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.

Kosh did you miss the bit about a lack of funds finishing the case?
6 figure sum spent already and not a bottomless pit unfortunatly,anyone can see why the small cover up led to a more serious one that the rfl cant admit,£28 million funding at risk,wow.
RFL is shocking in lots of things im afraid,this is just the biggest in my opinion.

Speculation intended to raise controversy where none exists. UKAD themselves tell us that it was legal advice that 'finished the case'. Apparently they are not to be trusted either.

When and is it known that Ben Westwood had failed a drugs test as well, can't recall said incident, cover up?

2002

What is staggering and unbelievable is the statement that UKAD handed the 'top secret dossier' in it's entirety to Gleeson in return for his cooperation. As the file contains many personal confidential statements, this is a massive breach of the Data Protection Act at the very least, surely.

With this admittance, it is fairly obvious who SportingIntelligence is getting it's excerpts from.

You sure the DPA would cover this?

Not sure, no. You'd think that some sort of confidentiality laws would be in place, though, otherwise the full openness of statements given by individuals to the UKAD could be compromised, if those individuals were aware that their revelations could be published for public scrutiny at some point in the future.

If people cannot be certain that information is given in confidence, that will surely curtail what they reveal. I'm certain Fitz, for example, is delighted that his impeccable reputation has now been besmirched.

It is in the interests of any investigation that all witness statements are treated with the utmost privacy.

Just seen that UKAD [iis[/i governed by the DPA in rlrespect of the storage of test results and athletes' personal informationrl.

Not sure if that would extend to statements given as part of an investigation?

I thought the DPA only covered data stored in electronic format and not the written word

No it's both. And verbal, too, I believe. My company is governed by the DPA, and part of my job is to ensure that the act is adhered to by all within my department.

I'm fairly sure it would.

If I were any of the folk whose details have appeared on that anti-RL website I'd be lodging a complaint and/or consulting a solicitor.

Surely it can't be lawful for Gleeson to have been given the file by UKAD, as stated by sportingintelligence?



It's almost as if UKAD were giving him the ammunition to, if not clear his name, then certainly to implicate others. It's ludicrous. And it can only be concluded that sportingintelligence are getting their info via Gleeson.

True.
So either Gleeson and/or sportingintelligence are making it up or the UKAD have questions to answer.