I very much doubt we would have seen this emphasis and tone had it been a Rugby Union club.

The Mail, remember, is a paper that only reports on RL when there is a scandal. Then it does it big-time. IMO it clearly has a very strong anti-RL agenda running. Maybe a RL player once nicked the sports editor's girlfriend or ate his hamster?

You're right there are some interesting articles on there, and some interesting bits in the RL articles. Just a shame that the interesting bits are surrounded by sensationalist made up rubbish.
Cheers for sharing though, still interesting when the guff is stripped away.

So which parts are made up? The direct statements from the players perhaps?

The stuff about how deeply the RFL were supposedly involved is not supported by the evidence presented for a start. Either the author hasn't actually read them, or he has an agenda, or he's a bit thick.

I'd also be more than a little cautious about reading anything from fragments of alleged testimony quoted without the context of the full transcript. It's very easy to make people look guilty by using selective quoting.

The whole thing is sensationalised and spun to present the sport in the worst possible light. He even takes a pop at UKDA and implies that two of their officials were somehow complicit. It's sub-tabloid 'journalism' of the worst kind.

Perhaps the guy does have an anti RL agenda. Nonetheless I think the statements given by the other players merit a review of the Gleeson punishment. Surely if a player admits to having taken the substance on a matchday there are two ways to look at it:

1) Treat that player as being guilty of the same offence as Gleeson and punish him accordingly

or

2) Accept that these players (including Gleeson) have made a genuine mistake and their main failure was in trusting the judgement of the conditioner rather than checking for themselves.
On this basis it would be fair imho to reduce Gleeson's punishment.

Spot on.

Such a shame that said ex-team mate is now intent on dragging their names through the mud as part of a massive hissy fit.


I think the number of people with any sympathy at all for Gleeson reduces dramatically every time he tries to drag our sport into the gutter for another payday.

Well, speaking as a "biased...Rovers supporting mental pygmy"...



It would seem this chap...



Would not be too happy to see those statements

I think describing it as a hissy fit is trivializing things somewhat. Rightly or wrongly the man has had his career taken away. Also I don't think Gleeson has tried to drag the other players' names through the mud. Clearly neither do they as they have made statements in support of him.

At the end of the day he made a mistake and paid for it. He's hardly the first to accidentally take a banned substance and end up with a suspension, but none of the others have flailed around in self-pity quite as much.

The statements released on that website were made [iin confidence[/i to the UKDA enquiry - i.e. [iwell before[/i Gleeson started trying to blame everyone but himself. I very much doubt that any of those players would do the same again given how he's released confidential documents to the gutter press.

Too many players use the 'someone told me it was ok' as an excuse, and that's exactly what it is.

Spot on....
Regardless of anything, a Rugby League player has between 10 and 15 years to play at the highest level and for those years, it would seem obvious that EVERYTHING they eat and drink should be first 100% checked for ingredients. If in doubt, don't take it....and as has been pointed out, the buck stops with the players themselves.

I do believe the club themselves should take some of the blame as well, given that they invest an awful lot of time and money in these players and should therefore have a system in place to assist players......as for the conditioner who mistakenly (or otherwise) said this stuff was OK....he shouldn't be allowed work at the cosmetics counter at Boots....let alone be let near an sportsperson again!

Admittedly Gutterfax, but in this case even a consummate professional like Fitzgibbon was caught out.