|
 |
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Coach | 36144 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Oct 2004 | 20 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="PrinterThe"Awww are you upset because he didnt join the Leeds Rhinos Forner Champions retirement home at the Wildcats like so many others?'"
Who are the 'Wildcats'? If you mean Wakefield Trinity that would be Ben Jones Bishop and Baldwinson then  |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Owner | 1277 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Apr 2004 | 21 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="rollin thunder"of course there are two trains of thought here,
1 he thought he would fail so refused the test and made a good excuse about water being tampered with.
2 he is right to refuse a test due to the water provided not being sealed. which it should be.
obviously the governing body and ukad went with the available evidence and agreed with number 2. that combined with a clean test taken a couple of days later. so i am sure if ukad thought there was any funny business they still would have upheld a ban.
i suppose only the player knows which is the correct response.
this seems a bit simmiler to the Diane modahl case 20 years ago, where she sued the anti doping authority for failing to stop contamination of samples.'"
Except you are completely wrong - you should actually try reading the judgement and also look up as to how these cases are decided. It was neither UKAD nor The RFL that made the decision to not suspend him (in fact UKAD believed his actions warranted a 4 year ban) but an independent panel.
- the case was not dismissed because of any procedural irregularities (although some were noted)
- he was actually found to have committed an anti-doping violation ie failing or refusing to take a test
- he received no suspension because of 'very exceptional circumstances'
I will not speculate on those circumstances but they did rely on the evidence of 2 psychiatrists and much of the sections of the judgement dealing with that evidence has been redacted. |
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 1946 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Aug 2013 | 11 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Nov 2018 | Oct 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
There is only one reason that you would refuse a test. One.
Regards
King James
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 1841 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jan 2010 | 15 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Oct 2023 | Aug 2021 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Lebron James"There is only one reason that you would refuse a test. One.
Regards
King James'"
Wrong there are at least 2:
1. You think you will fail the test.
2. You think the test is unfair/contaminated/sabotage. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Owner | 1277 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Apr 2004 | 21 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="wildshot"Wrong there are at least 2:
1. You think you will fail the test.
2. You think the test is unfair/contaminated/sabotage.'"
Yet the panel ruling on this particular case didn't believe 2 was actually a valid reason to find Mr Bailey of no fault or negligence
To quote from the judgement:
[i"There was no valid reason for Mr Bailey to have not taken the test. Any concern of Mr Bailey over the water could have been catered for by doing as Mr Taylor in fact suggested, that is by making a written record of his concerns, and even retaining one of the bottles for subsequent analysis if necessary."[/i
(nor do they think that 1 is true either) |
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 5392 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 1970 | Jun 2022 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Cop out and very clever by Bailey using his previous mental health to make out he had no idea as to the ramifications of not providing a test.
That they came back 2 days later and he did a 'clear' test is meaningless, a drug such as cocaine has a pretty short 'half-life' IF an athlete had taken it even the day before or two days before, refused a test and dope testers come back 2 days later there's a very high chance that it would be clear especially if the user was doing it infrequently.
The outcome is laughable and the panel swallowed it hook line and sinker.
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 214 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2012 | 13 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Oct 2024 | Jun 2019 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
It still baffles me at how some players are getting themselves in a position where they could fail a test. For anything recreational it is very easy to make sure you never test positive.
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Board Member | 20475 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2003 | 22 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| I don’t understand how difficult it can be to conduct a pee test.
Tester - Hi Mr. Bailey, you’ve been chosen can you please pee in this bottle?
Bailey - No. I don’t like the look of that bottle it’s unsealed and could contaminate the result.
Tester - Oh sorry about that, my mistake. That’s okay we have another 12 sealed bottles in the van. I will just get one, you stay there please.
Bailey - Ok thanks!
 |
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Owner | 1277 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Apr 2004 | 21 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
So now Bailey's a genius who can not only think quickly on his feet but also fool not 1, but 2 psychiatrists into misdiagnosing him. It's also worth remembering that the tribunal operated under essentially the same conditions and rules of a UK Court and the panel consisted of a QC who is a Deputy High Court Judge, a qualified Dr who has been involved in elite sport for over 20 years and a solicitor who is a former professional footballer who also sits as an expert of the FA Judicial Panel, not just some blokes dragged in off the street.
People really should go and read the judgement https://www.ukad.org.uk/assets/uploads/ ... Bailey.PDF
A few facts from the judgement:
Point 40 dismisses any justification for refusing to take the test on the basis that the bottles may have been tampered with:
"There was no valid reason for Mr Bailey to have not taken the test. Any concern of Mr Bailey over the water could have been catered for by doing as Mr Taylor in fact suggested, that is by making a written record of his concerns, and even retaining one of the bottles for subsequent analysis if necessary."
Point 47 rules out a dismissal of the case based on the procedural irregularities highlighted by his defence.
