Just received my Mail and there's not much to this. It's not an interview, just a statement. It backs Rule and says Gleeson and Cooper "changed their stories several times".

She says "It is very sad that his [Rule's name along with Hull FC and the rugby league should be tarnished in this way and I have very serious misgivings on the outcome of this process".

Why "serious misgivings"?

Does she know more about it? Is she disputing UKAD's evidence/decision?

I knew it wouldn't be a interview, even a idiot like Fewings could put her on the back foot and rip holes in her ownership of the club.

We'll never know the nuances of what happened. The extent to which Rule orchestrated the cover up or just ran with the stories he was given, and was wrong-footed when they changed. It still isn't clear to me why they changed their stories. A sudden, selfless love of the truth, perhaps.



Clearly it is in KH's interests to put it on Gleeson and Cooper - the bad apples argument.

One lesson I'd learn, if a player failed a drugs test at a club I ran, is to use an independent lawyer to represent them. Puts an immediate buffer in place, while still taking care of the player.

Agree with your main point and as for the above - I'm still puzzled as to why Rule didn't do this himself in the first place

Damn I hate that woman.

[urlhttp://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/HULL-FC-Hetherington-sad-Rule-s-ban/story-14343910-detail/story.html[/url

Full thing there.

"At the outset James informed the RFL, UKAD and myself as chairperson of Hull FC what he had been told by Gleeson and Cooper," Kath said.

"James then liaised closely with the RFL and also helped facilitate professional counselling because Gleeson was in a very vulnerable state of mind.

"Gleeson and Cooper ultimately received bans from UKAD having changed their stories several times.

"The rules of UKAD offer reduced sentences to guilty parties if they then produce information to implicate others and this is what happened to James."

I guess UKAD and Kath will have to agree to disagree eh?

If James co-operated fully from the outset, how the hell did he get a ban and if Kath knew, then shes implicated too?

BS from the Heth

and I know who I believe!

It's an interesting distinction between 'information' and 'evidence'. Did Gleeson and Cooper only provide the former, regarding Rule being complicit? If they didn't provide evidence, why didn't Rule fight it tooth and nail?

I still don't see the point of the original lie or any profit in then recanting it. The whole thing just seems weird to me.

so it begins

Agree with you there. The whole thing stinks and Kath speaking up adds more weight to it being the tip of the iceberg so to speak. Rule has for whatever reason decided to agree to the ruling. Like you said if it is just Gleeson & copper saying he instigated the cover up (can it be called a cover up when they are not covering anything up?) he could quite easily say it wasn't. Surely the burden of proof would be on Gleeson & Cooper, otherwise it would open up a whole new can of worms.