He makes a fair point, IMO. The Mail story seems/claims to have documents backing it up though. They're accusing the RFL of something subtlely different to what the RFL are denying, and I suspect ultimately the story will disappear down that gap. Has any other major news source picked it up? Some might tomorrow, I guess.

Making it about us - it puts the Mason furore of roughly the same time, and all the grief our board got, in the shade. Which is some achievement. I'd maybe be a tad peeved if I was them that the RFL didn't quietly try to bend the rules a bit more, in light of this, to help us avoid the embarrassing consequences. Possibly it didn't matter when WM's Toulon trip became known.

The paper has stated that it has written statements from other players at FC that have been taking this drug...... As a rl supporter i believe each and every one of these players should have their names brought forward and also banned for taking this drug....

By not doing so both the RFL and UKAD are being complacent in their duties to both the clubs and the fans by not taking the appropriate measures into dealing with the Drug cheats(intentional or not). And what it re-affirms is the fact that the RFL are just as crooked as most other major sporting organisations by turning a blind eye to the widespread usage of the substance... As mentioned by another poster it does make you wonder on just how widespread that it may be...

It's a interesting point and I wonder for the players to admit that they took the drug it would be put down to the condtioners error and no charges would be brought due to their 'honesty'.

While the intial error was the conditioners the players have the means to check.

I believe that will be exactly the case. I also believe, had it been a Championship team, they would have had the book thrown at them. And the kitchen sink. And anything else which came to hand.

Of course they should. How can they ban Gleeson and no one else? Will they? Of course they won't.

Was Gleesons ban for the drug, the cover up or both?

Does/Should it matter?

Well yes, that would be how they can ban Gleeson and no other player.

Surely any other players involved would be part of the cover up?

Wasn't Gleeson due a longer ban before being a snitch?

They could be, they could have also not known till Rule and Cooper told them that the diet pills they have been given are against the rules and they'll have to tell the rfl they were taking them.

All speculation obvouisly.

No it didn't, I suggest you read it again

Now it's correct, hardly a difference.

Paper also says Gleeson was 'banned for two years following him testing positive', no mention of the coverup, at that point, there was no coverup, Gleeson revealed the coverup in a "I'm taking you with me" kind of way.

Horrible read, for the sport.

Who else is taking this? Why use a dietary supplement when you're 'feeling tired'? Isn't that drug abuse?

In fact, a group of Hull players had used OxyElite Pro, putting themselves at risk of failing tests for a performance-enhancing drug.
These players included Gleeson and Long as well as other international players whose identities are known to Inside Sport.
They have admitted in statements to UKAD that they had used OxyElite Pro while at Hull FC, albeit in the mistaken belief that it had been cleared by Cooper as 'safe'.

Ok the paper hasnt statements but UKAD have apparently.

Again a very clever use of words by The WailIn fact, a group of Hull players had used OxyElite Pro, putting themselves at risk of failing tests for a performance-enhancing drug.

These players included Gleeson and Long as well as other international players whose identities are known to Inside Sport.

They have admitted in statements to UKAD that they had used OxyElite Pro while at Hull FC, albeit in the mistaken belief that it had been cleared by Cooper as 'safe'.[/i

The "they" referred to in the article could well be just Gleeson and Long. It's all in the ambiguity of the wording