Re: Martin gleeson : Thu Dec 29, 2011 10:27 pm  

ABP' wrote:

Was this your attitude towards bronze statued, king Kieron Cunningham in 2003 as well?

Had the same thing happened to him now, but without the fraudulent conditioner, then yes, it would have been. However, back in 2003, the players did not have the education, information or assumption of personal responsibility that is the case now. There simply was not the procedure or regime in place and so the two can't scenarios can't be compared.

Re: Martin gleeson : Thu Dec 29, 2011 10:55 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Why should he have support? He has been in the game long enough, and involved in enough bad press, to know full well that he is responsible for checking what he is taking. The authorities provide a full list of banned substances. He made the decision to take the banned substance all by his grown up self so he has to take the consequences of that decision. If anyone decides to cheat or put other players at risk through the use of banned substances (substances banned in sport for very good reason) then they deserve what they get. Martin Gleeson has had plenty of opportunity to get his life in order and he has chosen not to do so.

As for Sean Long, well, I think we probably said goodbye to him at the right time!

That's a sad attitude to have, to be honest.

You've probably noticed by now that he isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer and doesn't always make great decisions. But all his indiscretions have been silliness rather than malice and he's never gone out to hurt anyone else.

I think you're within your rights to say he should be banned for X amount of time and I'd agree, I'm not saying he should be let off his punishment, I'm saying that as a naive lad who's never lived in the 'real' world outside the insular universe of professional sport, he now deserves support to help get his life together.

He's served some of our top clubs (including our own) with distinction, as well as his country. To say he doesn't deserve support coming to terms with this is pretty cold.

Re: Martin gleeson : Thu Dec 29, 2011 11:17 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Had the same thing happened to him now, but without the fraudulent conditioner, then yes, it would have been. However, back in 2003, the players did not have the education, information or assumption of personal responsibility that is the case now. There simply was not the procedure or regime in place and so the two can't scenarios can't be compared.

Come off it.

It was 2003, not 1973.

Re: Martin gleeson : Fri Dec 30, 2011 8:39 am  

SaintsFan wrote:

Had the same thing happened to him now, but without the fraudulent conditioner, then yes, it would have been. However, back in 2003, the players did not have the education, information or assumption of personal responsibility that is the case now. There simply was not the procedure or regime in place and so the two can't scenarios can't be compared.

It's ultimately the players responsibility to watch what medicine, tablets or any form of medication.

I know for fact the players in 2003 was givin lists on what they can't take. The is more to that story than has been told but I'm pretty sure KC was unaware it was a banned substance he was taking.

On the gleeson 18 month ban, why has he got 18 month with another 18 suspended for taking diet pills, when man city player kolo toure only got 6 month for taking diet pills?

Re: Martin gleeson : Fri Dec 30, 2011 11:32 am  

ABP' wrote:

Come off it.

It was 2003, not 1973.

exactly, both senarios look virtually indentical, gleeson has been ingnorant, thats all imo

Re: Martin gleeson : Fri Dec 30, 2011 12:01 pm  

(Saint) wrote:

You've probably noticed by now that he isn't the sharpest knife in the drawer and doesn't always make great decisions. But all his indiscretions have been silliness rather than malice and he's never gone out to hurt anyone else.

Well, the clueless defence doesn't hold water anywhere. He knew what he was doing in the betting scandal; he knew what he was doing with the drugs. He knew he should have checked and not only that but he lied to cover up what he did, which is a clear indication that he knew what he was doing.

He's served some of our top clubs (including our own) with distinction, as well as his country. To say he doesn't deserve support coming to terms with this is pretty cold.

I don't care how good a player he is. Cheating and putting other players at risk should never be condoned. I've no sympathy with anyone wanting to cheat or put other players at risk. Nothing to do with being cold.

Re: Martin gleeson : Fri Dec 30, 2011 5:46 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Well, the clueless defence doesn't hold water anywhere. He knew what he was doing in the betting scandal; he knew what he was doing with the drugs. He knew he should have checked and not only that but he lied to cover up what he did, which is a clear indication that he knew what he was doing.

I don't care how good a player he is. Cheating and putting other players at risk should never be condoned. I've no sympathy with anyone wanting to cheat or put other players at risk. Nothing to do with being cold.

As the father of a player,not professional,i find it re assuring the help that is starting to filter through.The state of mind round 27,raising awareness in players mental health and wellbeing being a prime example.We as a sport owe it to the players to help them through the hard times and hopefully avoid another Terry Newton situation.Martin Gleeson needs as much help as possible at this time.If our sport were to turn its back on him,not only would i worry for Gleeson,but i would be ashamed of our sport.After all,we are supposed to be the RL family.

Re: Martin gleeson : Fri Dec 30, 2011 5:48 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

Well, the clueless defence doesn't hold water anywhere. He knew what he was doing in the betting scandal; he knew what he was doing with the drugs. He knew he should have checked and not only that but he lied to cover up what he did, which is a clear indication that he knew what he was doing.

I don't care how good a player he is. Cheating and putting other players at risk should never be condoned. I've no sympathy with anyone wanting to cheat or put other players at risk. Nothing to do with being cold.

from the evidence, if you have read it its clear he didnt know it was a banned substance, exactly the same as Keirons situation 8 years ago, so do you words apply to him too?
Gleeson has made many errors in his life, from the evidence i think he is as much a victim here though

Re: Martin gleeson : Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:42 pm  

SaintsFan wrote:

I don't care how good a player he is. Cheating and putting other players at risk should never be condoned. I've no sympathy with anyone wanting to cheat or put other players at risk. Nothing to do with being cold.

I wouldn't say he has directly put other people at risk, the biggest worry is that he could be on a journey to self destruction, if this is the case he needs help from outside the sport.
The main concern is the cover up by the sacked Hull staff, Our very own betting scandal and drug situation was handled with a reasonable amount of transparency.
Gleeson may need help, as someone has already mentioned, we don't another Terry Newton on our hands.

Re: Martin gleeson : Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:46 pm  

Judder Man wrote:

I wouldn't say he has directly put other people at risk, the biggest worry is that he could be on a journey to self destruction, if this is the case he needs help from outside the sport.
The main concern is the cover up by the sacked Hull staff, Our very own betting scandal and drug situation was handled with a reasonable amount of transparency.
Gleeson may need help, as someone has already mentioned, we don't another Terry Newton on our hands.

It wasn't. It was kept undisclosed(covered up) for 18 months until WADA wanted it out in the open.

Check your pms btw.