Wow, well done for missing the point.

They believed that a 5 year contract is generally a reward for excellent service, not snorting cocaine and then being a good boy while you are sat on the sidelines.

Aaah...clarification. So it's not the drugs, or being permitted to return to his sport that they find to be 'a farce'? Did they deem his suspension sufficient? If so, why should the length of contract be a concern - after all, he's done his time.

But let's see...how long should the contract be?

Would 1 year be too little? 3 years too much? Just what did you knowledgable "non-RL friends" decide was the appropriate contract length for a returning sportsperson?

And what about, for example, athletes, tennis players, runners...sportspeople who aren't tied to club contracts. What should happen with them?

I think we need to know. We need to avoid be labelled as 'a farce' by those important non-RL friends of yours.

I'm going to tell my friends they are idiots because Cronus said so, and they aren't allowed opinions in future.

Can't answer the questions then.

Good job Lister.



Tell them if they're going to condemn RL for offering a returning player a 5-year contract, they should consider their perspectives on similar and related situations and decide whether they would reach the same conclusions.

Call them idiots if you like. You (and your friends) seem to like ill-informed snap judgements.

Brilliant.

No, I can't answer the questions as unlike you, who seems to think that it is possible to tell people exactly what they should be thinking, I can't change their opinions on the fact that a bloke who did cocaine, recieved a ban from RL, immediately came back and bagged himself a 5 year contract. Simple as that, its hardly ill informed, as that is exactly what has happened here.

Welcome to the glorious world of WireWonder.

Cronus exemplifies the type of behaviour that is so commonplace in Rugby League circles - absolutely no idea of how the sport is percieved by the outsider.

No no no dave give it a rest your boring

Your 'mates' seem clueless i bet your 'mates' didn't know that stipulations are in his 5 year deal (one being drug tested on a regular basis) did they?

Our sport will never take off down in london because they love the football too much and the rfl are to dumb to see that

Oh and yes your crowds are on the bbc website everytime you play at home

You are missing the point completely, as usual.

Why are you dragging Harlequins into this? You seem obsessed. Or paranoid. Or both.

I was replying to your first reply on the last page

Your saying people shouldn't be given second chances which is way off the mark

Hock isn't the brightest blub as we all know you really think he's going to chuck this chance away when he's got nothing to fall back on?

It was the same with terry newton no one wanted to know the guy after what he did come out and look what happened there,if players show they are willing to change there lifestyle and turn a corner do you not think it is a good thing?

Yes, in response to your opening irrelevant comment.



Where have I said that?

More or less says it i cant be d arguing with you dave your boring me a few people said your clueless so leave it at that

Yet another well thought out, eloquent response from king warrior.

I'm assuming you filled them in on actual details then? Of what Hock has been doing during his suspension? Of his work to gain skills to allow him to talk to kids in schools, young offenders' institutions and jails (and other community work)? Of how he went to college and learned plumbing skills allowing him to work for a local plumbing firm to earn his keep? And how he's trained non-stop with an ex-army Sergeant, working not only his physical form, but mental development and leadership skills? Of just what an outstanding player he was before the his suspension? Of how Wigan chose, rather than dump him on the scrapheap, to show faith in his dedication and rehabilitation?

What, you mean you didn't tell them all that? Well then, your "non-rl friends" are indeed extremely ill-informed and should therefore reserve judgement until they know the facts. Should you bother to tell them.

But you're probably right, he should be condemned as "a bloke who did cocaine, recieved a ban from RL, immediately came back and bagged himself a 5 year contract". Because that's a positive move for all concerned. We all know RL lads shunned over drugs can handle it.

Again, good job Lister.

Oh my god. You really aren't grasping this are you? Arghhhhhhhhh.

This board is just impossible sometimes.

Yes, fine, the bloke is a hero, 5 year contract well earned.

That's an interesting angle: "everyone else just doesn't get it."

I asked you to expand on your point earlier and you chose to skip it. I've shown why your non-RL friends' views on the 5-year contract are ill-informed and you ignore it. I'm starting to see a pattern.

