I'm not arguing semantics fool, I'm stating that your assertion was wrong, which it very definitely was. It could also be construed as borderline libelous.

Three ex-employees of Hull FC have been found liable, not the club, nor any other employees.

Now much as it may pain you, accept the fact that any and all sanctions have been delivered and get on with your twisted, little life.

Semantics and ad-hominem, in the space of two posts; you're my hero.

RFLP in no balls shocker!

And I aint getting on no plane!

Give it up, coddy. He knows all there is to know about vicarious liability and that's all there is to it.

You seem obsessed with this. Are you still angry that we binned agar and he ended up in wakefield?

1. HullFC brought the game into disrepute as it was HULLFC's stupid centre, who took banned substances gained from HULLFC's stupid Captain, passed by HULLFC's stupid conditioner and it was covered up by HULLFC's CEO.
At no other time in the last week has any other club BUT HULLFC had any involvement in this and as such it was their name and kit all over every channel and all the national press!!!

2. Of Course FC should be punished, he was clearly using this during his time on the field for FC and as such since certain club figure heads new it then the whole club was cheating!!!!

Awww bless

Back to school soon eh?

rovers fans and school?

Tell me where I'm wrong ??
Typical response to the facts is that, as for school left there 18 years ago

He doesn't, but he clearly knows a fair bit more about it than you.

My original argument was with the assertion that the RFL couldn't punish Hull FC; I did say at the time that I thought they could and should, but I didn't think they would; turns out I was right.



No.

Did you skip all your English lessons after struggling through Janet & John?

Personally I blame eli lilly and johnson and Johnson as well.

Damn them for producing medicines safe enough for people to self prescribe, if only they were dangerous, i mean if Eli Lilly had produced a drug as dangerous as say....alcohol rather than one as safe as Caffeine then it would have been a prescription drug Gleeson probably wouldnt have used it, and there would be an actual reason for it to be banned.

Considering we are punishing the Hull FC players who didnt take drugs and a Hull FC board which werent at the club at the time, and the Hull FC tea lady who with her concoction of stimulants she hands out every single day, the pusher. Why shouldnt we be going after the filth who make these drugs and flood our high streets with them? The utter barstewards.

I don't understand what punishing the club more than any other club will achieve?

The individuals involved have been sacked by the club's new owners before this came out. What message are we trying to send out that hasn't already been sent out?

That clubs have a responsibility to employ people with integrity?
As has been said a dozen times if it was a breach of salary cap then we don't hold the clubs accountant or CEO accountable, we hold the club accountable for the actions of its staff. If it was just a player and a one off then fair enough but we are talking about the most senior employer of the club acting in a systemic dishonest way that brought the game in disrepute. I don't see covering up banned substance use any different to covering up salary cap breaches in terms of dishonesty that drags the games reputation down and the precedent is set for punishment if the club does that.

Here's a tip: before attempting to be clever and use words that are alien to your usual vocabulary, you could at least make an attempt to research their meaning first.

Please point out, just where the actions of James Rule could conceivably be classed as "systemic"

That has yet to be established.


An assertion that nobody actually made.

So how would punishing Adam Pearson for people he released after finding out about an incident that happened before he bought the club set that message?

As for the cap, the accounts of the club are the responsibility of the club, with an individual employed for the sole purposes of keeping an eye on them. If there is a breach, the fine and the points deduction is for the breach (not for a cover up). That is the punishment set.

Drug related behaviour is the responsibility of the individual, and there are no people employed to "make sure it doesn't happen". If someone chooses to cover up an issue, it is their individual responsibility, not that of the club, and as such those individuals have been banned by the game. James Rule was under no instructions as an employee of Hull FC to do what he did, and if he was then Hetherington should also be banned.

There is simply no point in punishing the chairman of a club for the actions of an individual acting as an individual whilst said chairman wasn't even at the club.
Unlike the salary cap, where the actions of an individual are on behalf of the club and that is his responsibility on behalf of the club.

He was the Chief Executive, so chararcterising him as just a rogue employee is a bit misleading.

Punishing Hull FC now would be a point of principle, and internally consistent arguments can be made for it. But it just isn't worth it, IMO. The best thing for SL is to learn the lessons, such as they are, and move on. That seems to me to be the fairest, best and most sensible option, under these particular circumstances. We can start the season with everybody on 0 points, without compromising our integrity, so we should.

How is it misleading? He was an employee.

Punishing Hull FC would prove no points as everyone involved from top to bottom are no longer involved with the club. There's been a near complete clear out of back room staff.

Anyone involved in drugs in sport should be banned from the game. And they have been.
The lessons learned are that if you mess up on the drug front, you'll be banned. And if you try to cover it up, you will be banned. What would punishing the club do to deter individuals? How can you know, as a chairman, if someone is trying to cover something up or has the potential to? All you can do is sack those involved when you find out, and that is what happened.

why bring Craig Fitzgibbon into it, when is had nowt to do with him

Okay, I'm playing devil's advocate, because I think the arguments against punishing Hull FC are much stronger than those for. [uMuch[/u stronger...

You're exaggerating the gap that exists between an organization and its Chief Executive. A player or a conditioner are just normal employees, but a Chief Executive leads a company, represents it. If, in his capacity as Chief Executive, James Rule fails to fully and honestly co-operate with a UKDA investigation and, indeed, deliberately misleads it (as we know he did), it can be legitimately stated that Hull FC failed to fully and honestly co-operate with a UKDA investigation. Even after a changing of the guard, when individual culpability has been established and those individuals removed from post, [isome[/i organizational responsibilty remains. Enough to justify punishing the organization in this instance? IMO, no. But it is there.

I understand you framing the question in terms of why punish Pearson for the behaviour of Rule? - it's legitimate. It represents natural justice, IMO. But because Rule was the CE, it could be framed as 'punishing Hull FC for the actions of Hull FC', without provoking laughter. It's still the same club - just hopefully better led.

I find it amusing that supporters of other clubs get their knickers in a twist over F.C.
I believe we are the Millwall of R.L.

Former Hull FC chairwoman Kath Hetherington 'sad' over James Rule's ban www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... story.html

Former Hull FC chairwoman Kath Hetherington 'sad' over James Rule's ban www.thisishullandeastriding.co.u ... story.html

Edited for accuracy.