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.

If the original BOD was still in charge then you might have a point. It isn't. There is simply nobody left at the club who might have been involved.

Your comparison with WTW is flawed as the points penalty is not designed to punish any individual or collective wrongdoing. I think it was also already in place when the change of ownership occurred.

Deluded

it is present in many decongestants and also now sports suppliments bought over the counter,
it's been around since the 1970's but in 2010 its was placed on the WADA Prohibited List in 2010 classed as a Non Specified Stimulant. can be named asIt is prohibited in-competition only.it has caught quite a few sportmen out notably Kolo Toure, the issue that marks out the bans on the three ex Hull employees is they gave false evidence, not specifically the banned substance or how they came about it.

The whole thing is a pointless exercise in ridiculousness. When a sportsman cant take an over the counter medication, something which they are not only able but expected to self medicate with you have to wonder what on earth are we attempting to achieve.

Lets be honest, we arent looking at concerted efforts to use dangerous and unproven drugs to improve performance, we arent looking at HGH, EPO or a cocktail of steroids,

we are looking at benylin. If Benylin and methylhexaneamine are banned, why not caffeine?

Masking agents??

www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/ ... 6233561884 if the aussies want to claim him they can have him

www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/ ... 6233561884 if the aussies want to claim him they can have him

And what nonsense that is, we have a situation where because an athlete has one substance in their body their body we assume they have another in their body. What other situation would you accept something like that as fair?

If we get a fine/Points deduction then so be it. The club is guilty of an attempted cover up and regardless of the sale the club is still liable for any penalty given to it. The best thing to do is to take any punishment dished out on the chin and just get on with it.

Can the RFL prove that Hull FC have breached operational rules however, without getting into a messy argument over whether James Rule was acting in his capacity as a director of the club in his part in this incident? Were other directors or board members aware of what Rule was doing, or was he acting alone and under his own auspices rather than as a representative of the club and with the club's full knowledge and complicity?

Similarly with the conditioner, if one employee of an organisation is providing banned substances to another employee, is the organisation responsible for their behaviour or is the individual?

In the interests of saving everyone involved the time and cost of charging the club with a breach of the operational rules I reckon the RFL/UKDA have handled this about right. The contrary conduct here lies with the individuals rather than their employer and it is they who should take the consequences.