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?

In law I believe being in posession of drugs is unlawful, taking them isn't. Maybe Slugger could clarify? Obviously you'd have to be in posession of the drug to take it in the first place but don't know how that would work

Pisspoor attempt again, no where in that article does it say or suggest that Kath Hetherington knew about the drug taking or that she was involved in the following cover up. What it suggests is that during negotiations to buy the club the new owners weren't made aware of the impending investigation.

What is notable from that Hull FC statement is that Richard Agar isn't mentioned or implicated whatsoever in any way.

So now we have the UKADA documents, the SKY article and the Hull FC statement none of which intimates in any way shape or form that Richard Agar was implicated, yet you still want to have a Snyde dig!

That would be correct - in either case only Long and Gleeson were in posession (conditioner may not have touched it), and more importantly this is not a drug/substance regulated by English law, only banned by a governing body/organisation otherwise you couldn't legally buy/sell it.

The law has always been wrong as far as drugs are concerned - in my opinion ! but we may be on opposite ends of the scale as to were we stand on this one for various reason, and after reading many of your posts this is not some thing we often are, aside the teams we support .

if I'm not mistaken what makes it worse that if he had trained harder and controlled his diet better he wouldn't of been that situation to take the said substance

let that be a lesson learned to all young future players

Gleeson possibly looking at suing Hull FC according to this

rlhttps://www.dailystar.co.uk/rugby/view/227619/Martin-Gleeson-rocked-by-3-year-drug-ban/rl

Click on proceed to article.