Was just thinking the same thing. The incompetence of the three involved could have already had an affect on the rugby community with more players (possibly) using it.

Long had the supplement cleared by the relevant person at the club. It was Cooper who made the mistake.

Long and Gleeson played alongside someone who, in a VERY high profile way, advertised that it is a player's responsibility to check what he is taking and not to rely on club staff.

Conditioner - take this
Player - what is it?
Conditioner - It's X
Player - I'll take it tomorrow once I've checked it out, or I'll pull out my iphone and check it out on the WADA app

Tomorrow comes, player doesn't take it, conditioner gets sacked, player gets on with his career.

Players are educated about their responsibilities in this respect ad infinitum. Gleeson is a fool - doubly so if he's taking ANYTHING handed to him by Sean Long without checking it out!

drugfreesportrec.blogspot.com/20 ... amine.html Bit more info on MHA.

drugfreesportrec.blogspot.com/20 ... amine.html Bit more info on MHA.

Bah, board ate my response again.

You can only libel someone if you say something thats not true and they can prove it.

Anyway, I can't believe I defended Rule in the past, this has shown him up as arrogant, dishonest and treating us and the authorities with contempt, I am glad Gleason and Cooper rolled on him. I don't know if he has a job yet but after the shame he has brought on our club I hope this makes it very difficult for him.

As said elsewhere the penalty for MHA was only 6 months for Kolo Toure, was it really worth trying to cover up.

Shame UKDA doesn't stretch to RU, by the terms of his ban he shouldn't be playing for them either.

mathead88Mathew Head
James Rule involved in drug scandal. #hullfc He was the ONLY reason I wasn't resigned, wish he was gone in 07 @hullfcofficial #IWanted2Stay

May I suggest before making such statements, you'd be wise to actually look up the English Law regarding libel.

So is Longy being at Preston RU (not covered by UKDA) rather than coaching Salford related to this?

Enlighten me Dave.

Might of missed this bit but it says on sky sports that Gleeson was banned for two years one month after the offence in May. Now if this is the case then the personal problems are a massive cover up of the total disaster the t!ts Rule and Cooper made of it. Also how the hell did this never come out?

[url=http://www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/news/12210/7400750/Former-Hull-trio-bannedSky Sports Report[/url

I`ll agree with you on that ! It is never dull supporting Hull !

Anyway might even make ITV news tonight its even more farcical than unions "bloodgate"!

Wrong. In the good old UK, bastion of free speech and all that, it's up to YOU to prove that your statement is true. And even then you can still be found guilty of libel if your true statement is considered defamatory.

If you defame anyone, it is you who are obliged to not only prove the allegation to be true but also that is was not defamatory.

This is why this website and many others run scared. All the complainant has to do is bring an action, it is then the respondent's responsibility to prove the allegation was a) true and b) not defamatory.

The classic example that is used is: You saying that Peter Sutcliffe never had a TV licence. It way be untrue but it's hardly likely to be defamatory. The onus would still be on you to prove that he didn't.

Green tea and maximuscle diet should have done it ! It worked on me . I s**t a stone in weight out in 7 days!!!

You clearly haven't attended any games involving us over the last few seasons, it was nothing but dull

His ban wasn't made official until October due to the ongoing investigation. It was backdated to June (the date of the original hearing and guilty verdict) due to his cooperation with the investigation into Cooper and Rule's shenanigans. It's entirely possible that his personal problems were genuine - given all he'd had to deal with in his personal life it wouldn't be surprising if the positive test tipped him over into full-fledged depression.

Ok but i dont remember seeing anything about it in October either.

Why do you think you should?

Rule's case wasn't settled until the 14th December or thereabouts. Since all the cases were linked my guess would be that nobody could talk about any of them until all three were settled.

There is no evidence to support that Gleeson has depression, only hearsay and rumour on here. All I can see is a grown man who keeps getting himself into trouble one way or another.

That’s my concern. He seemed to be trying to get his together and resurrect his career then some idiot gives him a banned substance, he fails a drug test and the ensuing madness sends him right back to square one. Fighting depression is hard. If the actions of others have helped set him back in his fight then they should be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

There is no evidence to suggest that he hasn't, either. And for the record it's not only on here that rumours about his depression have surfaced.

I don't see that Gleeson has done anything 'wrong' in this latest episode other than to - naively as it turns out - trust that his fitness coach was competent at his job. He's not the first athlete to make that mistake and I doubt he'll be the last.

I thought the ruling said he didn't check with Cooper, he checked with Longy, and Longy was originally given the wrong information from Cooper.

Thoughts:
1) Fecking disgrace
2) Putting aside Rule's involvement, asa general point, FC invite trouble by retaining the likes of Cooke and Raynor after transgression and signing player after player with "form" - Tansey, Reardon, Gleeson, Long, Aspinwall, Seymour. We should not be surprised that we are continually linked with this sort of thing when some of the participants are known risks. One would hope this is taken as a learning by McRae and Pearson, but the fact Aspinwall's on their watch suggests this hasn't happened yet.
3) In some circumstances this sort of thing is "justified" or "explained" by the huge pressure on individuals to deliver in marginal sporting circumstances, like an Olympic sprint final, for example. FC haven't troubled the top teams for 4 seasons and showed no sign of doing so before or during Gleeson's time at the club. Rule is not only guilty of deception, but utter stupidity to risk his career over a knackered player who wouldn't influence FC's performance or finishing position one way or the other. Personally I would have thought he'd have protected himself better and it surprises me that he didn't.
4) Thank goodness for Adam Pearson's takeover. Can you imagine going into 2012 with Kath and Agar still at the helm, a massive (probably unpayable) tax bill and then this emerging. In this context we're lucky the club still exists.