I can see where you're coming from, but I wouldn't go shaking the hand of someone who has tried to cheat the game.

He went the complete wrong way about sorting the situation out, and as such has dragged the club's name through the mud. Whether his intentions were for the good of the club or not is irrelevant. He's tried to cheat the game.

Theres issues we'll agree on and others we won't.

Common sense decision making goes awry if your put under enough pressure...I've done it.

I fully support 100% AP.

Cover ups start when you make foolish decisions and believe the consequences can be very damaging / may lose you your job or liberty. He's only human.

Then we agree he wasnt fit for the job?

I said, I would shake his hand for attempting (badly) to defend the club / players.

No one on here seriously believes JR did this with sole intent to embarrass or destoy our club?

If there's evidence to the contrary, then I'll be at the front of the hanging brigade.

Some things I dont understand from the whole debacle and article.

The articled stresses the "whole squad" and Gleeson "was far from alone" in using the OxyElite

First off isnt the point of OxyElite to be a fat burner? And if one player perhaps needed that and not to "enhance" his game as such it was the unfit Gleeson? Why would a whole raft of players need to suddenly just start taking something because it became available?

Secondly as people have pointed out its also the responsibility of the player to check a product. So are we saying every single player was that stupid that nobody questioned it or checked not even the odd brighter spark?

And rather than Rule or the RFL warning UK Anti-Doping that the "whole squad" may have taken something are saying a body like that wouldnt have scented blood after the first failure and gone after FC like a dog after a bone?

And finally how long does it last in the system to become posotive. Are we saying no other players were tested in this time period as I presumed someone would be tested randomly almost weekly?

Its easy to accept the potentially one side mail article worst case scenario but at the same time their seems to be no real proof of that whatsoever

s

On where he was part of the team that took our club to Grade A licence.....record season pass sales....record merchandise sales...pioneering internet club site....advanced fans information forums....YES He was more than fit for the job.

If he was still in the job now.....then I would let internal disciplinary procedures taken there course....because believe me.....internal procedures would of found out the full truth of exactly who was involved and at what level decisions were made.

Irrelevant, on this issue, which is part of his duties, he's failed.

So badly he's been banned for two years.

We don't know the true time line for this offer or when the RFL got involved.

If the RFL instructed us that the game was ok to go on, then any consequences were deemed to be purile ? surely

No one has suggested this and I have no idea why you have.

By trying to cover up the incident, Rule has cheated the game, regardless of his intentions. People don't cheat to get caught, so his intentions weren't to embarrass the club and get himself banned. His intentions were to help the club, just like any other person's intentions when they cheat in sport.

Cooper gave bad advice. The players forgot their responsibility. But Rule actively tried to cover things up. THAT is cheating.


He WAS good enough, I won't argue that. Although he did also make plenty of gaffs.


If he was still in the job now, he'd be getting paid to sit at home because he's banned for two years. The procedures have been done by UKAD and they've reached a conclusion and banned people. Why do another investigation in-house when the person involved cannot work in the game? If there was anything else to be said, he should have said it to UKAD.

He was wasn't he? As soon as he became aware of the problem he reported it to the RFL and that it may be a wider issue that could affect the whole team. He even suggested that he stand the squad down. So how is it , after he did that and the RFL agreed that the derby should go on , agreed that Gleeson should play and suggested that Rule's opinion that it could affect the whole squad was hearsay without evidence and therefore should not be passed on to the authorites , that Rule is the only administrator that has been held accountable? This isn't Rule's version of events , this is what MoS are alleging. He's been stupid , arrogant perhaps but if he told the RFL and they as the games governing body more or less said don't worry then you can perhaps forgive him for going along with them. What he did afterwards , well he got his punishment.

Might be worth watching Twitter for updates - posted a minute ago -

TherealSeanLong Sean Bernard Long
GLEESON- the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth..... So help me God!!!!

Also of interest I suspect...

@danlocky1 Danny Lockwood
So how much did Gleeson/Max Clifford try to sell story to Sun for, before Mail bit? I'll tell you tomorrow in #LeagueWeekly

Anyone who believes a word Gleeson says needs to give their head bang. If he said it was raining outside I'd go and check. He plays the victim every time he's caught doing something he shouldn't and all the depression talk is bollox as far as I'm concerned. As my Gran would say "he's a wrong 'un".