"Hull FC will not be docked any points or face any RFL punishment for the drug cover-up scandal that has rocked the sport.
Although RFL boss Nigel Wood said the affair had brought the game into disrepute, the governing body does not impose additional sanctions on top is those dished out by the UK ADA."

Article by Rebecca Smith in today's League Weekly. Don't know how reliable they are, but presumably must have a source?

no doubt will dissapoint a few non hull fans

Why should the Club be punished?
The 3 individuals involved have paid the price.

Any mention of kath or agar?

Hopefully true. New season, new owners and new start without a points deduction for the inadequacies of the previous administration will do nicely.

It was always going to be a hard thing for the RFL to push as there is no precedent set in any sport (as far as i am aware).

Good news.

Wonder what the RFL's motives are? Is it true that they'd never impose additional sanctions whatever the circumstances?

Or is it because they feel our current board cannot be held accountable and shouldn't bear punishment?

Or is it that they have no inclination, for whatever reason, to investigate further into 'who knew what'?

Or is it that they don't want to poke into just how squirmy it is under the supplement pot lid across the sport?

Whichever way, I'm relieved and pleased for us and Lord Faulkner.

Think it is more to do with the fact they would find it hard for any punishment to stick. I cannot recall any other sport that has taken additional sanctions for something like this.

I'm not getting too relieved about this yet, for 3 reasons:

1) Apparently League Weekly is to League Express what the Star is to the Telegraph.

2) FC haven't made a statement, nor have the RFL. Maybe there's no need to if Rebecca Smith is right, but still.

3) The local media have said nothing. Now, if I were Gwilym Lloyd or James Smailes, the burning question I'd have been all over like a rash over the weekend would have been consequences for the club, seeing that consequences for individuals were established last Thursday. Difficult to think that they would not have been asking this question on an hourly basis to both FC and the RFL. Unless, of course, closure of the issue as Rebecca Smith seems to been confident of prevents further cheap column inches and endless mulling over on RH. Hmmm.

I rather like LW, mainly down to the hilarious articles written by the publisher, Danny Lockwood, even though I get the impression he doesn't like the Hull clubs.

Lockwood was the centre of a massive libel case related to another of his newspapers a few years ago which resultled in a hung jury. The claimant then dropped the case. Because of this, I reckon he'll be very careful now about what he prints as fact, and not rumour (of which there's a lot in LW, but under clear 'rumour' headlines).

I believe Smith is the editor, so would imagine her sources are strong. I bet this is the RFL's way of annoucing their intentions subtly so they don't have to make an official statement at all.

If they are absolved from doing this, they won't have to answer the ineveitable questions about how they've reached their decision.

I bet it's true and we hear no more about it. Until Gleeson goes public.

If true, the correct decision.

I believe he is a Hull fan.

Hopefully the LW story is true. The only people calling for Hull to be docked points are a few Rovers supporters (what a surprise) and a couple of Hull fans who are probably only taking that stance to be able to act smug should the worst happen.

Really? Perhaps he tries to compensate by being harsh to us in order to completely fair to other teams.

I'm pleased if he is, I'm a bit of an admirer of his. Much rather read his rag than Smug Sadler's. Wish he'd get rid of that old fossillized partisan, French, though. In his book the M62 stops at Leeds, eastward bound.

It's been a bitter pill to swallow but I always thought there was only a slim chance of further action.

You are right, Rebecca Smith is the Editor. Hopefully she's right, then.

Danny Lockwood's "editorial" style commentary on page 4 is insightful too. He's quite cynical about the timing of the takeover re the Gleeson issue a "tad too convenient" and calls for the previous regime to reassure everyone and declare that the complicity stopped at Rule's desk. He's also quite scathing about Gleeson as an individual:
"I don't doubt that, despite his age when his ban ends, some opportunistic club will be willing to give Martin Gleeson another chance. There's no cause so lost that some rugby league directors can't hold their noses and pretend not to notice the stench.
Even now I detect sympathy for a player who has had more lives than your average cat. Speaking as someone who's been on the end of threats from Gleeson's solicitors for taking the mickey, I can't say I'm in that camp.
People keep telling me he's a thoughtful, intelligent lad. Sorry, he's as thick as mince from where I'm looking."

Ouch

I would rather we didn`t.

That's certainly true. A quick look over Doncaster way will provide all the proof you need.

This is exactly why I love him. He's always like that. Interesting that he's dared to ask the same questions as the rest of us re the previous board and hints at a speedy sale being their chance to hop off the crashing train.

Off to pictures tonight in St Stephens. Note to self: After film, Tesco's shopping list now includes bottle of red, tin of dog food and League Weekly.

Spot on, it's a really great one liner that encapsulates the somewhat shabby reputation of the heads of the various clubs IMO.

Lets hope we can put this whole thing behind us, only 19 days to the York game!

I'm in full agreement with Lockwood with regards to Gleeson. Their has been far to much sympathy offered (especially on here) for someone who has repeatedly shown himself to be a prat.

Problemo over,Castleford and Owen are the new bad boys !

???

was a bit in league weekly, arrested on Christmas day for alleged assault.

and as such we have to be careful what we discuss about it on here (sorry mods)

I'm well aware