Not being a clever clogs it's just a shame that we have such inconsistancies in our sport, often it's who you are not what you have done that seems to be the deciding factor. More often than not a player at the back endog his career is hammered whilst a high profile name is given a slap on the wrists for the same offence. I fully support this ban and am familiar with the Wada procedure but they do rely heavily on cooperation communication and support from the governing body. Bernard my apologies also supplied suppliments to 3 other high profile players that got away with a behind closed doors slap on the wrist.

KfC anyone?

Those documents are an interesting read and paint all 3 participants in a pretty shameful light.

They should think themselves lucky that the original bans have been reduced after cooperation - given that all 3 have been shown to have conspired to deceive the original investigation, any subsequent cooperation should, in my opinion, not attract a reduction in the sanction that's applied.

The third high profile player to have been banned for drug use in recent memory; terrible publicity for the sport as a whole. The RFL must act decisively, to send out a clear message about our lack of tolerance. Wonder if it will?

Whilst bad news in itself, it is a shame that we didn't get to see the full weight brought to bear on Rule, who has clearly 'cut a deal' with one charge dropped.

There was a mistake in the supply of the product
There was a mistake in not checking the product against the right list(s)
There was a mistake in not checking 'personally'

All of the above are inexcusable, but stuff like that happens in life. However, when all of that comes out, for the CEO to try and cook up a story to deflect the issues, then that is a different matter. You then instantly change from being an isolated event to accusations of it being 'institutionalised' (sp?).

Rule should not be employed in sport again - he is not trustworthy. The funny (sic) thing is the lack of teeth that the governing bodies have here. In similar events in cricket involving betting, people have gone to jail!!!!

I wonder if Hull FC will face a sanction from the RFL? If this story gains enough suction, the governing body may issue a points deduction, to deflect the perception that they're 'toothless.'

why should it

player got his ban
conditioner dually sacked for his part by the club
CE resigns from his post (the only weak part he too should of been sacked too)

unless more comes to light I think all has been dealt with

What I can't understand is why Hull were so bothered about him that they tried to cover it up. I could understand the temptation (although not condone it) if it was a club's long-serving star player, but not when it's a player who has been there a month and comes with tons of off-field baggage. You would think you would just accept it wasn't a great deal and get out.

There does seem to be an acceptance that Gleeson himself was given incorrect advice, but getting it from a team-mate sounds iffy. Where did Long get it from?

Long would get it from where he has always got it from.

In relation to points raised about checking for banned substances against a list it is very basic simple process the lists are readily available to all and as TRB said that for professional sports people and organisations is inexcusable and very amateur.

As I said earlier I think more will come out in the wash and I highly doubt this will be the last we hear of this.

Just been reading the rulings of this case and apart from long no other people are mentioned at all. Obviously the interviews given remain confidential but if any others were involved you'd think they would have been mentioned and dealt with by now.

I didn't say it should - I wondered if it might.

It could be argued that an organisation is culpable for the behaviour of it's senior exec's and as such, this case is different from Hock and Newton; there was no suggestion in either of those cases that anyone at the club was involved in a cover up job, which has clearly been the case here.

I expect this one to run and run - I bet Mr Pearson is wondering what the he'll he's got himself into.

The difference TRB is that taking the drug is not illegal, just against the rules of sport, the betting scandal was and so punishable by jail sentence. That part was nothing to do with sport.

I think the answer to why Hull went to the extent they did is answered in your second paragraph. The report seems to suggest without specifying an actual name who asked, that the player (Long ?) was told by the conditioner the product was ok to use and this incorrect information was passed on to Gleeson (silly boy should have checked himself). Was Rule trying to cover up for the player, cover up the clubs poor signing and saving face, covering up incompetency of club staff in not carrying out a thorough check on the product, or all of the above ?
(unless you were just asking where Long obtained the product and i read your question wrong if so maybe the shop in Wigan Gleeson originaly said he bought it?)
I also found it interesting how in Hull's official statement aside from distancing themselves as far from the old regime as possible, they seem to also make a swipe directed not just at the player and Rule but at the former chairwoman.

Agar masterminded the whole thing, along with the The Brink's-MAT robbery as well.

I get that, but IMO these are the two great taboos of sport. Perhaps the law is wrong?