Yeah good luck with that Martin!!

Over the counter in a chemist? What makes you think these are in any way illegal?

He may well have a good case actually. If the people employed by the club to advise players about what they can and cannot take say a product is ok then the player can reasonably say that he was acting on the advice and knowledge of those people and had a reasonable right to expect and believe that they would give him the correct advice.

Thought the onus was on the individual to ensure they are not taking anything that is on the banned list. It's a bit like the taxman, when you tell him that your work has cocked up the details on your P11D, they tell you its your fault at all times.

But Gleeson didn't get advice from qualified professionals at the club, he got it from Sean Long in 2011. MHA was banned in 2010, apparently. Presumably [iafter[/i Ben Cooper told Long that he was OK to take it, but before [iLong[/i gave them to Gleeson.
The actual doping offence seems unfortunate TBH. But changing the story to cover it up was dumb and those involved have been rightly punished.

Not only did I think that too, I also thought it was such a long established principle that I was both shocked and amazed when "senior" players walked away scot free from exactly that situation with the GB conditioner some years ago.

Not quite scot free since the two Leeds players in question at the time did end up paying a fine. What is interesting about that case however is the obvious cover-up involved at the time. It was stated that both players avoided a ban on the basis they'd declared what they had taken prior to being tested and that unknowingly, they'd imbibed a banned substance via a cold/flu remedy whilst in GB camp.

However, according to the "senior" player in his book, he admitted taking the tablets on a routine and regular match day basis during the 2004 season and claimed other Leeds players were doing the same that year. His positive sample was returned during the Tri Nations. He claims another Leeds player was taking the tablets in order to lose weight and because they made him feel better but that particular Leeds player didn't return any positive sample therefore it must be ok to use them. He also claims the other Leeds player who returned a positive drug sample did so immediately after the 2004 Grand Final and not whilst in GB camp with cold/flu symptoms. The "senior" player concludes with a comment about being looked after due to being a high profile GB player and was thankful that on the same day the drug charges were announced his club helped to deflect attention away from the news by announcing to the media they were interested in signing Jamie Langley from Bradford.

If the original BOD was still in charge then you might have a point. It isn't. There is simply nobody left at the club who might have been involved.

Your comparison with WTW is flawed as the points penalty is not designed to punish any individual or collective wrongdoing. I think it was also already in place when the change of ownership occurred.

Deluded

it is present in many decongestants and also now sports suppliments bought over the counter,
it's been around since the 1970's but in 2010 its was placed on the WADA Prohibited List in 2010 classed as a Non Specified Stimulant. can be named as:-Methylhexaneamine; Methylhexanamine; DMAA (dimethylamylamine); Geranamine; Forthane; Forthan; Floradrene; 2-hexanamine, 4-methyl-; 2-hexanamine, 4-methyl- (9CI); 4-methyl-2-hexanamine; 1,3-dimethylamylamine; 4-Methylhexan-2-amine; 1,3-dimethylpentylamine; 2-amino-4-methylhexane; Pentylamine, 1, 3-dimethyl-.
so you can see how hard it would be to check against

However from 2011 it has been re-classified as a Specified Stimulant. It is prohibited in-competition only.it has caught quite a few sportmen out notably Kolo Toure, the issue that marks out the bans on the three ex Hull employees is they gave false evidence, not specifically the banned substance or how they came about it.

The whole thing is a pointless exercise in ridiculousness. When a sportsman cant take an over the counter medication, something which they are not only able but expected to self medicate with you have to wonder what on earth are we attempting to achieve.

Lets be honest, we arent looking at concerted efforts to use dangerous and unproven drugs to improve performance, we arent looking at HGH, EPO or a cocktail of steroids,

we are looking at benylin. If Benylin and methylhexaneamine are banned, why not caffeine?

Masking agents??

I honestly wasn't fishing, I posted a question as to whether the Hull club should be punished and the first reply from a Hull fan was implying that it was ridiculous to punish the club and was obviously part of some bias against Hull. I was and still am confused as to why Ian P and Kosh are so defensive about a legitimate question regarding punishment of a club found to have broken the rules.

Actually the club can be punished. They have breached the RFL Operational Rules. You're right in that it doesn't mention specific punishments but that doesn't mean the club cant be punished. All the RFL have to do is set up an Operational Rules Tribunal and decide an appropriate punishment.

