: Tue Aug 25, 2009 1:58 pm  

castigers13 wrote:

Who got banned while been a Bradford player

Ryan Hudson, wasn't a known drug cheat when we signed him, big difference, to signing him when it's well known that he cheated with performances enhancers.

: Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:00 pm  

Terry Monster wrote:

Ryan Hudson, wasn't a known drug cheat until we signed him, big difference, to signing him when it's well known that he cheated with performances enhancers.

Edited for accuracy.

: Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:05 pm  

Who rattled this guy's cage anyway?

Still, it's more interesting than a Wakey troll.

: Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:06 pm  

pyeman wrote:

Edited for accuracy.

Errr, No. Ryan Hudson was not known to be a drug cheat when we signed him. That's all there is to it. You signed him full well knowing he was a drug cheat, and that's all there is to that.

: Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:08 pm  

Terry Monster wrote:

Errr, No. Ryan Hudson was not known to be a drug cheat when we signed him. That's all there is to it. You signed him full well knowing he was a drug cheat, and that's all there is to that.

You signed him and then he became a drug cheat, coincidence?

: Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:11 pm  

Terry Monster wrote:

Errr, No. Ryan Hudson was not known to be a drug cheat when we signed him. That's all there is to it. You signed him full well knowing he was a drug cheat, and that's all there is to that.

If we give you a gold star and tell you that you are king of the internet, will you go away?

: Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:20 pm  

pyeman wrote:

You signed him and then he became a drug cheat, coincidence?

No, we signed him in faith that he wasn't, and fired him when we became aware he was. You signed him to play for you with full knowledge that he was a cheat, same as you did with Chambers.

: Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:29 pm  

Terry Monster wrote:

No, we signed him in faith that he wasn't, and fired him when we became aware he was. You signed him to play for you with full knowledge that he was a cheat, same as you did with Chambers.

And with 1 past-tense word in bold, the case is closed.

: Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:35 pm  

Terry Monster wrote:

No, we signed him in faith that he wasn't, and fired him when we became aware he was. You signed him to play for you with full knowledge that he was a cheat, same as you did with Chambers.

The only club he has been caught taking drugs at is bradford. When he played for us the first time (and wakey) there was no problem, then he played for you (a team with a history of cheating, ie salary cap) and was caught cheating. He serves his time and then plays for hudds and cas (whilst being one of the most regularly tested men in rl) and there is no problem.


So to recap- in two spells at cas, as well as one at hudds and wakey, no cheating.

One spell at bulls, cheating.

: Tue Aug 25, 2009 2:44 pm  

pyeman wrote:

The only club he has been caught taking drugs at is bradford. When he played for us the first time (and wakey) there was no problem, then he played for you (a team with a history of cheating, ie salary cap) and was caught cheating. He serves his time and then plays for hudds and cas (whilst being one of the most regularly tested men in rl) and there is no problem.


So to recap- in two spells at cas, as well as one at hudds and wakey, no cheating.

One spell at bulls, cheating.

The club he's at when he's caught cheating has nothing to do with it though, it's not a clubs fault a player has decided to cheat the game.

or are you suggesting the Bulls encouraged Hudson to take performances enhancing drugs?

At the end of the day, we cut him when he was caught, you signed a known drug cheat, aswell as offering opportunity to an other