We got there in the end

seeing as everyone involved in the fiasco has now either left or sacked what would be the point and would it be legal ?

I just posed the same question on our board.

My own view is that if this story gains sufficient attention in the mainstream media, the RFL may decide to issue a points deduction and/or a fine, to address any suggestion that they are toothless or don't take these matters seriously enough. People will say of course that neither Wigan or WTW copped such sanctions when Messrs Hock and Newton were busted for drug cheating - they key difference is that in neither of those cases was there any suggestion that club officials were involved in an attempted cover-up.

Either way, It's a sordid mess and does the game no favours at all.

Its just been all over BBC news 24.

It's all over everything, unfortunately.

Lets just hope they catch the rest of the cheating players soone rather than later, because as much has the powers that be will have you believe these are one offs the game is rife with P. E.Drugs.

So according to your beliefs, Cunnigham should have been treated in the same manner as Gleeson.

And your evidence is?????

It took several pages before some one raised the issue of some punishment to the club, a record.



OK but the club has been sold and a complete change at board, administration and coaching has taken place since this incident happened. Punish the new Hull FC owner or those who where responsible at the time?



I am not being defensive I simply ask how can it be legal to punish a club for a previous administrations short comings ?

These jokers did the game as a whole no favours and I would love to get to the bottom of this,this is the tip of the iceberg. Who knew about this and who else is implicated some have moved on to other clubs, some walked away very smartish as well. I for one would welcome a full investigation and I do not believe for one moment that these three acted independantly, knowing the culture at FC AT THE TIME.

i don't see what good a points deduction or fine would make except for a deterent and the long bans for guilty individuals would seem to suffice here. i think in cases like this individuals involved should be punished not the club as a whole - sackings and bans would seem to be the way forward here. this is my view regardless of which team is involved. lets just hope that everyone gulity in this case has been punished and certain individuals haven't got away with it

Wrong. Three individuals have been found guilty - read the judgements from the UKDA. No mention of the [iclub[/i being guilty whatsoever. It's still possible that the RFL may try and accuse the club of something, but as it stands it's all down to the three folk who have copped the bans.


It would be legal - as in not against the laws of the land - but not necessarily enforceable. There'd certainly be a good case for a challenge given that not one single person involved remains at the club and there has been a change of ownership.

Of course it would be enforceable - an organisation is vicariously liable for the actions of it's employees and sacking them/assisting them to leave doesn't alleviate that liability; if an investigation found that the attempted cover-up was systemic and part of the culture at the Hull FC, the RFL could very easily apply a sanction that the club would have little hope of overturning.

As an aside - by your logic, WTW should have had last season's 4 point deduction reinstated, since the insolvency that precipitated it was incurred under a previous owner; I don't remember you, or anyone else, making that case.

Quote: "MARTIN GLEESON is considering legal ­action against former club Hull after being hit with a three-year drugs ban. The ex-Great Britain centre, 31, who had half his sentence ­suspended, tested positive for a banned stimulant. But Gleeson has told friends he took an energy supplement which contained the drug ­methylhexaneamine in good faith'" www.dailystar.co.uk/rugby/view/2 ... -drug-ban/

Quote: "MARTIN GLEESON is considering legal ­action against former club Hull after being hit with a three-year drugs ban. The ex-Great Britain centre, 31, who had half his sentence ­suspended, tested positive for a banned stimulant. But Gleeson has told friends he took an energy supplement which contained the drug ­methylhexaneamine in good faith'" www.dailystar.co.uk/rugby/view/2 ... -drug-ban/

I'm as suprised as you, it should have appeared far earlier.


The fact that the club has new owners is irrelevant. The club through its CEO at the time tried to cover up drug taking by a player. The club is liable for the actions of its CEO in the same way it is when breaching the salary cap. The new owners have bought that liability when they bought the club. All offences committed don't immediately cease to be punished just due to a change of ownership as Bren points out.


Come on, you're not that daft.


It would be interesting to know if anyone else knew what was happening with Gleeson, whether for instance Agar knew. If he didn't who was lying to him about why Gleeson was unavailable for selection.
That still doesn't absolve Hull FC as a club from blame since their CEO has been found covering it all up.

Personally I think some sort of punishment should be due, whether its just a fine or what, but there has to be some form of punishment handed out from the RFL.

It's not wrong. The Hull FC CEO was found covering it up whilst acting for the club. The club are liable for actions taken by him within his job. In the same way as if he hid salary cap evidence from the RFL so that his club could breach the salary cap. Unless you're suggesting that the likes of Melbourne, Canterbury, Wigan, Saints, Bradford etc shouldn't have been punished and only the CEO's involved? Which would be bizarre.


Of course it would be enforceable. It's no different to a salary cap or any other operation rules breach by a club. What is it with defensive Hull fans who previously were sensible people suddenly becoming unable to think clearly?
The fact there is a change of ownership and officials is irrelevant. Otherwise Melbourne could easily have avoided their massive fine and points deduction by quickly selling to a mate and then buying it back a year later.

Why are some Hull fans suddenly so defensive over a perfectly legitimate question regarding an offence being punished in whatever manner?