Shows the absolute lack of morality still exists at wigan. In days gone by it was buying the title at the sports detriment now its employing drunks and drug addicts. They should have sacked Hock bbut they didn't and now they will happily play him again with a big 'he's back's fanfare. I would be ashamed if Saints behaved like this. Wigan have no class. They can't even abide by the rules of his ban without trying to get special treatment.

Scum.

I was about to post something similar. Hock's next contract would have been way north of 100k, wigan arnt daft he'll be playing for them again, but if he's on much more than £30k i'd be astonished.

Its' not unique. Where I work, if any member of staff is found to be using drugs or alcohol then they are fired. There is regular drug and alcohol testing for that purpose, and that includes staff not directly involved in the use of machinery. There are many jobs in which the use of narcotics or alcohol results in danger to others and therefore they should not be tolerated within the workforce. That is the case with sport. Sport also has the added feature that when an athelete uses performance enhancing drugs they are cheating. So either you're a cheat or a danger to others. And then, of course, it is actually [iillegal[/i to use recreational drugs, although God knows who gives a damn these days regardless of the human wreckage they cause. But that's another argument.

To be fair they do want some acts to go punished, they wanted Danny Mcguires Career over when he held back George Carmont that time....

and I cant Wait for Phil Clarkes first comments on Hock...

"D'you know Eddie what people dont know is just how difficult it is to come back from a Drugs Ban and this Wigan team under Michael Maguire seem to do it better than Anybody else..........lets look at a couple of examples......"

Just as a matter of interest, what do you do?

I understand what you're saying, what I'm failing to see is how it backs up you're original point, and my answer to it.

Maybe , or maybe because of the break he will just play on longer at a higher level. As for the shame side of things it wasnt a bright thing to do but at least he's not a cheat. Plenty people in plenty walks of life take recreational drugs and tbh it's at there own risk so I'm not really that bothered, taking performance enhancers is a different matter though.

Cocaine is classed as a performance enhancing drug by WADA, and it is of course illegal.

there are plenty of professions whereby if you get caught taking illegal drugs "on the job" you will get sacked.

Well I've never heard of it enhancing many performances , at least not on the Rugby field anyways. Being illegal is a Police matter not a sporting one.

Of course, but it's very rare where you're then totally barred from being in a particular industry.

And you're better placed than WADA, with their host of scientists and resources, to adjudicate whether cocaine is a performance enhancing drug?

For the record:

[i"Aggressiveness increase
Alertness increase
Competitiveness increase
Responsiveness increase
Tiredness reduction
Weight loss"[/i

A bit like employing and welcoming back gamblers and cheats??

We didn't. It was all Martin Gleeson's fault, he made Longy do it and was subsequently binned off.

Quote ="No1 Saint"Well I've never heard of it enhancing many performances , at least not on the Rugby field anyways. Being illegal is a Police matter not a sporting one.'" cannazine.co.uk/class-a-substanc ... r-ban.html “There is a new flexibility in the revised code in relation to specified substances and this flexibility can be used to lessen the sanctions. However, cocaine is not one of the specified substances. Its status as a prohibited substance remains as it was before.” Wada has never used the term “recreational drug” and when deciding on whether to ban a drug, it uses three criteria: is it performance-enhancing; is its use against the spirit of sport; is its use harmful or injurious to the athlete? If Wada is satisfied that the drug meets two of these criteria, it is banned. Cocaine is believed to fit all three criteria."

Quote ="No1 Saint"Well I've never heard of it enhancing many performances , at least not on the Rugby field anyways. Being illegal is a Police matter not a sporting one.'" cannazine.co.uk/class-a-substanc ... r-ban.html “There is a new flexibility in the revised code in relation to specified substances and this flexibility can be used to lessen the sanctions. However, cocaine is not one of the specified substances. Its status as a prohibited substance remains as it was before.” Wada has never used the term “recreational drug” and when deciding on whether to ban a drug, it uses three criteria: is it performance-enhancing; is its use against the spirit of sport; is its use harmful or injurious to the athlete? If Wada is satisfied that the drug meets two of these criteria, it is banned. Cocaine is believed to fit all three criteria."

A metabolite in the cocaine is the performance enhancing element to the drug. I read about it just after Hock had been charged.

But aside from that, a cokehead on the pitch is a danger to a lot of people.


So you would never report a crime then?

No not really.

You cant argue with facts but I doubt performance increase is why Hock was on the snow and as for reporting a crime , it depends on the crime. Taking recreational drugs the answer is no as it's non of my business.

You're an idiot. You are the one's who employed one of said gambler's and cheat's.

Ah. Is rape your business? Burglary? A spot of benefit fraud maybe? A crime's a crime IMO.

But that's another debate.

I'm sure if you considered the potential danger that the rest of the players are in on the pitch when you have a druggie or drunk on there with you, you might consider reporting a 'recreational drug' crime. It's just that most people think it's fun. It's actually dangerous s h i t.

If the rules state Hock is banned from playing and training with any pro club for two years then that should be what happens. Just because it is a team sport makes no difference, once his ban is up then he can start training again.

I see that they are using an example from football but I hope the judge (or whoever decides on this) basically tells them his ban ends after 2yrs and then he can start training/playing for Wigan again. Anything else and I can see other players training all the way through their two year ban and just not being allowed to play.

Can anyone tell me could Hock have gone to play Union or any other pro sport in this country? As it is a World wide organisation that has banned him I would imagine it is any pro sport he is banned from??

And tried to sign the other?

A 2 year ban should mean a 2 year ban. I've heard rumour that the club have given him a training regime anyway and that he'd been training there, though I find the latter hard to believe as the club would be very stupid if that was the case.

He isn't allowed contact with the club or to train with them. As ever the Goons just assume the rules foe everyone else don't apply to them.

I guess buying a ticket for the Wire game and being sat next to the Chairman / owner was just a big coincidence

in what regard is he not allowed contact with the club? he is still on the payroll and carrying out community work for the club.

There isn't a chance they will change the decision, unless the original judge who set the precedent stated in the Obiter Dicta, the original case in which the precedent was set was an exceptional case. which by my knowledge and if i remember correctly has only ever happened twice in the history of judicial precedent.