and you sir make a habit of mentioning me or Wakefield.if you ask me nicely i will send you a photo and a pair of undies but please dont boil my bunnies

back onto hock this could be worse for Huddersfield if they lose mossop so in theory wigan dont really suffer the suspension

How would it be worse? Mossop is not our player long term and we're fully aware of that. Mossop didn't feature this weekend despite Kirmond being out. It would equate to the loss of a short term option but the ones we have remaining are far better than many other clubs.

For all your pontificating regarding MG and the apparent fixation you don't seem to be doing a bad job yourself. It is this hypocrisy that is the best bit really. That and you squirming for an excuse for using arbitrate in completely the wrong context.

If you lot actually want these pious bleats to mean anything then you have to practise what you preach. Until then expect it back over the top in spades and your toys to carry on flying.

thanks for a reasonable response , not to keen on your dummy spit at the end .

I hope you are not allowed near children. Your need to be unseemly is lurid. But hey, maybe you are just misspelling words and do not know you are doing it. [FFS....'arbitrates'

Do you think that Clan? Really? Fascinating.

Must be a great comfort to you that you are never quick of the mark.

Quote: Marsdengiant " As for Wigan dealing with it properely i find it concerning and unfair it has been leaked before his b sample has been tested Was it leaked? Or is it standard practice to do what the RFL/Wigan have done. . i wont bother responding to the rest of yourpost as it is all irrelevant but the main point is relating to the information getting to the press so early. I do not know whether it was leaked but i do believe it is not normal practice to release to the press details until enquiries are concluded or until the B sample is tested and then it is pending a hearing to establish guilt. Eg the Sibbit case where the test was in june of the previous year but details did not go to the press until enquiries / decisions had been made www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/ma ... per-league. Drug testing is notoriously difficult to confirm on the basis of one test eg lots of false positives,samples being compromised etc which is why they have the A and B sample system to help counteract that possibility. Until the B sample is confirmed he is now tarnished with being a drug user when technically / legally it may not be the case.

Quote: Marsdengiant " As for Wigan dealing with it properely i find it concerning and unfair it has been leaked before his b sample has been tested Was it leaked? Or is it standard practice to do what the RFL/Wigan have done. . i wont bother responding to the rest of yourpost as it is all irrelevant but the main point is relating to the information getting to the press so early. I do not know whether it was leaked but i do believe it is not normal practice to release to the press details until enquiries are concluded or until the B sample is tested and then it is pending a hearing to establish guilt. Eg the Sibbit case where the test was in june of the previous year but details did not go to the press until enquiries / decisions had been made www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/ma ... per-league. Drug testing is notoriously difficult to confirm on the basis of one test eg lots of false positives,samples being compromised etc which is why they have the A and B sample system to help counteract that possibility. Until the B sample is confirmed he is now tarnished with being a drug user when technically / legally it may not be the case.

This has gone exactly the same way as it did for Flanagan at Batley, whose ban was confirmed 11th June: "The ban began in April, when the provisional notice of suspension was made." www.batleynews.co.uk/news/Drugs- ... 5376415.jp Given Hock is now banned I don't see how they could have done anything else and in reality this has to be standard practise. Sibbit's case is irrelevant here as he was found to have an elevated level of salbutamol as a result of over medicating for treatment of his asthma. This will be a condition the RFL will be aware of and the ban was put on hold subject to an appeal to the world doping agency. Quite a different scenario.

This has gone exactly the same way as it did for Flanagan at Batley, whose ban was confirmed 11th June: "The ban began in April, when the provisional notice of suspension was made." www.batleynews.co.uk/news/Drugs- ... 5376415.jp Given Hock is now banned I don't see how they could have done anything else and in reality this has to be standard practise. Sibbit's case is irrelevant here as he was found to have an elevated level of salbutamol as a result of over medicating for treatment of his asthma. This will be a condition the RFL will be aware of and the ban was put on hold subject to an appeal to the world doping agency. Quite a different scenario.

The story went to the press in April. www.batleybulldogs.co.uk/index.p ... &Itemid=29 Although it makes no reference in this particular article it was certainly mentioned in other articles that it was due to failing a drugs test and made reference to a cocaine derivative.

The story went to the press in April. www.batleybulldogs.co.uk/index.p ... &Itemid=29 Although it makes no reference in this particular article it was certainly mentioned in other articles that it was due to failing a drugs test and made reference to a cocaine derivative.

Mention in this match report dated 10th April. www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/r ... 5161358.jp

Mention in this match report dated 10th April. www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/r ... 5161358.jp