let's see how the likes of smith and cockayne behave this year before we climb on board our high horses.

You say you are not trying to imply anything, but then say you are stating the obvious.

How is it stating the obvious? Many things happen in different walks of life where people you would think do know something but don't.

How many people have done things throughout history without the knowledge of the people closest to them?

Perhaps your current coach knew about the the betting scandal in 2004 involving Long and Gleeson, after all

Given the people who have received ban's, it would be surprising if the coach knew nothing of this.

That is correct, it is possible none of the coaching staff were aware of something internaly that went on between a conditioner and a player, that is why it is a question, you would think for the situation to escalate to a level where the CEO was aware of possible wrong doing the coaching staff would be also - that is where i feel it is 'obvious', we are not talking about a massive multi-national company where the people in question work in different sites in the country/world we are talking about a super league club based in Hull !

You are also correct, our current coach may have been aware of things involving players within his departent at the time also when the scandal you refer to happened - im not the one looking to score points or getting defensive about my teams current coach.

If you read the complete post i have more concern for the person/people in question, to be more specific after what happened to Terry Newton, not that im trying to 'imply' this is what will happen to Martin Gleeson just showing 'obvious' concern.

Of course the coach would know that he'd failed a drugs test. however my guess is that if the ceo decided on a corporate stance for the club to take in terms of statments to the public, then agar would be obliged to keep quiet and tow the party line.

there will be speculation that the conditioner was up to no good, and that rule's management of the situation was shoddy at best.

it's fat boy rule that's been suspended along with a conditioner, there is nothing whatsoever implied or otherwise, to suggest any hint of wrong doing by agar. even those (like me) that didn't want him at belle vue cannot reasonably conclude anything else.

he's here, and i hope he makes a decent fist of it.

It's more than possible that only the player & conditioner knew of this and that when the tish was about to hit the fan the first person to be informed by the RFL of a failed drugs test was the Chief Exec.

It's likely, if that was the case, that the rest of the staff including the coach were then bound by confidentiality under instruction from the CE.

People reading this the wrong way in my opinion.

The player has been banned for testing positive for a bsnned drug. The CEO has been banned for the handling of the incident, not for being involved.
It's likely that agar and many players knew once the test was failed but there is nothing wrong with that....only if you knew before or tried to cover it up.

Deleted

...and in their inimitable and oh so predictable way, some Hull FC fans take to their board to suggest that Richard Agar must have been involved; one brave soul claiming that the conditioner and Mr Rule have been made scapegoats, because the RFL are too 'scared' to go after Agar and Uncle Kath.

Never mind the fact that the bans have been issued by another body and have nothing to do with the RFL; since when did facts have to get in the way of the childish and potentially libelous rants of a small group of fans who believe their club would be sweeping all before them if not for Mr Agar.

I know he's not on Twitter and I don't think he reads this board - I'm tempted to give him the heads up though; I'd love to see how their more vocal morons would react to a short, sharp solicitors letter.

do you seriously think that a head coach would not be aware of such an issue before the CEO ?
I think now the people have been advised of their bans, there may me a can of worms opened

i think your point kind of misses the point, or maybe it just shows your inability to understand what information has been released. there is no suggestion that agar was or wasn't aware of the issue following the test. however rule has been banned for his handling of the situation. until we know what that handling was, then it's best to shut up.

there has been no suggestion that agar acted in any way that was not appropriate. personally i think the judgement raises more questions than it answers, i would like to know just how james rule managed to incurr a two year ban - the mind boggles as to what the daft bugger was playing at.

if this is club organised, and covered up, as suggested by the HDM story - how many points deduction will HFC start with do you think?

I know that protocol dictates that only the people DIRECTLY involved i.e. the accused and the CEO of the club are officially notified by the Governing body and UKADA of a failed test.

Whether it was commonly known within the club before that is only your speculation.

it's out there now. rule conspired to help gleeson lie about the circumstances of how the controlled substance got in his body. it's on sky's website.