Probably not, but the precedent for this drug has been set by Gleesons banning therefore I would assume any player testing positive for this will in the future be banned.

It seems very difficult for the players, should they take the word of the trained professional that what they take is ok or should they all have their own personal advisor to safeguard against this happening again.

I do agree with a dum dum, surely if you need a drug to stop you feeling tired then you must be on a slippery slope, why would a diet pill make you feel less tired, surely the whole point of diet pills is to use energy not add it.

Another point to bare in mind, a lot are saying these type of drugs are trivial and don't aid performance but surely if you feel knackered during a match and you take something that stops you feeling knackered then its enhancing your performance.

That was 2004, 5/6 years before what Gleeson took was even banned. Morally a stuff-up is still just a stuff-up, but I think the rules have probably tightened on the back of things like that. If 7/8 of your players were taking it too, they must be looking at Gleeson and thinking 'could have easily been me'. Gleeson, for all his issues over the years can justifiably wonder 'why me?'

Completely agree. It's one thing using a drug for what it's meant for, in this case a slimming aid. But to use it for it's other benefits, faster recovery time & extra energy, (I believe) has got to be wrong in anyones eyes IMO.

The rules are actually very clear on this point. The ultimate responsibility for making sure that anything taken by an athlete is not on the WADA banned list lies with the athlete and nobody else. This was reinforced following the Senior incident.

Have resisted untill now to voice my opinion on this, But having read the League press this morning & done a little investigating of my own I find it interesting that there is such an emotive use of the word banned drug! it turns out that the said drug is perfectly legal to take except within 12 hours of competition. As is caffine (drink to much coffee you can fail the drugs test).
I find this a none story by a rag that wont report on our game in any other circumstance & should be treated with the contempt it deserves, If it has the proof it says it has then go to the police otherwise shut up & leave our game alone as it dose for most of the year.

Its a good point you make, and left at that I am sure it would all be "ok"

The problem is the cover up. To me, sadly, I believe that there is something not quite right about the whole affair, in how it has been reported. Seems to me that there are things still to come out. Longy seems really vocal on the subject, but probably just sticking up for his mate. Its a sorry mess.

Just seen thishttp://www.sportingintelligence.com/2012/01/16/sean-long-exclusive-i-gave-gleeson-banned-drugs-gleeson-scapegoat-in-cover-up-160103/rl

Not read it yet. Will report back with my opinion...

The original interview is rlHERErl and other than Longy sticking up for his mate, there's nothing to get excited about

You've linked to the exact same page as me.

oooooppppssss

So coddy now that Long has stated that quote"I’d been using OxyElite Pro for months, and so had other lads at the club, mistakenly, because Coops had told us it was fine."do you want to change ya mind about other Fc players on the drug now or is Long a liar ?

I'd say the only real precedent that's been set here is don't lie to the UKDA!
Does anyone actually have any idea how long Gleeson would have been banned for had there been no lying?


They've been briefed in the past about how it's their responsibility to check substances. It concerns me that so many of our squad of allegedly not followed this.
I feel sorry for him in the fact that he believed someone that should have known better (in fact, two people if you include Long), but it is ultimately his own responsibility.


You've taken it completely out of context. He's not taken a pill for this drug. He's taken a pill and not realised what's in it on the advice of his friend and "passed" by his conditioner. It's like saying your on a slippery slope because you had a cup of coffee in the morning because you were tired.
Also, I don't understand your logic behind your last point. If you don't have much energy, you're not going to be able to do the exercise necessary to burn off fat.


You're right, but there are different levels of performance enhancing, different times you're allowed to take them and different amounts you're allowed to take.

Look, I realise that English comprehension may be an alien subject in Pontefract but can you point to where I claimed that no other players, apart from Long & Gleeson had been using a banned (in competition) substance?

Read the words as they are written, not how you hope or even believe they are written

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

"could well" ha ha lol good comeback mind.