future, it is highly likely that the Eels will reluctantly sack the flying winger from his $400,000 contract if the second test result comes back positive.
The NRL are also set to put a 12-game ban on him should any club look to sign him meaning he will be sidelined for almost half of next season.
Even if he is retained by the Eels, they will be missing him for a large chunk of the season. The 12-game ban is in line with the NRL’s illicit drug testing policy, which deems players are automatically sidelined for that period after a second failed test.
The NRL website states: “Players who record a second contravention will serve a 12-match ban, the prospect of contract termination, a fine, and further treatment and monitoring.”
Two years ago, Addo-Carr was sacked by the Bulldogs after failing a roadside drug test
The NRL may not formally announce the sanction should the Eels rip up his contract given he will no longer be a registered player.
However this column has learnt that should a club want him and the NRL allow him back into the game then the 31-year-old will have a long stint on the sidelines.
The former NSW flyer has been in a rehabilitation facility since his positive test result.
Addo-Carr was driving in Sydney’s inner-west along Enmore Road in Newtown when he was stopped for a test just days after he played in Parramatta’s final game of the season.
This time last year, Addo-Carr had returned to the Kangaroos line-up and was part of Australia’s extended World Cup squad before the positive test.
He was sacked by Canterbury in 2024 after he again failed a roadside drug test.
Addo-Carr looked to have resurrected his career with the Eels with Parramatta officials talking glowingly of his impact at the club on and off the field since his arrival in 2025.
Replies
Sounds like what it's coming down to but we did the same just differently with Lomax and Brown circumstances wise.
I don't know if we have the capacity to replace JAC with an adequate or equal replacement we clearly didn't do it with Lomax and Brown.
Rock meet hard place.
I think the Brown and Lomax situations are great examples of what happens when players leave without a backup plan and JAC would be the same. We will go tangibly backwards as a team, at a time when the coach needs to be showing improvement so we can start to build on something.
Ideally JAC doesn't make the dumb decision and catches an Uber, but here we are. We knew who we were signing when we got JAC after he was fired from the Bulldogs...an extremely talented player with rep experience who also has shown an ability to make very poor life decisions. Gotta take the good with the bad.
Disagree Captain; sack him and look for someone else. There would be some kid playing junior reps who would kill for a crack....no pun intended. These players have more wellbeing / support / hangerson than many and JAC has played under Bellamy FFS. No way - you cut him loose; JAC had a duty of care to his employers and before anyone says it - players are not role models. They're sportsman who are good at what they do.
I agree with you ethically and morally Mitchy. But if we take that approach we will be the only high-morals high-ethics team in the NRL and our premiership drought will continue for a long time to come.
The reality is that talented NRL players are young, risk takers by profession, and are paid more money than most young men can sensibly handle. You will get behaviour issues. You will get poor decision makers. JAC isn't the first and he sure as heck won't be the last.
Professional sports aren't about giving people a crack, that's what park footy is for. This is a place for the best of the best at their sport, and we need to set reasonable bars as to what we expect of them. If we didn't want JAC doing this, we should have paid for a minder to hang around him 24/7. When we took on JAC from the Bulldogs we knew what we were buying and we did it because of his talent on the field, not his clever decision making off the field.
Yes we probably have the legal right to rip up his contract because I'm sure he breached a behaviour or direspute clause. But if we want to win some games and put the best football team on the field, JAC is in it. If that's our goal, then we shouldn't sack him unless we have a better option...which we do not.
I'd be coming at it more from a salary cap perspective. If he's suspended for 12 matches, then we virtually need to recruit a replacement anyway. We'd be paying $400,000 for half a season for a winger turning 32. He's in the final year of his contract so we'd likely be going to market anyway. Why drop that $400K when you know he's missing half a season at minimum and we have no long term investment in him?
@SuperEel 22
Why is the cap so important, you could strike him for his failure (entitled) and renew his contract on an adjusted basis i.e less the 12 games match fee equivalent.
Confront the problem from a practical perspective, you either want him or not, don't make excuses to justify a decision you find too hard to make. Its always a way our in a politically correct society to believe you have done the right thing.
Its easy to say as Mitchy says hereunder that he has had his chance, implying the addiction process.....but who says you cannot have second chances if he/you are doing something about it?
Ok you are punishing the man, his family, his livilihood and the majority of fans from Parra (there is no doubt using the comments on 1EE that the preference is to keep him).
Don't make excuses, when they can be avoided. I'm sure he wants to play, even if its at 200k less. I think he would also be forever grateful for being given the 3rd chance that we are offering, seeing we already gave him the second.
Is not Parramatta paying for his rehabilitation and making statements along the lines of helping him? Is there not a touch of hipocrisy there, if we don't offer him an alternative?
I get the replacement parts Captain, I do - we want a strong team JAC has been fantastic. I see him at the ground and the relations with kids. My own boy loves him. The issue is he knows the rules and knows better that is what I cannot get my head around. My concern is he has done this before and shown a lack of respect the club, his teamates and of course his family. No winners from this. You are spot on the club knew what they were getting when we signed him from C' bury and I am sure the club also outlined their case too.
I think if this was his first breach then yes, give another go but it's not.
I look at kids like Arthur Miller Stephen who from memory got his chance late 24? and then had injuries ever since and has gone - kids like that would kill for a spot. These players need to take their chances, and JAC did and got caught again.
If the Eels have grounds to terminate the foxes contract therefore not having his contract amount on there salary cap, sacking him is definitely the best option. You don't need to be Einstein to work out that paying someone ( on good money ) who can't play for close to half a season is simply stupid. We know that the Eels are in the market for 1 or more quality outside backs and the fox's money would be better spent in this area.
This is only true if we can get an adequate replacement for JAC's cap space. Maybe we've got someone lined up but preseason is two weeks away. How many clubs will have someone worth that much that they are willing to release this close to preseason? They would need to replace them.
Listen to what Cappy and Pou said! ......what's more you would adjust his salary for the games suspended.....JAC's dont come along like a "mango season" you just cant go to the shop and buy them!
-
3
-
4
-
5
-
6
-
7
of 7 Next