The conclusion clearly states that "the anti-doping violation is established" ie the panel found him 'guilty' of the charge of failing or refusing to provide a sample he was facing. However, they also found that he bore 'no fault or negligence' due to the "truly exceptional circumstances of his case" and therefore he received no punishment. Those circumstances are not expanded on but they appear to be based on the evidence of 2 psychiatrists, virtually all of which is redacted in the published judgement - I will not speculate on that evidence but if you do read the judgement some of the phrases used may lead you to form an opinion as to what those circumstances may be. |
|
So now Bailey's a genius who can not only think quickly on his feet but also fool not 1, but 2 psychiatrists into misdiagnosing him. It's also worth remembering that the tribunal operated under essentially the same conditions and rules of a UK Court and the panel consisted of a QC who is a Deputy High Court Judge, a qualified Dr who has been involved in elite sport for over 20 years and a solicitor who is a former professional footballer who also sits as an expert of the FA Judicial Panel, not just some blokes dragged in off the street.
People really should go and read the judgement https://www.ukad.org.uk/assets/uploads/ ... Bailey.PDF
A few facts from the judgement:
Point 40 dismisses any justification for refusing to take the test on the basis that the bottles may have been tampered with:
"There was no valid reason for Mr Bailey to have not taken the test. Any concern of Mr Bailey over the water could have been catered for by doing as Mr Taylor in fact suggested, that is by making a written record of his concerns, and even retaining one of the bottles for subsequent analysis if necessary."
Point 47 rules out a dismissal of the case based on the procedural irregularities highlighted by his defence.
The conclusion clearly states that "the anti-doping violation is established" ie the panel found him 'guilty' of the charge of failing or refusing to provide a sample he was facing. However, they also found that he bore 'no fault or negligence' due to the "truly exceptional circumstances of his case" and therefore he received no punishment. Those circumstances are not expanded on but they appear to be based on the evidence of 2 psychiatrists, virtually all of which is redacted in the published judgement - I will not speculate on that evidence but if you do read the judgement some of the phrases used may lead you to form an opinion as to what those circumstances may be. | |
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Owner | 6746 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Mar 2004 | 21 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="MattyB"I don’t understand how difficult it can be to conduct a pee test.
Tester - Hi Mr. Bailey, you’ve been chosen can you please pee in this bottle?
Bailey - No. I don’t like the look of that bottle it’s unsealed and could contaminate the result.
Tester - Oh sorry about that, my mistake. That’s okay we have another 12 sealed bottles in the van. I will just get one, you stay there please.
Bailey - Ok thanks!
'"
Apparently it was a bottle of water he was given to drink not the sample bottle |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 1946 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Aug 2013 | 11 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Nov 2018 | Oct 2018 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="wildshot"Wrong there are at least 2:
1. You think you will fail the test.
2. You think the test is unfair/contaminated/sabotage.'"
Nope there is one. Your second example is laughable.
Regards
King James |
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Chairman | 5392 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Dec 2001 | 23 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 1970 | Jun 2022 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Quote ="Mr Dog"So now Bailey's a genius who can not only think quickly on his feet but also fool not 1, but 2 psychiatrists into misdiagnosing him. It's also worth remembering that the tribunal operated under essentially the same conditions and rules of a UK Court and the panel consisted of a QC who is a Deputy High Court Judge, a qualified Dr who has been involved in elite sport for over 20 years and a solicitor who is a former professional footballer who also sits as an expert of the FA Judicial Panel, not just some blokes dragged in off the street.
People really should go and read the judgement https://www.ukad.org.uk/assets/uploads/ ... Bailey.PDF
A few facts from the judgement:
Point 40 dismisses any justification for refusing to take the test on the basis that the bottles may have been tampered with:
"There was no valid reason for Mr Bailey to have not taken the test. Any concern of Mr Bailey over the water could have been catered for by doing as Mr Taylor in fact suggested, that is by making a written record of his concerns, and even retaining one of the bottles for subsequent analysis if necessary."
Point 47 rules out a dismissal of the case based on the procedural irregularities highlighted by his defence.
The conclusion clearly states that "the anti-doping violation is established" ie the panel found him 'guilty' of the charge of failing or refusing to provide a sample he was facing. However, they also found that he bore 'no fault or negligence' due to the "truly exceptional circumstances of his case" and therefore he received no punishment. Those circumstances are not expanded on but they appear to be based on the evidence of 2 psychiatrists, virtually all of which is redacted in the published judgement - I will not speculate on that evidence but if you do read the judgement some of the phrases used may lead you to form an opinion as to what those circumstances may be.'"
