What do you mean got there in the end?

The Hull FC club has been discovered attempting to cover up drug taking by one of its players. I don't think it unreasonable to discuss whether the club should face some form of punishment. In the same way they would face punishment if the club had broken the salary cap, the people involved are actually irrelevant.

Of course it would be legal, stop being so defensive.

So according to your beliefs, Cunnigham should have been treated in the same manner as Gleeson.

And your evidence is?????

It took several pages before some one raised the issue of some punishment to the club, a record.



OK but the club has been sold and a complete change at board, administration and coaching has taken place since this incident happened. Punish the new Hull FC owner or those who where responsible at the time?



I am not being defensive I simply ask how can it be legal to punish a club for a previous administrations short comings ?

These jokers did the game as a whole no favours and I would love to get to the bottom of this,this is the tip of the iceberg. Who knew about this and who else is implicated some have moved on to other clubs, some walked away very smartish as well. I for one would welcome a full investigation and I do not believe for one moment that these three acted independantly, knowing the culture at FC AT THE TIME.

i don't see what good a points deduction or fine would make except for a deterent and the long bans for guilty individuals would seem to suffice here. i think in cases like this individuals involved should be punished not the club as a whole - sackings and bans would seem to be the way forward here. this is my view regardless of which team is involved. lets just hope that everyone gulity in this case has been punished and certain individuals haven't got away with it

Wrong. Three individuals have been found guilty - read the judgements from the UKDA. No mention of the [iclub[/i being guilty whatsoever. It's still possible that the RFL may try and accuse the club of something, but as it stands it's all down to the three folk who have copped the bans.


It would be legal - as in not against the laws of the land - but not necessarily enforceable. There'd certainly be a good case for a challenge given that not one single person involved remains at the club and there has been a change of ownership.

Of course it would be enforceable - an organisation is vicariously liable for the actions of it's employees and sacking them/assisting them to leave doesn't alleviate that liability; if an investigation found that the attempted cover-up was systemic and part of the culture at the Hull FC, the RFL could very easily apply a sanction that the club would have little hope of overturning.

As an aside - by your logic, WTW should have had last season's 4 point deduction reinstated, since the insolvency that precipitated it was incurred under a previous owner; I don't remember you, or anyone else, making that case.

Quote MARTIN GLEESON is considering legal ­action against former club Hull after being hit with a three-year drugs ban. The ex-Great Britain centre, 31, who had half his sentence ­suspended, tested positive for a banned stimulant. But Gleeson has told friends he took an energy supplement which contained the drug ­methylhexaneamine in good faith'" www.dailystar.co.uk/rugby/view/2 ... -drug-ban/

Quote MARTIN GLEESON is considering legal ­action against former club Hull after being hit with a three-year drugs ban. The ex-Great Britain centre, 31, who had half his sentence ­suspended, tested positive for a banned stimulant. But Gleeson has told friends he took an energy supplement which contained the drug ­methylhexaneamine in good faith'" www.dailystar.co.uk/rugby/view/2 ... -drug-ban/

I'm as suprised as you, it should have appeared far earlier.


The fact that the club has new owners is irrelevant. The club through its CEO at the time tried to cover up drug taking by a player. The club is liable for the actions of its CEO in the same way it is when breaching the salary cap. The new owners have bought that liability when they bought the club. All offences committed don't immediately cease to be punished just due to a change of ownership as Bren points out.


Come on, you're not that daft.


It would be interesting to know if anyone else knew what was happening with Gleeson, whether for instance Agar knew. If he didn't who was lying to him about why Gleeson was unavailable for selection.
That still doesn't absolve Hull FC as a club from blame since their CEO has been found covering it all up.

Personally I think some sort of punishment should be due, whether its just a fine or what, but there has to be some form of punishment handed out from the RFL.

It's not wrong. The Hull FC CEO was found covering it up whilst acting for the club. The club are liable for actions taken by him within his job. In the same way as if he hid salary cap evidence from the RFL so that his club could breach the salary cap. Unless you're suggesting that the likes of Melbourne, Canterbury, Wigan, Saints, Bradford etc shouldn't have been punished and only the CEO's involved? Which would be bizarre.


Of course it would be enforceable. It's no different to a salary cap or any other operation rules breach by a club. What is it with defensive Hull fans who previously were sensible people suddenly becoming unable to think clearly?
The fact there is a change of ownership and officials is irrelevant. Otherwise Melbourne could easily have avoided their massive fine and points deduction by quickly selling to a mate and then buying it back a year later.

Why are some Hull fans suddenly so defensive over a perfectly legitimate question regarding an offence being punished in whatever manner?

wow, never heard of a CEO covering up drug use in this way before, have to question how much the coach knew as well. The club are culpable as they were ultimately responsible and should be punished, even if it is a suspended fine. As said if it had been a salary cap breach they would still be fined or points deducted. Bad look for the game all round.

More controversey from the Hull mob when will it ever change

Hopefully things will change now that Hetherington and her cronies have gone (btw I know you are trolling)

Once again the club I love are proving to be an embarrassment to the game. It pains me to say this but the RFL should punish Hull for bringing the game into disrepute.

What will happen to Sean Long, seeing he supplied it to Gleeson?

Sean Long supplied the pills. I wonder where he got them

And in Bradford's case that Chairman & CEO had left the club when the points deduction was imposed. Give us our points back!

Seriously, the notion that a club's CEO, when presenting evidence to UKAD, is only doing so in a personal capacity and not on behalf of the club cant be right.

The judgement reads as if Long has in some way given evidence - how else could they confirm that Gleeson's claim about getting the supplements from Long was "truthful". Which means that for the second time, Sean Long has admitted to taking banned substances. Both times he's avoided punishment, unlike his unfortunate mates.

It wouldn't be so obvious you were fishing if you didn't keep saying "why are the Hull fans do defensive?" over and over. We're from Hull, we know a lot about fishing



As for punishing the Hull club, there is no rule that says "if you do this, the club will be punished this way". The only thing it says about drugs use I'd that those involved will be banned. It wouldn't be legal for the RFL to punish Hull with a points deduction because of this. They can't just make up punishments. When it comes to the salary cap, it is specifically written what the punishments are in regards to fines and points deductions (hence why Wigan's point deduction had to be reduced, as it was written that it was 4 points the year they broke the cap despite the RFL wanting to deduct

.

They could probably fine Hull if they wanted, but I don't see what that would achieve as you wouldn't be punishing anyone involved. The difference with this and a club going into administration is that the rules are already in place and the new buyer will have gotten the club on the cheap due to the administration.

I hope that is sufficient, or am I being defensive?

Makes a change from it not being St Helens. Guess we're just picking up where you left off...

Nothing I believe, he supplied them in good faith based on the word of Cooper that they were ok. What could he possibly be charged with?

I think the truthful part is when they say that Long gave them to him on Cooper's permission (which Cooper will have backed up), not that he'd simply given them to him.

It would be odd though, to have not asked Long about it? The whole thing has taken 6 months to investigate. UKDA's report states as fact that Long was taking a banned substance (the same offence as Gleeson). Presumably they are not taking this further though.

I'm shocked that you've taken this stance, really.

According to one of this morning's rags Gleeson is going to sue Hull FC for lost earnings for effectively ending his playing career, saying that what he had taken had been approved by the club through the proper channels and that he had only taken it because such formal approval had been sought and given. He also says that several other Hull FC players had taken the same thing but were lucky and didn't get tested.