It's been even longer that we've listened to your lot promising to operate within budget

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

Wonder if they will be punished for Joe Westerman.. Same goes for Liam Watts and Richard Owen, and their clubs.

Wonder what they would have done if Rule had still been in charge? Classic RFL brush under the carpet response.

My thoughts exactly - the RFL has let UKAD do the dirty work and despite stating in the public domain last week that Hull FC had brought the game into disrepute, appear to have chosen to do nothing about it; surely that sends out completely the wrong message to everyone within and without the game?

[size=200WRONG[/size

[iChief executive Nigel Wood said: "Such behaviour is unacceptable and this case has brought the sport of rugby league into disrepute.[/i

Now where does he say that Hull FC have brought the game into disrepute?

If you're gonna have a go a trolling, try learning from a master, there are a number of them on here

Well he isn't in charge any more, he "resigned" on the day he knew he would definitely be charged.

So you can put the crusty sock back in the drawer

You're arguing semantics; if this case has brought the sport into disrepute, it follows that Hull FC are responsible for that, since they are vicariously liable for the actions of their employees.

It's a pointless debate however, since the RFL appear to have opted to take the path of least resistance.