There were no exceptional nor defendable circumstances to not allow the test to go ahead as admitted and it's classified as a failure, the judgement is a laughable nonsense. This makes a mockery of the system, well done to Bailey and his cohorts. |
|
Quote ="Mr Dog"So now Bailey's a genius who can not only think quickly on his feet but also fool not 1, but 2 psychiatrists into misdiagnosing him. It's also worth remembering that the tribunal operated under essentially the same conditions and rules of a UK Court and the panel consisted of a QC who is a Deputy High Court Judge, a qualified Dr who has been involved in elite sport for over 20 years and a solicitor who is a former professional footballer who also sits as an expert of the FA Judicial Panel, not just some blokes dragged in off the street.
People really should go and read the judgement https://www.ukad.org.uk/assets/uploads/ ... Bailey.PDF
A few facts from the judgement:
Point 40 dismisses any justification for refusing to take the test on the basis that the bottles may have been tampered with:
"There was no valid reason for Mr Bailey to have not taken the test. Any concern of Mr Bailey over the water could have been catered for by doing as Mr Taylor in fact suggested, that is by making a written record of his concerns, and even retaining one of the bottles for subsequent analysis if necessary."
Point 47 rules out a dismissal of the case based on the procedural irregularities highlighted by his defence.
The conclusion clearly states that "the anti-doping violation is established" ie the panel found him 'guilty' of the charge of failing or refusing to provide a sample he was facing. However, they also found that he bore 'no fault or negligence' due to the "truly exceptional circumstances of his case" and therefore he received no punishment. Those circumstances are not expanded on but they appear to be based on the evidence of 2 psychiatrists, virtually all of which is redacted in the published judgement - I will not speculate on that evidence but if you do read the judgement some of the phrases used may lead you to form an opinion as to what those circumstances may be.'"
There were no exceptional nor defendable circumstances to not allow the test to go ahead as admitted and it's classified as a failure, the judgement is a laughable nonsense. This makes a mockery of the system, well done to Bailey and his cohorts. | |
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 1982 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2011 | 14 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | Oct 2024 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
The verdict is not to be sniffed at.
Hope a "line" can be drawn under this
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 6903 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Feb 2015 | 10 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Oct 2024 | Sep 2024 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Quote ="Mr Dog"So now Bailey's a genius who can not only think quickly on his feet but also fool not 1, but 2 psychiatrists into misdiagnosing him. It's also worth remembering that the tribunal operated under essentially the same conditions and rules of a UK Court and the panel consisted of a QC who is a Deputy High Court Judge, a qualified Dr who has been involved in elite sport for over 20 years and a solicitor who is a former professional footballer who also sits as an expert of the FA Judicial Panel, not just some blokes dragged in off the street.
People really should go and read the judgement https://www.ukad.org.uk/assets/uploads/ ... Bailey.PDF
A few facts from the judgement:
Point 40 dismisses any justification for refusing to take the test on the basis that the bottles may have been tampered with:
"There was no valid reason for Mr Bailey to have not taken the test. Any concern of Mr Bailey over the water could have been catered for by doing as Mr Taylor in fact suggested, that is by making a written record of his concerns, and even retaining one of the bottles for subsequent analysis if necessary."
Point 47 rules out a dismissal of the case based on the procedural irregularities highlighted by his defence.
The conclusion clearly states that "the anti-doping violation is established" ie the panel found him 'guilty' of the charge of failing or refusing to provide a sample he was facing. However, they also found that he bore 'no fault or negligence' due to the "truly exceptional circumstances of his case" and therefore he received no punishment. Those circumstances are not expanded on but they appear to be based on the evidence of 2 psychiatrists, virtually all of which is redacted in the published judgement - I will not speculate on that evidence but if you do read the judgement some of the phrases used may lead you to form an opinion as to what those circumstances may be.'"
You seem to miss the facts. He had already drank water from the cooler bag,signed the reverse of the form but was unaware he could have used his own water/drink.
Or did he know! Farce for me but thats my opinion. |
|
Quote ="Mr Dog"So now Bailey's a genius who can not only think quickly on his feet but also fool not 1, but 2 psychiatrists into misdiagnosing him. It's also worth remembering that the tribunal operated under essentially the same conditions and rules of a UK Court and the panel consisted of a QC who is a Deputy High Court Judge, a qualified Dr who has been involved in elite sport for over 20 years and a solicitor who is a former professional footballer who also sits as an expert of the FA Judicial Panel, not just some blokes dragged in off the street.
People really should go and read the judgement https://www.ukad.org.uk/assets/uploads/ ... Bailey.PDF
A few facts from the judgement:
Point 40 dismisses any justification for refusing to take the test on the basis that the bottles may have been tampered with:
"There was no valid reason for Mr Bailey to have not taken the test. Any concern of Mr Bailey over the water could have been catered for by doing as Mr Taylor in fact suggested, that is by making a written record of his concerns, and even retaining one of the bottles for subsequent analysis if necessary."
