14 March 2012
An anti-doping conference at Twickenham today includes an appearance by UKAD’s Richard Redman, the official who personally oversaw the investigation into the Martin Gleeson & Hull FC rugby league drugs cover-up.
The Mail on Sunday and Sportingintelligence covered this in depth earlier this year. Articles linked here.
Questions remain, however, and for genuine transparency about the anti-doping process, it would be helpful if UKAD could address the following on the record and in detail.
1: Can you confirm that it is true that at the end of UKAD’s investigation, in which prominent anti-doping QC Jonathan Taylor conducted many of the interviews (Taylor is also acting for WADA against the BOA, incidentally), UKAD initially felt there was a case for a serious anti-doping charge to be brought against the Rugby Football League’s Emma Rosewarne, head of RFL anti-doping?
2: Can you confirm this charge was not prosecuted on external legal advice, and not because UKAD / Taylor felt there was insufficient grounds for a case?
3: Can you confirm that Andy Parkinson, head of UKAD, privately acknowledges Rosewarne should have passed on essential information she knew very early on in the case, but failed to do so, thereby creating conditions in which the cover-up could happen?
4: Can you confirm this was a clear breach of 4.6.2 of the ‘lesser’ UK National Anti-Doping Policy as UKAD themselves understand it?
5: Can you confirm that no action whatsoever was taken to prosecute an apparent breach of 4.6.2 because of finite time and resources available to UKAD, as opposed to any belief there was no case to answer?
6: Can you confirm that Andy Parkinson himself was personally involved in advising Emma Rosewarne and / or the RFL / and or Hull about Gleeson’s case on the initial weekend when Gleeson’s drug ban was temporarily lifted?
7: Does UKAD think that as an investigatory and prosecution body, Andy Parkinson should have been advising Rosewarne / RFL / Hull about how Gleeson could be freed up to play when there was never ANY suggestion Gleeson could make ‘no fault’ case? (As was made clear later at tribunal. Do UKAD not understand how Gleeson never had a chance of a ‘no fault’ case?)
8: Why was Andy Parkinson not formally interviewed as part of Richard Redman’s investigation?
9: Why did UKAD take no action against a group of other Hull players for admitting they took a banned substance on game days? And how common are such secret amnesties?
10: Have the RFL had any warnings from UKAD, official or otherwise, about the conduct of any of their officials during the Gleeson cover-up? And if not, would UKAD be happy that in exactly the same situation for the RFL and all RFL officials to act in exactly the same way again, namely withholding key information about the suppliers and users of banned substances?
Follow SPORTINGINTELLIGENCE on Twitter