would be a real shame IF proven, could be the end of his career.

Has this been confirmed anywhere? If true then (again I'm clutching at straws) there is more of a possibility of it being present in a medicine.

Theres always something to put the boot in our season , i hope the rest of the squad pull together have a nice week off and then do the business at saints

Would it really effect us much??

He has been a wakey player a matter of months and has played around 20 mins of rugby.

Does it normally take this long for results of a drugs test to be known? Just wondering why he wasn't suspended sooner if he failed it in November?

He was tested during pre-season according to sky sports.

Was is Newton who sued a TV Mag or something like that, that mistakenly printed he'd failed a drug test previously?

Yep, there's a link on the Bradford forum. Typical.

it takes about 3 months for the 2nd test and proceedings to start ...

wakey player so inocennt until proven guilty in my eyes and ill give terry my full backing until otherwise

Agreed, full facts first and all that.

Recreational or performance - if its banned its banned.
Hock got 2 years for cocaine.

If it's something that's possibly happened what he was at Bradford let's hope it doesn't involve the other two ex bulls.

Problem is, as the second one takes so long, we are a player down until he is proved innocent or guity.
He can't play but we can't make a decision to recruit elsewhere.

So the anti-doping agency (or whatever they're called) don't suspend anyone until then? I can kinda understand why, innocent until proven guilty and all that, but it doesn't make the club look good when it says he failed a drugs test in November and he's played since then.

I really hope for his sake it is something he's taken unknowingly in cough medicine or something, otherwise he's just unbelievably stupid. Either way I don't want to see him play for Wakey again.



Any ideas how long it takes for results of the 2nd test?

Jeez! There is nothing like dragging everybody into it. There is nothing to say they or any other player is involved!

that's it you see the 2nd test results will be in , as with Hock last year he was suspended on receiving the 2nd test results ,

i used to be a chemical analysis for corus and as far as i know the only incorrect test is when it comes back neg- , however it may be cough medicine or something but a pro like terry with international experience should be aware of this.

Listen to Paul Cullen on boots 'n all.

Suspended until his hearing which could be 6-8 weeks so either way whether he's guilty or not were not gonna see him on the field for 2months or so, if he's guilty up to a 2yr ban.

I would imagine the club will know what Terry has taken by now and will either be actively looking at players who may be available or holding out for the final outcome of the hearing knowing that it may be possible that he has unknowingly taken a banned substance.

Ah right, so the results of the 2nd test will be in now? I take it they're also a positive test then, otherwise he wouldn't have been suspended? I agree about your cough medicine comment though - any professional sports player should go out of their way to know what medicine they can and can't take. I just hope he was forgetfull/silly rather than downright stupid and knowingly took a banned substance.

They dont suspend players with no proof

yeah before you suspend a player you must have 2 positives , can you imagine the uproar if he missed l;ets say 8 games and the test then came back as neg- ...

im afraid that these tests are almost foolproof

Fair enough, that makes sense. I presume at a hearing then he will be found guilty and we then sack him and don't have to pay him off as its a breach of contract?

But anyone know what happens if he's guilty but doesn't get a ban - would the club then have to pay him off to get rid or could we just sack him? I know if guilty it's overwhelmingly likely he'll get a ban, but I like to worry

RFL statement on Terry Newton