This argument that because the club has new owners is totally and utterly irrelevant. The new owners bought the club, either they didn't do due dilligence or they got the club cheaper than if there was no impending drugs investigation. So it is exactly the same as a club who goes into administration or breaks the salary cap. In the end Hull FC breached the RFL Operational Rules, who did it is irrelevant since it was a major club official acting in his official capacity for the club. In exactly the same way a salary cap breach would be done.

I don't think a points deduction is reasonable, but a fine would be about right.

www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/ ... 6233561884 if the aussies want to claim him they can have him

www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sport/ ... 6233561884 if the aussies want to claim him they can have him

And what nonsense that is, we have a situation where because an athlete has one substance in their body their body we assume they have another in their body. What other situation would you accept something like that as fair?

If we get a fine/Points deduction then so be it. The club is guilty of an attempted cover up and regardless of the sale the club is still liable for any penalty given to it. The best thing to do is to take any punishment dished out on the chin and just get on with it.

Can the RFL prove that Hull FC have breached operational rules however, without getting into a messy argument over whether James Rule was acting in his capacity as a director of the club in his part in this incident? Were other directors or board members aware of what Rule was doing, or was he acting alone and under his own auspices rather than as a representative of the club and with the club's full knowledge and complicity?

Similarly with the conditioner, if one employee of an organisation is providing banned substances to another employee, is the organisation responsible for their behaviour or is the individual?

In the interests of saving everyone involved the time and cost of charging the club with a breach of the operational rules I reckon the RFL/UKDA have handled this about right. The contrary conduct here lies with the individuals rather than their employer and it is they who should take the consequences.

Why is giving an alternative opinion suddenly classed as being defensive?

I could be wrong, and if I am then so be it. I won't be calling foul or blaming anyone other than the clowns involved.

Once again, how exactly am I being defensive? I haven't mentioned any bias or conspiracy against Hull, I haven't commented on the fairness or otherwise of any punishment - I've merely offered an [iopinion[/i on why I think that a punishment might be difficult to enforce. If we do end up with a fine or similar then I'll be blaming Rule and the others involved, not any so-called conspiracy.

I still think that it's unlikely that the RFL will choose to open this particular can of worms. If they levy a punishment on the club then they will have to go after the old BOD as well, and I don't see that happening any time soon.

About sums it up for me. Only thing RFL could charge Hull FC, as a club, with would be bringing game into disrepute. Dont think it would be fair to punish them on the field with a points deduction as the new administration have helped with the investigation and people directly involved have left the club. Worst case for me is a token fine which club should just accept and move. Fact it wasnt announced at same time as the bans suggests to me that no further action will be taken though.

I would agree if the people involved were just at the level of a player or conditioner, but when the CEO gets involved it brings the club with it. As I mentioned before if James Rule had signed players whilst knowing it would take Hull over the salary cap it wouldn't need the full backing or knowledge of the board for the club to be punished since he would be deemed to be acting in his capacity as CEO, just as he was in this case. The club are responsible for the actions of their CEO in the same way Rupert Murdoch/News Corp etc are responsible for the actions of their employees when hacking phones.

you did'nt just compare hull fc to news corp did you??...........oh yeah you did...........we can lock this thread now yeah??

Do they both have officials and employees? Are they responsible for the actions of those employees when doing things within their job?

If you don't like that then the salary cap breach analogy will do fine. Or when Hull fielded an ineligible player, the club was fined then despite it being either the head coach or the CEO's decision to allow him to play.
Clubs have been fined for failing to control their fans or players in the past. I don't see why the club should escape punishment for the actions of a CEO. It just lays the path wide open for a Melbourne style hiding of contracts and if caught just blame the CEO.

For me if we get a fine then as long as its not ridiculous pay it and move on.
The people involved with this the CEO, conditioner, player have basically been sacked by our new regime so they have had some punishment.
What i would like to see investigated a bit more is the other ex employees eg Head coach Agar, Chairwoman Kath and the rest of board, if they were complicit with this then they should not be able to just walk away scott free after selling a company.
As Hull fans we know the last board kept a few things hidden away from our new owner.

And the punishment in docking points would be what exactly?

They still get sky money, they can't be relegated. Big woop. They must be shaking in their boots!

Kinda makes cheating worthwhile, eh?