Sutherland was a total con merchant, wasn't he? He conned the RFL before he conned Saints.

By a shove to someones face and a high tackle?

Give over. There is so much barrel scraping in this thread its laughable. By all means, there is an argument to suggest that Long has tarnished his legacy by what has been written in his book, but to say KCs legacy is to be tarnished is just OTT

Its pretty obvious what the mitigating circumstances were. Hence why UK Sport needed to cover the RFL's and KFC's back.

Both St. Helens RLFC and the RFL are complete =rednot that word please for not checking him out, and they both share at least some of the blame for the total clusterf*ck that came from his employment.

Edit - apologies for the edited word, I'll not use it here again.

Ahh, yes - it's all a grand conspiracy involving the RFL, UK Sport and sundry other parties.

That's the more logical conclusion, as opposed to it not being wholly Cunningham's fault, much less something that he "got away with" - with the obvious implication that it was deliberate.

Actually you got it right in the post one above. I won't throw in the fact the RFL paid Cunningham money to stay in the game because you're twitchy enough as it is already.

Twitchy? Not really - more surprised that with all the ammo against Cunningham, some people choose to fixated on something that's such an obviously weak line of attack.

I,d give up if I was you, drugs and your avatar don,t mix.

Thread of the year!!!!

Was Feka put on report too?

You saints fans are a hoot..... You have a big game coming up, but you still get hot and bothered about the things said by fans of a lowly SL team. Good luck with that game BTW....

What a refreshing change to meet a wigan fan who knows their place

Wasn't Cunningham found guilty?

Yes, and fined.

Hardly "got away with it", particularly given the circumstances - which were acknowleged to be rather unusual.

Like I said, it's a weak argument at best.

Its not a weak argument according to WADA:



He was an extremely lucky boy - along with Senior and Bailey.

And yet he wasn't banned. If WADA had an issue with what happened, I presume they could have lodged an appeal against the ruling, as they did with Ian Sibbit.



I'm not sure that's fair - at that point even the IOC seem to have classed ephedrine as a warning rather than a ban. WADA themselves noted that it's particularly susceptible to accidental violations. And, again, they were fined.

Nothing that happened to them seems unduly lenient.

Cunningham can't do anything wrong.

Even on the BBC highlights yesterday they said his high tackle on Coley was carried out be Puletua.

I've no doubt that had any of Cunningham's, Senior's or Bailey's "mistakes" happened now the outcome would be very different given the RFL has signed up to the WADA code since they happened - your example of Ian Sibbit being a case in point.

Just look at what has happened to people like Paddy Kenny recently and that Scottish skier (who name escapes me) who took the American Vic's which contained banned substances instead of a British Vic's which doesn't.

Senior and Bailey should have been banned for being thick.

Whoah, whoah, whoah - if the RFL weren't signed up to WADA, why are you quoting WADA guidelines in support of your argument against Cunningham?

They have no jurisdiction in the situation we're talking about. You can't make a case for what should have happened according to WADA if the RFL weren't operating under WADA rules.



If they are playing sport under the auspices of WADA rules, they are subject to those rules.

Either the RFL were under WADA rules, and Cunningham was not banned and WADA didn't object (hence quoting WADA rules seems a little strange), or the RLF were [inot[/i signatories to WADA and eance quoting WADA rules is even more strange, and irrelevent in addition.



I'm inclined to agree.

But they were dealt with under the rules at that time, under which a fine and a reprimand were considered appropriate.

I don't think any of them can be considered to have "got away with it".

The RFL Disciplinaries are a joke. Coley's "high shot", the one which bounced up off the ball and warranted a 30-second ticking off from Ganson ALSO apparently warrants a "formal caution", yet Cunningham high-tackles Coley straight round the neck, not a word is said to him, and the RFL follow it up with "On-field warning sufficient".

And for there to be no mention of the disgraceful elbow to Tomkins on 8 minutes is absolutely ludicrous.

I think the formula someone posted on here once (ages ago) is absolutely spot on. Bans are worked out like this:

((A+B)*C)-X = number of games banned

Where A = severeness of incident, B = injury caused, C = players previous record and X = 0 for most teams and 30 for St Helens.

I'm officially handing the title of Dirtiest RL Player to Cunningham. Sorry, Leon Pryce, better luck next season.

To be fair to Tomkins he just got straight back up, dusted himself off and carried on playing. If he has stayed down and milked it then maybe the incident would of been spotted and reported. If it was Lee Briers the game would of been stopped for 20 minutes while he wiped the tears from his eyes and got himself a new pair of shorts.

Yeah I remember all wigan fans sticking up for your golden boy when he delibratly went to injury cunninghams knee in your game earlier this season.

KC Just out for a bit of revenge. Both didnt get punished so I beleive thats them equal now

Is tackling below the knee illegal too, now?

Two wrongs don't make a right.

you mean just like your dirty little swine Tomkins ! who did cunninghams legs in a cheap shot the other week ?