No, I won't agree to disagree, because you're wrong.

Also, you keep referring to criminal liability - to help you out, I'll remind you again that this is not a criminal case and as such, the burden of proof is significantly lower.

You really ought to bow out of this aspect of the discussion; your wishful thinking is making you look daft.

Didnt put that as clearly as I meant Adey. Meant to put that it was unfair to punish Hull with a points deduction as that affects them on the field. If their found guilty of bringing game into disrepute then its largely to do with clubs image and not really an on field issue so should be a fine. They didnt gain any on field advantage from covering up why gleeson wasnt playing. Its the covering up bit they might get done for, not the failed drugs test.

It's not wishful thinking - it's a difference of opinion. I haven't dismissed your argument out of hand and I've already noted that I could be wrong. Time will tell.

I understand the difference between criminal and civil cases when it comes to the burden of proof. The same guiding principles are involved though and they were the only examples I had personal experience of. If you have a better example that illustrates your argument then I'd be genuinely interested to hear it.

If you're so sure you're right, how come the club haven't been punished?

You're either very arrogant or very stubborn if you can't prove your point but insist that it's right.

Presumably its not within UKAD's remit to punish clubs? Wouldnt the natural sequence be for them to deal with the individuals, with any action against the club taken subsequently by the RFL?

Precisely.

What I'm arguing against here is the misguided certainty of some Hull fans, who seem to think that the RFL can't punish the club for the actions of it's employees, simply because there's been a regime change, some resignations or because the individuals were acting independently; all of those assumptions are wrong.

What I'm not arguing however, is that the RFL definitely will punish the club; I believe they should, but I'm not certain they will.

On another matter - am I right in thinking that all three players who've been busted for drug offences in the past couple of seasons are Wigan products?

I think you might find that any ongoing UKDA investigations are confidential and as such cannot be declared to a 3rd party, even if that 3rd party is in the process of buying the club that the individuals are employed by.

I too would have thought something like this would be revealed through due dilligence until the confidentiality aspect was brought to my attention.

Its there forheads that does it for me mate

Possibly you could quote the posts by Hull fans where it's been said with [icertainty[/i that the RFL [ican't[/i punish the club? I've certainly made no such assertion, although you apparently think that I have.

Whatever the problem, surely there's more to life than to be arguing and posting about it at the time you was on NYE

well according to league weekly hull won't be further punished by the rfl, but not for the reasons discussed on here in the main. seems that the rfl do not impose further punishments in this area and leave it up to uk anti doping to impose the sanctions. as i mentioned earlier and as in the majority of drugs in sport cases it is the individuals involved who are punished

however this is league weekly we are talking about so may not be 100% accurate