If you're so sure you're right, how come the club haven't been punished?

You're either very arrogant or very stubborn if you can't prove your point but insist that it's right.

Its all Radford`s fault.

Presumably its not within UKAD's remit to punish clubs? Wouldnt the natural sequence be for them to deal with the individuals, with any action against the club taken subsequently by the RFL?

Precisely.

What I'm arguing against here is the misguided certainty of some Hull fans, who seem to think that the RFL can't punish the club for the actions of it's employees, simply because there's been a regime change, some resignations or because the individuals were acting independently; all of those assumptions are wrong.

What I'm not arguing however, is that the RFL definitely will punish the club; I believe they should, but I'm not certain they will.

On another matter - am I right in thinking that all three players who've been busted for drug offences in the past couple of seasons are Wigan products?

to be fair it has, but with adam pearson now in charge, all fc fans are excited and optimistic about our future now, we've rid ourselves of the cancer at the club finally, one of the best days in the clubs history when pearson took over and one of the worst for dobbins fans!

It's been even longer that we've listened to your lot promising to operate within budget

I think you might find that any ongoing UKDA investigations are confidential and as such cannot be declared to a 3rd party, even if that 3rd party is in the process of buying the club that the individuals are employed by.

I too would have thought something like this would be revealed through due dilligence until the confidentiality aspect was brought to my attention.

Its there forheads that does it for me mate

Possibly you could quote the posts by Hull fans where it's been said with [icertainty[/i that the RFL [ican't[/i punish the club? I've certainly made no such assertion, although you apparently think that I have.

Whatever the problem, surely there's more to life than to be arguing and posting about it at the time you was on NYE

well according to league weekly hull won't be further punished by the rfl, but not for the reasons discussed on here in the main. seems that the rfl do not impose further punishments in this area and leave it up to uk anti doping to impose the sanctions. as i mentioned earlier and as in the majority of drugs in sport cases it is the individuals involved who are punished

however this is league weekly we are talking about so may not be 100% accurate

Wonder if they will be punished for Joe Westerman.. Same goes for Liam Watts and Richard Owen, and their clubs.

Wonder what they would have done if Rule had still been in charge? Classic RFL brush under the carpet response.

My thoughts exactly - the RFL has let UKAD do the dirty work and despite stating in the public domain last week that Hull FC had brought the game into disrepute, appear to have chosen to do nothing about it; surely that sends out completely the wrong message to everyone within and without the game?

[size=200WRONG[/size

[iChief executive Nigel Wood said: "Such behaviour is unacceptable and this case has brought the sport of rugby league into disrepute.[/i

Now where does he say that Hull FC have brought the game into disrepute?

If you're gonna have a go a trolling, try learning from a master, there are a number of them on here

Well he isn't in charge any more, he "resigned" on the day he knew he would definitely be charged.

So you can put the crusty sock back in the drawer

You're arguing semantics; if this case has brought the sport into disrepute, it follows that Hull FC are responsible for that, since they are vicariously liable for the actions of their employees.

It's a pointless debate however, since the RFL appear to have opted to take the path of least resistance.

I'm not arguing semantics fool, I'm stating that your assertion was wrong, which it very definitely was. It could also be construed as borderline libelous.

Three ex-employees of Hull FC have been found liable, not the club, nor any other employees.

Now much as it may pain you, accept the fact that any and all sanctions have been delivered and get on with your twisted, little life.

Semantics and ad-hominem, in the space of two posts; you're my hero.

RFLP in no balls shocker!

And I aint getting on no plane!

Give it up, coddy. He knows all there is to know about vicarious liability and that's all there is to it.

You seem obsessed with this. Are you still angry that we binned agar and he ended up in wakefield?

1. HullFC brought the game into disrepute as it was HULLFC's stupid centre, who took banned substances gained from HULLFC's stupid Captain, passed by HULLFC's stupid conditioner and it was covered up by HULLFC's CEO.
At no other time in the last week has any other club BUT HULLFC had any involvement in this and as such it was their name and kit all over every channel and all the national press!!!

2. Of Course FC should be punished, he was clearly using this during his time on the field for FC and as such since certain club figure heads new it then the whole club was cheating!!!!

Awww bless

Back to school soon eh?