Congratulations on listing your achievements for the evening, are you feeling proud of yourself?

I'm not ignoring anything, I appreciate your comments and explanation, but the simple facts still remain. Fine, you think he deserves his 5 year contract, others do not, irrespective of how much he has tried to make up for his faux pas while not being able to play RL. I am fully aware of how much of a good boy he has been and I think a 5 year contract is extremely excessive, especially for a bloke who hasn't played a match for so long. I have not once said that he deserved to be ditched by Wigan, as king warrior wrongly assumed.

Is only your opinion valid?

You're starting to sound riled, Lister.

So did you explain all of those details in full to your 'non-rl friends' to allow them to make a fully informed judgement? It's a simple question and the second time I've asked.

And what length of contract did they deem acceptable? Again, second time I've asked.

Their opinion is perfectly valid - as long as they are in full possession of the facts. Otherwise it's an ill-informed judgement and deserves to be treated as such.

I've not said I think he deserves his contract. You're making that up. As it happens I think it's a long contract to award to any player - never mind one in Hock's circumstances. But as I'm in full possession of the facts as they've been released in the public arena, I don't make crass judgements such as claiming it's a reward for drug-taking or a farce, and I'm pleased with Hock's rehabilitation and development and grateful Wigan have supported and shown faith in him.

I'm not riled at all, especially after reading this post. I agree with your final paragraph. I have never said it was a reward for drug taking either, nobody that I have refered to taking to saw it like that.

No, I didn't fill them in with the full account of the facts that you have pointed out. Some of them I did, some of them I didn't. Does that invalidate their opinions? I doubt they would completely change their mind to be honest. You might be a greater believer of someone having "served their time", therefore everything should be brushed under the carpet, but others are not.

Fair enough, I was wrong to assume you thought he deserves it. "Deserves" would lead one to believe that he has shown qualities worthy of reward - I think a 1 or 2 year deal would have been more suitable, but then that is my opinion.

Fair enough.

my thoughts are that he has obviously been training with the club when he shouldnt have been (in some capacity)

no one in their right mind would offer a 5 year contract to a player who has been out of the game for so long without seeing them in regular action.

Can't agree that Hock was 'average'. He's probably the most dynamic British forward around apart from Sam Burgess. If he gets back his previous form (even including penalties and dropped ball) he'd walk into any other SL side. If he can get rid of the mistakes he could be a world-class forward.

I'm not sure about a 5-year deal, but I also don't have a problem with clubs showing loyalty to players who make mistakes but sort themselves out. Leeds did the same with Walker and Bailey, and I'd rate Hock's offence as far less serious than assault.

No he's not but he's been training with an ex army guy doing lots of fitness

I'm telling you the guy is a beast he put quite a bit of weight on and once he's settled back in will be one of the top props in the league

I imagine that would be almost impossible. Think of all the people who might spot him - fans, journalists, club employees, gym-goers, etc, etc...if word got out the ban would at the very least be upheld to the full, and you'd probably see fines against the club, an extension of the ban, etc... Besides, it's pretty common knowledge who he's been training with for quite some time.

As for the 5-year contract, I agree it's a gamble, though I have faith in Leneghan. Hock was a devastating player when on form and if he's matured and calmed those brain-farts as he's been learning to do, he'll could be outstanding. Still, I agree it's a long contract to offer a returning player - but then several other clubs (including NRL iirc) were also after him so perhaps it's worth tying him up long-term. I'm sure there are clauses to protect the club if things go wrong.

Who gives a monkeys about what some randoms non-rl friends think? For all we know they could have been stoned on dried banana skins when they gave their opinions.

For what it's worth - a friend of my auntie's thought it was great news!

Many other sports have far more significant things to be ashamed about, but are still far more popular than RL will ever be.

Good luck to the lad - he worked hard while he was away, looks to have sorted himself out both on and away from the training field, will be subject to regular checks in the future, and if he steps out of line his looooooooooong 5 year contract will be ripped up.