Few articles that are worth a look regarding the [url=http://www.sportingintelligence.com/?s=UKAD&x=0&y=0Martin Gleeson case[/url published today. I haven't had time to go through them all myself yet but they certainly aren't painting a pretty picture so far.

True, they don't. However, I think it's commendable that these players are making these statements in order to try to help an ex-team mate. I think many people are coming round to the idea that Martin Gleeson has been treated harshly for a genuine mistake.

Those are some of the most sensationalist, bullsh[ii[/it articles I've seen recently. And I read the daily mail last week.

Well if they are BS I expect the author will be hearing from the solicitors of Tickle, Dowes, Fitzgibbon and Long.

Nick Harris seems to be the editor and he is also affiliated with the Daily Mail. I'm inclined to agree having read them all in detail, however they have done a lot of good work in exposing the Blackburn Rovers owners and manager for what they truly are so I thought they would be worth a look.

You're quite right, it refers to Ewan Dowes as an 'England Star'.

I very much doubt we would have seen this emphasis and tone had it been a Rugby Union club.

The Mail, remember, is a paper that only reports on RL when there is a scandal. Then it does it big-time. IMO it clearly has a very strong anti-RL agenda running. Maybe a RL player once nicked the sports editor's girlfriend or ate his hamster?

You're right there are some interesting articles on there, and some interesting bits in the RL articles. Just a shame that the interesting bits are surrounded by sensationalist made up rubbish.
Cheers for sharing though, still interesting when the guff is stripped away.

So which parts are made up? The direct statements from the players perhaps?

The stuff about how deeply the RFL were supposedly involved is not supported by the evidence presented for a start. Either the author hasn't actually read them, or he has an agenda, or he's a bit thick.

I'd also be more than a little cautious about reading anything from fragments of alleged testimony quoted without the context of the full transcript. It's very easy to make people look guilty by using selective quoting.

The whole thing is sensationalised and spun to present the sport in the worst possible light. He even takes a pop at UKDA and implies that two of their officials were somehow complicit. It's sub-tabloid 'journalism' of the worst kind.

Perhaps the guy does have an anti RL agenda. Nonetheless I think the statements given by the other players merit a review of the Gleeson punishment. Surely if a player admits to having taken the substance on a matchday there are two ways to look at it:

1) Treat that player as being guilty of the same offence as Gleeson and punish him accordingly

or

2) Accept that these players (including Gleeson) have made a genuine mistake and their main failure was in trusting the judgement of the conditioner rather than checking for themselves.
On this basis it would be fair imho to reduce Gleeson's punishment.

Spot on.




You probably have a point in that Gleeson does seem to have been singled out a bit, but then he's the one who failed the test and not the others.
The ex-Hull conditioner wants his head examining, quite why he ever passed the substance as ok is beyond me.