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

Totally agree with Carney's point that the player should become liable in court if we take action against him, which I believe any club should if a player is found guilty.Because it is the club that suffers and the player is in breach. Also the point about having a clause in the contract is also a step forward and would strenghten the above point.

In civil law drink drivers are liable. This probably comes under commercial law but never the less should be treated in the exact same manner.

"I don't think Wakey will miss Newton too much as they have 2 very good players in Obst & Leo-Latu (sp)"

Was near enough what I put whilst also yes having a dispute with the whino person.

While not wishing to,or going to,defend any person who may have broken the law(s) of the land the signing this week by a coach who has in the past played under John Kear,raises some interesting points.
In this report the 7th paragraph ( 6th under the photograph ) is a little alarming and it does recommend giving the player support.[url=http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/sport/garyslater/4068911/Where_is_Richie_Barnett/Newspaper Report[/url
Believe it,or believe it not,he blamed food supplements.[url=http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/sport/garyslater/4502277/Players_shun_supplements_after_Richie_Barnett_case/Telegraph report[/url
[url=http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport1/hi/rugby_league/7307850.stmBBC Interview[/url

I do hope Terry Newton has not knowingly taken a wrong and stupid course of action and I am less than pleased at this news today giving the club unwanted bad publicity but I support him until there is any conclusive reason to do otherwise.

I didnt realise Terry Newton had played for Cas last week. Thats obviously why they won the 'Champions' too

One of the best referees coming up through the system, so they say, is a former 'drugs cheat' as well. That said, anything that keeps Jamie Bloem away from being a really awful pundit is a good thing.

Whatever happens, after a ban is up, a player should be welcomed back should he play by the rules. If not, lifetime ban.

Them there points belong to Wakey, we were the best team on the day as were Cas. Neither let Leeds play theire game. Come on Salford! go

some whinos

Firstly the Rfl statement says Be nice if they could get a simple date correct.

Bad news for the game in one way IF the player is found guilty of the charges, in another way it shows we are following a good testing procedure.

I wont make any judgement on the player till all the facts are out, hopefully it will not affect your excellent start to the season.

We may well find that some room becomes free within the salary cap, but I can't see that we'd get someone of similar experience at this stage of the season. At best it gives us some room for a previously unplanned signing for next season, but I fear that we will be left with an unfilled hole for the majority of this year.

irrespective of the ins and outs we have two other decent hookers and some good young uns in reserve. i'm just glad it's not a prop or brough