Actually you got it right in the post one above. I won't throw in the fact the RFL paid Cunningham money to stay in the game because you're twitchy enough as it is already.

Thread of the year!!!!

You saints fans are a hoot..... You have a big game coming up, but you still get hot and bothered about the things said by fans of a lowly SL team. Good luck with that game BTW....

What a refreshing change to meet a wigan fan who knows their place

Wasn't Cunningham found guilty?

Yes, and fined.

Hardly "got away with it", particularly given the circumstances - which were acknowleged to be rather unusual.

Like I said, it's a weak argument at best.

Its not a weak argument according to WADAARTICLE 2 ANTI-DOPING RULE VIOLATIONS
Athletes and other Persons shall be responsible for knowing what constitutes an anti-doping rule violation and the substances and methods which have been included on the Prohibited List.
The following constitute anti-doping rule violations

2.1 The presence of a Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers in an Athlete’s Sample
2.1.1 It is each Athlete’s personal duty to ensure that no Prohibited Substance enters his or her body. Athletes are responsible for any Prohibited Substance or its Metabolites or Markers found to be present in their Samples. Accordingly, it is not necessary that intent, fault, negligence or knowing Use on the Athlete’s part be demonstrated in order to establish an anti-doping violation under Article 2.1.
'"

Cunningham can't do anything wrong.

Even on the BBC highlights yesterday they said his high tackle on Coley was carried out be Puletua.

I've no doubt that had any of Cunningham's, Senior's or Bailey's "mistakes" happened now the outcome would be very different given the RFL has signed up to the WADA code since they happened - your example of Ian Sibbit being a case in point.

Just look at what has happened to people like Paddy Kenny recently and that Scottish skier (who name escapes me) who took the American Vic's which contained banned substances instead of a British Vic's which doesn't.

Senior and Bailey should have been banned for being thick.

Whoah, whoah, whoah - if the RFL weren't signed up to WADA, why are you quoting WADA guidelines in support of your argument against Cunningham?

They have no jurisdiction in the situation we're talking about. You can't make a case for what should have happened according to WADA if the RFL weren't operating under WADA rules.



If they are playing sport under the auspices of WADA rules, they are subject to those rules.

Either the RFL were under WADA rules, and Cunningham was not banned and WADA didn't object (hence quoting WADA rules seems a little strange), or the RLF were [inot[/i signatories to WADA and eance quoting WADA rules is even more strange, and irrelevent in addition.



I'm inclined to agree.

But they were dealt with under the rules at that time, under which a fine and a reprimand were considered appropriate.

I don't think any of them can be considered to have "got away with it".

The RFL Disciplinaries are a joke. Coley's "high shot", the one which bounced up off the ball and warranted a 30-second ticking off from Ganson ALSO apparently warrants a "formal caution", yet Cunningham high-tackles Coley straight round the neck, not a word is said to him, and the RFL follow it up with "On-field warning sufficient".

And for there to be no mention of the disgraceful elbow to Tomkins on 8 minutes is absolutely ludicrous.

I think the formula someone posted on here once (ages ago) is absolutely spot on. Bans are worked out like this:

((A+B)*C)-X = number of games banned

Where A = severeness of incident, B = injury caused, C = players previous record and X = 0 for most teams and 30 for St Helens.

I'm officially handing the title of Dirtiest RL Player to Cunningham. Sorry, Leon Pryce, better luck next season.