Quote Standee="Standee"No, I didn't, just because UKAD didn't decide to take action doesn't mean Sport England shouldn't revisit their decision to fund the sport with many millions of pounds of tax payers money. One minute you're bleating about someone quite rightly getting their bonus (and turning it down), the next you are happy for the state to be funding an organisation that indulged in a cover up of activities outwith the rules.'"
And now you're sailing close to the wind.
UKAD investigated the possibility of a deliberate cover-up by the RFL. They decided not to pursue any punitive action on the grounds that there was insufficient evidence of any such thing. The RFL are, therefore, innocent of a cover-up until somebody proves otherwise.
Sport England delegates enforcement of it's anti-doping policy to UKAD. Without any action by UKAD they have no grounds to review funding as there is insufficient evidence of any wrongdoing. Of course they could decide to overrule UKAD and their specialist legal advice to launch a doubtless costly investigation of their own, but what are the chances of them coming up with different findings when they would very likely be relying on the same legal advice that UKAD already has?
I like your straw man, BTW. You seem to be growing increasingly fond of them.
