The facts are that he has "failed" a test and this is confirmed by a second test.

I cant see what difference or mitigation it would make being recreational use ?

However if it was taken specifically to allow him train pre-season and therefore be available to play for the first games of the season then I might have a legitimate cause for complaint as well the opposition clubs involved might have also.

The fact it is a Trinity player is totally irrelevant IMHO the act diminishes the whole of the game.

No club nowadays instructs, encourages or even condones the use of banned substances performance enhancing or otherwise so I don't think this whatever the outcome should reflect badly on any club.

It's a personal choice.

So when was his first test

You may have a point...


depending on the type of drug, the timing of the first test and the sharing of this information with the club, the league and the player, the RFL by-Laws affecting this issue...

but as we know nothing of any of those issues... it's an irrelevant point based on pure conjecture and speculation...

a) The RFl weren't advised of the positive test until 15/02 so they can't be expected to consider any results before that.

b) you sound like Peter Hood after Millenium Magic 2007. Give us our points back!

a) Think you missed this bit



b) Think you missed this bit

Thats why I said.... IF and of course you are right until we know ALL the facts. So I will get back to you then.

Think you missed this bita) The RFl weren't advised of the positive test until 15/02 so they can't be expected to consider any results before that[/i

[sizeThread Cleaned Up!

No one has been found guilty of anything - yet.

Not any player or any club. This board will not become a kangaroo court for any individual or for any club.

Any posts which could, in any circumstances, be deemed to cross this line, will be removed - and the poster either warned or banned themselves.

No leniency! [/size

Sorry not relevant IMHO

If a convicted cheat plays in a game or games then his effect on the outcome should at least be considered.

I am not saying what the outcome of any consideration should be only that there must be some review regardless of the clubs involved.

I would qualify this by also saying the conviction MUST be for performance ehancing drugs...recreational use is not a consideration here IMHO.

Here's a thought.
Newton was injured late last season. What if he ill advisedly took some "drug" or "medicine" to help him with the injury.

Remember it has happened before with Kieron Cunningham, so until the actual charges / results are confirmed it is probably better we keep our powder dry.

Let's wait and see before hanging him out to dry.

What does this mean for wakefield then, its obviously bad publicity, but will there be a fine or anything?

I doubt it - there's not a lot that a club can do to interfere with what a player does in his own time, Trinity arn't responsible unless they have administered the medicine that contains the substance.

I really hope it is a mix up, it'd be a real shame for Terry to end a long and successful career in disgrace.

Well judging by the recent RFL discipliniary decisions if he played for Warrington he would be let off.

Thought Boots N All was so bad its laughable.

I have heard judge judy is recruting she wants an assistant I'm going to put your name forward TRB. But can you part with Ted? Thats the question?