Correct. Be careful tho Khlav. You will be accused of being a 'biter' for responding to his trolling!

Well said Sir, Unfortunately you Sandal and a few more are in a minority this morning

What times the hanging?

Regardless of the fact that it is one of our players in the spotlight at the moment I think it's great that so many tests are done so frequently on people playing this sport. I do however think that three and a half months is far too long to decide to issue punishment and needs speeding up! This should have and surely could have been resolved prior to the start of the season.

Or at least resolved in the next few days as you now have a player who you cannot play, who cannot train, who cannot have any involvement with the club, and you cannot sack, taking up a valuable players spot and salary cap space.

Why on this earth should it take ANOTHER 3 months to solve this?

As for those who think there should be some kind of club sancition, they are just mad. I'm no Wakey fan (although I did work there for a while) but why should th fans and the rest of the people involved with the club suffer because of one persons madness (if indeed he is guilty)

so the fact that 3-5 players from the same testing schedule past the test is of no relevance ? why not test all his previous clubs players ? your looking for bites sweetheart are you not?

The if you unfortunately missed out when claiming the club had failed to control the player.

But enough about you. Back to Terry Newton.

The length of time required to deal with this issue is ridiculous, as Paxo states. It just leaves things to fester, to the detriment of the game, the club, and quite possibly the player too, if innocent of any deliberate wrongdoing.

Leave the Trolls to their do their homework. They'll be in trouble when they go back to school.

For me, it's disappointing that something like this has put the spotlight on the club.
For the player, I'm disappointed he's in this position, but I'd like to wait and see what the results are and what the drug was. It doesn't necessarily make a difference to the verdict, but it does make a difference to how I feel about it.

Right now, Terry Newton is part of the Wakefield Trinity family. He's been accused of something, let's at least support him while the results are not clear.....by not jumping to conclusions.
When the time comes that we do know, then the club and fans will have to decide whether he is worthy of their individual support.
At that point there will still be people accusing or trolling, but the Wakefield family should still bond together in support of the club, whether TN is part of the family or not.

The injury was sustained at Leeds on Boxing Day 26th December - the test was a month earlier on 24th November.This information should remove any doubt you may have !
If Newton is guilty of wrongdoing then he owes a huge apology to the club,his teammates,and those who do magnificent work in the community who have now had their work made much more difficult and sponsors of the club will also not be best pleased.
As of this time he is not guilty of any wrongdoing.

Says it all for me - I agree

=#4000BFAnd again cleaned up!

Please ensure that nothing is put on here suggesting anything other than what has been reported.

We do not know what, if anything, TN has been found positive for, let alone the details of when, where and how.

Final waring to all - stay within the rules please!

He might have been a silly boy.

Well said pop tart i agree.

sanity

No it doesnt



Allegedly he was injured at the end of the 2009 playing season which predates the test and then apparently injured again on Boxing Day.

So IMHO my question still stands.

[urlhttp://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2010/feb/18/crusaders-gareth-thomas-rugby-league[/url

Terry Newton's No. 1 fan Andy Wilson there.

The season long injury would appear to be the facial injury that occurred near the close of the 2009 campaign,in August,therefore ending his 2009 time at Bradford.
[url=http://www.thetelegraphandargus.co.uk/sport/sportbulls/4538254.Is_Newton___s_Odsal_career_at_an_end_/Telegraph and Argus Report[/url

No doubt more will be revealed in the fullness of time and Terry Newton will discover who his true friends are.(There do seem a lot prepared to kick a man when he is down )

Why is recreational use in your opinion,not a consideration.The use of recreational drugs could also enhance performance.They are banned substances end of!!The abusers know the potential punishments,whether it be performance enhancing or recreational substances.

Although,i do have some sympathy towards your comments regarding the review of games the player was involved with.Unfortunately though i think this would open the floodgates to appeal after appeal after appeal.

Unregistered player(Hull) - replay match
Leeds v Bradford(Millenium) - total cock up by ref - replay match.

I appreciate these games didnt involve people that were consequently banned for drug use,although Ganson should just be banned anyway!!!!But once the RFL put wheels in motion for replaying games or reviewing results i could see it getting totally out of control.

Terry Newton spent about 15 mins on the pitch against Harlequins and about 25 mins against Leeds. In neither of these brief appearances did he do anything spectacular that meant his involvement in the game swayed it Wakefields way.

The UKDA only announced its official findings to the RFL the day after the Leeds match, so how can there be any justification to punish the club, the rest of the players and the fans by dedudcting points. To even suggest it is ludicrous.

I am not entirely sure how the process works so don't know whether the club were informed after his initial test came back positive, but as the UKDA notified the RFL of the decision to suspend him, you would naturally assume that if the club knew of him failing the first test then so did the RFL and the old adage of "innocent until proven guilty" came into play and he was allowed to continue his involvement with the club and play in SL matches with the RFL's blessing.

Can anyone explain why a hair sample is not taken when drug testing ?
I am aware that Paul Cullen announced on television last night that blood testing catered for a larger number of different drug types than urine testing but from what I understand a hair sample is the best of the lot.
[url=http://www.drug-aware.com/articles/14/hair-drug-testHere is some information[/url

There is a rumour of a person from another sport avoiding a test because he feared a hair sample may have been taken.

Because of the ability to shave/remove hair from the body.

Not just that, the reasons that the armed forces gave for not using the hair test as opposed to a urine test was the expense.

Stuffing Imac up your nostrils can't be very pleasant, though, not to mention the sack and crack wax...

Beware the man with no eyebrows.

Ouch !!!

Not the kind of publicity Trinity or the sport needs right now, if its true or not.

Funny I posted the comment below back in June of last year when the subject was Hock and still the same applies.

[i"It does'nt matter if it's a social drug or whatever. Hock is a professional sportsman and well paid to boot,which prohibits the use of drugs.
He should pay the price.

What gets me they use cocaine because it can pass through the system pretty quickly compared to other drugs so why don't the authorities use a simple hair folloicle test which can go back up to six months on drug testing.
For example all casinos in the States do a six monthly test on all of there staff by this method".[/i