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.

you did'nt just compare hull fc to news corp did you??...........oh yeah you did...........we can lock this thread now yeah??

For me if we get a fine then as long as its not ridiculous pay it and move on.
The people involved with this the CEO, conditioner, player have basically been sacked by our new regime so they have had some punishment.
What i would like to see investigated a bit more is the other ex employees eg Head coach Agar, Chairwoman Kath and the rest of board, if they were complicit with this then they should not be able to just walk away scott free after selling a company.
As Hull fans we know the last board kept a few things hidden away from our new owner.

And the punishment in docking points would be what exactly?

They still get sky money, they can't be relegated. Big woop. They must be shaking in their boots!

Kinda makes cheating worthwhile, eh?

Make it harder to win the competition they're in? Qualify for the play-offs? Get more prize money for a higher league position?


If you'd simply settle for existence in the top league, then you are quite a sad person. There's more to sport than not finishing bottom you know.

Is there? Think Blackburn will sack their boss? Why?

When you lose that all you have left us existing if you're not one of the big 4!


Sets us up well for a great super league season eh?

Hull would win super league without a points deduction then?



Point proven

Anyone else slightly surprised at the low ban of James Rule and Ben Cooper. Lying about a drugs charge in sport is one of the most serious offences a club employee doing IMO. They should be banned from the sport for life.
Charging Hull would be pointless IMO. It was 3 individuals, not the vlub.

Unfortunately Gleeson has had numerous chances given by the sport and he has just constantly landed himself in trouble bringing bad press to the sport. Personally think he should be banned from the sport for life. He may not have known about the drug he was taking, but he then lied. It may sound harsh and tough, but no one is bigger than the sport.

I hope the sport support him so we don't get another tragedy like Terry Newton.

That's all that needs to be said - all the attempts at deflection and obfuscation in respect of what capacity Mr Rule was acting in are just that; he was employed by the club, was acting on their behalf when he orchestrated the attempted cover-up and as such, the club are liable for his actions, regardless of who owned it, then or now.

Given the media coverage this story has attracted, I think the RFL now have to act - if they don't, they'll be perceived as weak and toothless and potentially, face accusations of not taking doping offences seriously; I refer of course to the attempt to deceive the investigators, rather than the doping itself, which seems relatively trivial.

Reading the full reports on the UKDA site it seems they got a low ban because they didn't lie about the offence itself but rather attempted to cover up the exact circumstances surrounding it in an effort to get Gleeson a shorter ban. Apparently the UKDA have rules in place that cover this situation with specified punishments - better organised than the RFL in that regard.

All breaches of rules and misconduct are committed by individuals. "The club" cannot infringe the rules, someone associated with the club has to carry out the infringement on behalf of it. Hull FC did not rip up the posts at Huddersfield that time. It wasnt even an employee of the club, merely spectators who aligned themselves to the club. But the club was held accountable for their actions.

In this case three employees have breached the rules, one of those was the CEO.

It would be premature to suggest that the club should be penalised in any way. But it would be odd if the RFL did not investigate whether the involvement of such a senior employee means that the club should be held accountable at least in part.