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.

Yeah good luck with that Martin!!

Over the counter in a chemist? What makes you think these are in any way illegal?

He may well have a good case actually. If the people employed by the club to advise players about what they can and cannot take say a product is ok then the player can reasonably say that he was acting on the advice and knowledge of those people and had a reasonable right to expect and believe that they would give him the correct advice.

Thought the onus was on the individual to ensure they are not taking anything that is on the banned list. It's a bit like the taxman, when you tell him that your work has cocked up the details on your P11D, they tell you its your fault at all times.

But Gleeson didn't get advice from qualified professionals at the club, he got it from Sean Long in 2011. MHA was banned in 2010, apparently. Presumably [iafter[/i Ben Cooper told Long that he was OK to take it, but before [iLong[/i gave them to Gleeson.
The actual doping offence seems unfortunate TBH. But changing the story to cover it up was dumb and those involved have been rightly punished.

Not only did I think that too, I also thought it was such a long established principle that I was both shocked and amazed when "senior" players walked away scot free from exactly that situation with the GB conditioner some years ago.

Not quite scot free since the two Leeds players in question at the time did end up paying a fine. What is interesting about that case however is the obvious cover-up involved at the time. It was stated that both players avoided a ban on the basis they'd declared what they had taken prior to being tested and that unknowingly, they'd imbibed a banned substance via a cold/flu remedy whilst in GB camp.

However, according to the "senior" player in his book, he admitted taking the tablets on a routine and regular match day basis during the 2004 season and claimed other Leeds players were doing the same that year. His positive sample was returned during the Tri Nations. He claims another Leeds player was taking the tablets in order to lose weight and because they made him feel better but that particular Leeds player didn't return any positive sample therefore it must be ok to use them. He also claims the other Leeds player who returned a positive drug sample did so immediately after the 2004 Grand Final and not whilst in GB camp with cold/flu symptoms. The "senior" player concludes with a comment about being looked after due to being a high profile GB player and was thankful that on the same day the drug charges were announced his club helped to deflect attention away from the news by announcing to the media they were interested in signing Jamie Langley from Bradford.