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 as:-Methylhexaneamine; Methylhexanamine; DMAA (dimethylamylamine); Geranamine; Forthane; Forthan; Floradrene; 2-hexanamine, 4-methyl-; 2-hexanamine, 4-methyl- (9CI); 4-methyl-2-hexanamine; 1,3-dimethylamylamine; 4-Methylhexan-2-amine; 1,3-dimethylpentylamine; 2-amino-4-methylhexane; Pentylamine, 1, 3-dimethyl-.
so you can see how hard it would be to check against

However from 2011 it has been re-classified as a Specified Stimulant. It 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??

I honestly wasn't fishing, I posted a question as to whether the Hull club should be punished and the first reply from a Hull fan was implying that it was ridiculous to punish the club and was obviously part of some bias against Hull. I was and still am confused as to why Ian P and Kosh are so defensive about a legitimate question regarding punishment of a club found to have broken the rules.

Actually the club can be punished. They have breached the RFL Operational Rules. You're right in that it doesn't mention specific punishments but that doesn't mean the club cant be punished. All the RFL have to do is set up an Operational Rules Tribunal and decide an appropriate punishment.

This argument that because the club has new owners is totally and utterly irrelevant. The new owners bought the club, either they didn't do due dilligence or they got the club cheaper than if there was no impending drugs investigation. So it is exactly the same as a club who goes into administration or breaks the salary cap. In the end Hull FC breached the RFL Operational Rules, who did it is irrelevant since it was a major club official acting in his official capacity for the club. In exactly the same way a salary cap breach would be done.

I don't think a points deduction is reasonable, but a fine would be about right.

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.

Why is giving an alternative opinion suddenly classed as being defensive?

I could be wrong, and if I am then so be it. I won't be calling foul or blaming anyone other than the clowns involved.

Once again, how exactly am I being defensive? I haven't mentioned any bias or conspiracy against Hull, I haven't commented on the fairness or otherwise of any punishment - I've merely offered an [iopinion[/i on why I think that a punishment might be difficult to enforce. If we do end up with a fine or similar then I'll be blaming Rule and the others involved, not any so-called conspiracy.

I still think that it's unlikely that the RFL will choose to open this particular can of worms. If they levy a punishment on the club then they will have to go after the old BOD as well, and I don't see that happening any time soon.

About sums it up for me. Only thing RFL could charge Hull FC, as a club, with would be bringing game into disrepute. Dont think it would be fair to punish them on the field with a points deduction as the new administration have helped with the investigation and people directly involved have left the club. Worst case for me is a token fine which club should just accept and move. Fact it wasnt announced at same time as the bans suggests to me that no further action will be taken though.

I would agree if the people involved were just at the level of a player or conditioner, but when the CEO gets involved it brings the club with it. As I mentioned before if James Rule had signed players whilst knowing it would take Hull over the salary cap it wouldn't need the full backing or knowledge of the board for the club to be punished since he would be deemed to be acting in his capacity as CEO, just as he was in this case. The club are responsible for the actions of their CEO in the same way Rupert Murdoch/News Corp etc are responsible for the actions of their employees when hacking phones.