wow, never heard of a CEO covering up drug use in this way before, have to question how much the coach knew as well. The club are culpable as they were ultimately responsible and should be punished, even if it is a suspended fine. As said if it had been a salary cap breach they would still be fined or points deducted. Bad look for the game all round.

More controversey from the Hull mob when will it ever change

Once again the club I love are proving to be an embarrassment to the game. It pains me to say this but the RFL should punish Hull for bringing the game into disrepute.

What will happen to Sean Long, seeing he supplied it to Gleeson?

And in Bradford's case that Chairman & CEO had left the club when the points deduction was imposed. Give us our points back!

Seriously, the notion that a club's CEO, when presenting evidence to UKAD, is only doing so in a personal capacity and not on behalf of the club cant be right.

The judgement reads as if Long has in some way given evidence - how else could they confirm that Gleeson's claim about getting the supplements from Long was "truthful". Which means that for the second time, Sean Long has admitted to taking banned substances. Both times he's avoided punishment, unlike his unfortunate mates.

It wouldn't be so obvious you were fishing if you didn't keep saying "why are the Hull fans do defensive?" over and over. We're from Hull, we know a lot about fishing

As for punishing the Hull club, there is no rule that says "if you do this, the club will be punished this way". The only thing it says about drugs use I'd that those involved will be banned. It wouldn't be legal for the RFL to punish Hull with a points deduction because of this. They can't just make up punishments. When it comes to the salary cap, it is specifically written what the punishments are in regards to fines and points deductions (hence why Wigan's point deduction had to be reduced, as it was written that it was 4 points the year they broke the cap despite the RFL wanting to deduct .

They could probably fine Hull if they wanted, but I don't see what that would achieve as you wouldn't be punishing anyone involved. The difference with this and a club going into administration is that the rules are already in place and the new buyer will have gotten the club on the cheap due to the administration.

I hope that is sufficient, or am I being defensive?

Nothing I believe, he supplied them in good faith based on the word of Cooper that they were ok. What could he possibly be charged with?

I think the truthful part is when they say that Long gave them to him on Cooper's permission (which Cooper will have backed up), not that he'd simply given them to him.

It would be odd though, to have not asked Long about it? The whole thing has taken 6 months to investigate. UKDA's report states as fact that Long was taking a banned substance (the same offence as Gleeson). Presumably they are not taking this further though.

I'm shocked that you've taken this stance, really.

According to one of this morning's rags Gleeson is going to sue Hull FC for lost earnings for effectively ending his playing career, saying that what he had taken had been approved by the club through the proper channels and that he had only taken it because such formal approval had been sought and given. He also says that several other Hull FC players had taken the same thing but were lucky and didn't get tested.