Point 47 rules out a dismissal of the case based on the procedural irregularities highlighted by his defence.
The conclusion clearly states that "the anti-doping violation is established" ie the panel found him 'guilty' of the charge of failing or refusing to provide a sample he was facing. However, they also found that he bore 'no fault or negligence' due to the "truly exceptional circumstances of his case" and therefore he received no punishment. Those circumstances are not expanded on but they appear to be based on the evidence of 2 psychiatrists, virtually all of which is redacted in the published judgement - I will not speculate on that evidence but if you do read the judgement some of the phrases used may lead you to form an opinion as to what those circumstances may be.'"
You seem to miss the facts. He had already drank water from the cooler bag,signed the reverse of the form but was unaware he could have used his own water/drink.
Or did he know! Farce for me but thats my opinion. | |
|
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Coach | 5086 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| May 2005 | 20 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Nov 2022 | Nov 2022 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="bramleyrhino"Chief among which, why is the Canadian doping agency asking players to pee in unsealed bottles?'"
Because peeing into a sealed bottle would be pretty impossible???   |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 869 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Dec 2011 | 13 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Oct 2022 | Oct 2022 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="knockersbumpMKII"Cop out and very clever by Bailey using his previous mental health to make out he had no idea as to the ramifications of not providing a test.
That they came back 2 days later and he did a 'clear' test is meaningless, a drug such as cocaine has a pretty short 'half-life' IF an athlete had taken it even the day before or two days before, refused a test and dope testers come back 2 days later there's a very high chance that it would be clear especially if the user was doing it infrequently.
The outcome is laughable and the panel swallowed it hook line and sinker.'"
Surely under these circumstances they should have been given the authority to take a sample of a hair strand in the test 2 days later? As you say the detection time on Cocaine is usually around 2-3 days through a Urine or blood sample - So there is every possibility he has dodged a massive bullet there.
Im sure detection time in a hair strand is usually around 90 days from intake of the drug itself, Surely this would of been the best action to take?
Seriously though, how poor of the doping body to turn up without any sealed bottles? |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 2794 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Jun 2013 | 12 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jun 2023 | Jun 2023 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quick question.
Which current darling Club of the RFL does Bailey play for ? |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Club Owner | 1277 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Apr 2004 | 21 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Ste100Centurions"Quick question.
Which current darling Club of the RFL does Bailey play for ?
'"
Talk about paranoia....you do know that The RFL took no part in the procedure and therefore you are suggesting that the independent body overseeing the tribunal are biased or even corrupt? Maybe you should take your concerns further? |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 2150 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Dec 2009 | 15 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Oct 2024 | Mar 2024 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
|
Another Leigh fan having a pop at Toronto. No doubt a reply will come stating they never mentioned Toronto.
Why are Leigh fans so bitter about Toronto?
|
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 22020 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Aug 2011 | 13 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="LifeLongHKRFan"Another Leigh fan having a pop at Toronto. No doubt a reply will come stating they never mentioned Toronto.
Why are Leigh fans so bitter about Toronto?'"
Why are you so paranoid and obsessed with Leigh fans?  |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 2150 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Dec 2009 | 15 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Oct 2024 | Mar 2024 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Cokey"Why are you so paranoid and obsessed with Leigh fans?
'"
Oh Dear |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Star | 22020 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Aug 2011 | 13 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Jan 2025 | Jan 2025 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="LifeLongHKRFan"Oh Dear
'"
Oh cheap.  |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Board Member | 11989 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Oct 2002 | 22 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| May 2020 | Mar 2020 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="LifeLongHKRFan"Another Leigh fan having a pop at Toronto. No doubt a reply will come stating they never mentioned Toronto.
Why are Leigh fans so bitter about Toronto?'"
A slight issue over how they originally went about building their coaching team and squad - and an argument about 'morals and ethics' I believe!  |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| Player Coach | 2150 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Dec 2009 | 15 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| Oct 2024 | Mar 2024 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="Alan"A slight issue over how they originally went about building their coaching team and squad - and an argument about 'morals and ethics' I believe!
'"
Thank you. A reasonable answer at last. |
|
|
| Rank | Posts | Team |
| International Board Member | 11989 | No
Team
Selected |
| Joined | Service | Reputation |
| Oct 2002 | 22 years | |
| Online | Last Post | Last Page |
| May 2020 | Mar 2020 | LINK |
| Milestone Posts |
|
| Milestone Years |
|
|
| Location |
|
| Signature |
|
TO BE FIXED |
|
| Quote ="LifeLongHKRFan"Thank you. A reasonable answer at last.'"
You're welcome. Should make for a tasty opening Championship fixture! Thankfully, we hardly have any of our squad left from the Rowley era, so the fixture should be 'civilised'.
Here's hoping we can emulate what HKR did last season. Good luck this time around. |
|
|
|
|
|
