Re: UKDA Confirm Hull FC bans - link : Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:29 pm  

Kosh wrote:

The UKDA isn't part of the UK justice system.

I know, just wondering how they take evidence

Re: UKDA Confirm Hull FC bans - link : Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:30 pm  

What I cant understand is why Rule tried to cover it all up. A rumour was doing the rounds about Gleeson and slimming pills being the reason Cooper was so abruptly sacked at the time.
Ah well just another bat for our enemies to hit us over the head with.
Thought it was a bit quiet..........

Re: UKDA Confirm Hull FC bans - link : Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:32 pm  

It's certainly a concern for me that there may be additional punishments from the RFL which may include a fine or worse for the club - regardless of the fact that the three individuals are no longer employed by the club.

Re: UKDA Confirm Hull FC bans - link : Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:34 pm  

HAS long taken them same pills? If he admits to it then surely he could be looking at a ban,or did he just get them for gleeson after speaking to cooper?

Re: UKDA Confirm Hull FC bans - link : Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:35 pm  

The whole thing just screams incompetence.

Why did a professional sportsman accept someone else's word that a supplement was ok?
Why did a professional conditioning coach clear a supplement that wasn't permitted under WADA rules?
Why did a Chief Executive get involved in a ludicrously incompetent attempt at a cover up?
Why did everyone think lying about it all was going to make it all go away?

Martin Gleeson would always have got a ban for taking the substance regardless of whether Cooper cleared it or not. He was on a short(ish)-term contract and was hardly setting the world on fire in a mediocre team. What was the point of it all?

Utter stupidity. All of it.

[Kosh]

Re: UKDA Confirm Hull FC bans - link : Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:40 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

I know, just wondering how they take evidence

It doesn't matter. You can only perjure yourself in a legal sense if you lie in a court of law or otherwise use an untruth to affect the outcome of court proceedings. The UKDA hearings are not a court of law.

[Kosh]

Re: UKDA Confirm Hull FC bans - link : Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:43 pm  

jimmyfivebellies wrote:

HAS long taken them same pills? If he admits to it then surely he could be looking at a ban,or did he just get them for gleeson after speaking to cooper?

It seems that Long had used the supplement at some point. If he did it before 2010 then he wasn't committing an offence.

Re: UKDA Confirm Hull FC bans - link : Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:49 pm  

Kosh wrote:

It doesn't matter. You can only perjure yourself in a legal sense if you lie in a court of law or otherwise use an untruth to affect the outcome of court proceedings. The UKDA hearings are not a court of law.

I appear before the Asylum & Immigration Tribunal and am sure there are rules about lying there. Maybe not a criminal offence, but viewed pretty seriously

[Kosh]

Re: UKDA Confirm Hull FC bans - link : Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:52 pm  

Chris28 wrote:

I appear before the Asylum & Immigration Tribunal and am sure there are rules about lying there. Maybe not a criminal offence, but viewed pretty seriously

Lying in front of the UKDA is also an offence - that's effectively what Cooper and Rule have been banned for.

The Asylum & Immigration Tribunal may not be a court of law but it's still an official part of the UK 'system'. And I imagine that there are specific offences in law governing evidence presented to it. The UKDA is entirely extra-Governmental and will not have any such protection in law.

Re: UKDA Confirm Hull FC bans - link : Thu Dec 29, 2011 6:53 pm  

Kosh wrote:

And again I'll ask you what evidence you have that he wasn't/isn't dealing with depression.

People are accepting that on the balance of probability it's likely that he had/has depression. That's not the same as accepting it as fact.

Not on the on-line edition, but a two-page spread in todays "paper" Mail stresses the illness was real:

Page 4 of today's HDM wrote:

The Mail understands, and must stress, his illness has been very real, and although friends says he has coped with the past six months admirably, Gleeson continues to be a troubled character.

Therefore, Hull FC were probably right to grant him leave for stress at the time.

His illness was certainly not something concocted by the club, or over-played.

They do also go on to ask the questions of how much of the stress was induced by the drug test failing, and, if so, if the support and advice following this was sufficient by the club.

Feeling a bit sorry for Gleeson who's main failing seems to have been gross stupidity. Also surprised at Long's negligence, especially after his verbose descriptions of horror in his book about Cunningham's failed drugs test when unwittingly given them by the Saints conditioner, and the possible consequences for other team-mates.