No, it's not.



Like I said, either the RFL operated under WADA rules, and WADA therefore accepted the punishment handed down to Cunningham, or the RFL were not operating under WADA rules and your quotations from their guidelines are irrelevent as to whether Cunningham "got away with it".







It shows nothing of the kind.



It's like arguing that someone who shoulder charges another player without punishment is lucky and has "got away with it" provided the RFL ban shoulder charges at some point in the future. After all, a lot of other sports have banned shoulder charges or never allowed them in the first place.



Your argument is asinine. Claiming someone has been lucky and "got away with" something on the basis of an [iexternal set of guidelines which are not even ratified by the sport in question the time of the offence[/i is just absurd.



You might as well claim that all the players who played under a 5m offside rule were "lucky" or "got away with it" because we now use a 10m rule. It's utter nonsense.

Get over yourself you tart. If you honestly think players go out to end other peoples careers, then that speaks volumes for the type of character your are.



Nothing in Tompkins tackle on KC and nothing in KC attemted hit on Sam.



Neither player complained after the respective games, its just folk like you (and some on here) who like to make out that everyone is as petty as you.



I would be amazed if KC was on a "revenge" mission. Infact he had many more opportunities in the rest of the game, and nothing happend.

Finally!

How the hell has this crap got to 5 pages?

And they say spats between Hull and Rovers is dire.Its handbags compared to this little lot.

It's perfectly reasonable to compare against the policy and guidelines against the world body for drug testing at the time - especially so when the game was quite happy to sign-up to the charter eventually, realising it was out line with sport drug testing procedures.







No your analogy is utter nonsense as it bares no relation to what has been said.

even under the current WADA rules there is a discretionary element to the punishment for those who can provide extenuating circumstances.



I'm sure KC could defend himself on that score seeing as though he was poisoned by an employee of the sport's governing body.

Sutherland first came to Wigan, he and his "qualifications" were checked out. He was not recruited and was not heard of again until he re-appeared at Saints and the RFL.

So why didn't they check him out as Wigan did?

who knows. Saints "got him" on a recommendation from the RFL, so probably did less stringent checks than they would on someone who had just wandered in off the street.



According to Sculthorpe's book, it was Stan Wall who first sussed him out at Saints.

Because it was part of a sport wide conspiracy as the RFL were desperate to allow Saints players to take drugs with impunity?

Finally

Seems that every man and his dog on here knew what Hock was upto. months even years before he got found out. Why didnt the wigan club know?



Point? These things sometimes slip through the net I suppose.