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

its a shame this typical Wakey aint it allways bloody something lol. Not our fault at all though. It maybe such a sad end to a great career. Well is he gets a 2 year ban sack him and get another prop as Bibb is not upto it.

don't quote me on this but i'd have thought that terry would have been registered as a wakefield player at the time of his testing
if i am wrong,does anyone actually know when players contract end/begin?

i believe it is in early november of each year????

innocent until proven guilty of course is turry!

He'll have been a contracted Wakey player at the time of testing, yes. Whether he took the substance before or after joining Wakey is another matter, however, this really doesn't matter, whichever club he was at its not their fault, the player had the substance inside him, and, unless it was a substance administered by said club, then it is no fault of their own.

i agree mate

sorry mate, in all the controversy, forgot what happened sunday?
did we win?

When I heard that some bad news was on the way for the game this weekend, I just hoped and hoped that it wasn't going to be us!!!

One word sums this up for me.... FECK

Takes the shine of the good year we have had so far!

That said we should not act as victims... If Newton is found guilty I hope they throw the book at him... ( and he is banned from Wakefield Trinity for life)... if he is innocent I hope that truth comes out quickly!

Can someone explain why the results have taken so long please?, Don't really know much about testing!

from what i understand from friends who deal with this kind of stuff its because this was the second test, which takes up to 3 months to come through and is more conclusive than the initial testing.

to be honest doesnt look good, but again no facts to deal with so who knows?

I think a few people on here need to keep quiet at least until we find out if it's recreational or not before casting Tez to the fire and brimstone.

If it is recreational then I think a few people (in the media especially) need to rein themselves in at the risk of being hypocritical.

If nothing else I hope others, in all walks of life, who take recreational drugs and are in a position of influence, take this case as an opportunity have a good think about themselves.
The effects can be more far reaching than people think.

I work in an industry where a failed alcohol or drugs test means that the employee is removed from duty and suspended after the first failed test... a failed second test results in prosecution under the law (OHS Legistaltion), and the removal of the persons industry work permit for life! At the test the employee must list every medicine, over the counter drug or food supplement they have taken, failure to declare also results in suspension, and removal from work and pay until the matter is resolved. This is written into contract, sub-contract and briefed to every member of staff... they are even required to sign to say they understand and will comply with the process...

yet we still have two or three failures every time we have a round of testing...

The facts are that he has "failed" a test and this is confirmed by a second test.

I cant see what difference or mitigation it would make being recreational use ?

However if it was taken specifically to allow him train pre-season and therefore be available to play for the first games of the season then I might have a legitimate cause for complaint as well the opposition clubs involved might have also.

The fact it is a Trinity player is totally irrelevant IMHO the act diminishes the whole of the game.

No club nowadays instructs, encourages or even condones the use of banned substances performance enhancing or otherwise so I don't think this whatever the outcome should reflect badly on any club.

It's a personal choice.

So when was his first test

You may have a point...


depending on the type of drug, the timing of the first test and the sharing of this information with the club, the league and the player, the RFL by-Laws affecting this issue...

but as we know nothing of any of those issues... it's an irrelevant point based on pure conjecture and speculation...

a) The RFl weren't advised of the positive test until 15/02 so they can't be expected to consider any results before that.

b) you sound like Peter Hood after Millenium Magic 2007. Give us our points back!