From the A sample.

You would think so wouldnt you? If that isnt the case and somebody took that to a court of law they would win hands down. Just because somebody has made a mistake and been banned for doing something illegal it doesnt mean his life ends and he cant plan a future. They even let prisoners in jail plan what they are going to do when they get out!

That's a very good post mate. And Hock is definately very much in the Peacock sort of mould, who also went from backrow to Prop.

I think he can sign a contract 12 months before the end of his ban, i think matt stevens announced in january this year that he had signed a contract with saracens starting in january of next year

I would not work. If players were free to negotiate a new deal while banned then the day after they were banned the players would be agreeing a deal with their existing or a new club. With Hock if Wigan had any desire to keep him they would have to sign him there and then on the spot to start playing again when his ban was up to prevent other clubs nipping in for him. The bidding war that would result for a player of Hocks ability just banned for drugs would clearly be a stupid situation to have.

If it [iwas[/i allowed then it would all be above board, contracts signed and deals announced in the press.

And the ban does not stop him planning for his future. He can plan to offer his services to clubs the day his ban expires and he will either get signed up or he won't. Wigan and all the other clubs will know when his ban his up and will have already decided if they are going to offer him a contract so there is no restraint for him having to wait until his ban is up for the contract to be sorted.

Dave

Quote ="The Jolly Ginger Giant"I think he can sign a contract 12 months before the end of his ban, i think matt stevens announced in january this year that he had signed a contract with saracens starting in january of next year'" www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyu ... s-ban.html Quote Saracens rugby director Brendan Venter has described the recruitment of Stevens, who resigned from his four-year deal with Bath last March after being found guilty of taking cocaine, as "a massively significant signing". '" Quote Saracens, second in the Guinness Premiership, have indicated that Stevens will not train with their squad or be integrated in the club in any way until his ban has expired. '"

Quote ="The Jolly Ginger Giant"I think he can sign a contract 12 months before the end of his ban, i think matt stevens announced in january this year that he had signed a contract with saracens starting in january of next year'" www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyu ... s-ban.html Quote Saracens rugby director Brendan Venter has described the recruitment of Stevens, who resigned from his four-year deal with Bath last March after being found guilty of taking cocaine, as "a massively significant signing". '" Quote Saracens, second in the Guinness Premiership, have indicated that Stevens will not train with their squad or be integrated in the club in any way until his ban has expired. '"

when does his actual ban run to exactly, 23rd June was when it first was speculated, when did he get banned

His first sample was 5th June 2009. So it'll be two years from that date (or very close)
[urlhttp://www.independent.co.uk/sport/general/rugby-league/wigans-hock-faces-long-ban-after-positive-test-for-cocaine-1715849.html[/url

Regardless of whether Hock has or hasn't signed a contract with Wigan, he may well have a gentlemen's agreement with Lenegan. Alright it may not legally binding but if he's promised to sign as soon as he possibly can for however long for however much money then so be it.

I'm still waiting for this elusive statement from Lenegan about the whole Hock saga that we were promised months ago.

Just for the record I'm in favor of us resigning him, I'm just stating that because I know some aren't.

Surely not many. IMO Hock will come back as good - if not better - than ever.

Even with Hock coming back as a prop and whether it is right or wrong is a pointless debate really, as someone else will only sign him if we dont..

I really think we need another proven frontline forward for next season.

If Wigan don't sign Hock then there will be 13 other SL clubs who will.
What he did was stupid, he did the crime and he'll do the time.
It is not a life sentence but he's banned for two years.
After that it should be business as usual.

Do you not reckon Lenegan isn't coming out with a public statement in case something happens in the intervening months i.e. Hock gets caught again? IL could end up looking like a bit of a fool if that happens. Maybe it's a gentlemens handshake or maybe a deal has been done & IL doesn't want to publicise it becuase of the risk mentioned above. Makes sense to me. I'm also in favour of resigning him.

It's not that simple IMO. If a player who wasn't out of contract had to be released to make way for Hock e.g. for arguments sake Farrell, I think Farrell would rightly be aggrieved a player resurrecting his career after a drugs ban was replacing him at Wigan. You can't just ignore the offence and ban as if it never happened as a clean slate as that ignores all what the clubs players who were not banned have achieved in the meantime.

There is another thing that puzzles me which is given Gleeson was dropped for (as I understand it) drinking what would the club do to someone found taking drugs? Given the tough disciplinary stance over Gleeson I can't square that with re-signing a player banned for two years for taking drugs.



Dave

Personally i see Hock as replacing Bailey. Whether Hock comes back or not we will have to make some tough decisions soon over our forwards as there are simply too many coming through to accomodate. Some will be leaving over the next couple of years imo and we will probably get the usual 'wigan getting rid of all their youngsters' lectures because of it.

Regarding punishment, Gleeson was punished for whatever he did, and Hock is being punished for what he has done. Once that punishment is over whats the problem? Whether it is the club or the RFL impossing the punishment shouldn't make any difference imo.

Over the next two years we could lose Feka, Coley & Bailey from the pack. That is a lot of experience.
Hock would provide experience and with MM's coaching would improve over and above the player he was.
I don't think he poses a threat to Farrell or any other younger player but be a replacement for experienced forwards coming to the end of their time at Wigan or maybe their careers.

My view on the drugs issue is that he hasn't been charged with a criminal offence let alone convicted. This is a sport issue and RL has the right stand on it.
I also firmly believe that he has to be helped through it so he doesn't re-offend.
The club, as far as I know, can't discuss rugby or rugby issues with him. However to re-assure someone that they still have a future and give them hope is what needs to be done yet is a very long way from getting them to sign a written contract which would break the rules.
The club I'm sure are handling the matter in the correct manner and the less they say about GH the better as far as I am concerned.

Sorry Dave, but you're talking daft now.

If we do replace someone like Farrell with Hock (or anyone else), then that's fair enough provided that the new player is BETTER than the player that he replaces.



I think you've already answered your own question here......

Gleeson was dropped for 1 GAME for drinking (allegedly).

Hock was dropped for 2 YEARS for taking a substance that doesn't have that much more of an effect.
(I don't want to get in to the whole drink/drugs relative damage argument, but you get my point).

1 game, or 2 years. Don't you think he has been "dropped" for long enough to warrant any new chance that we give him?

BTW - Had he taken a TRUE performance enhancer (steroid/HGH, etc.) then I wouldn't want him back at the club at all, as that is blatant CHEATING.

He is serving his punishment without complaint and acknowledges how stupid he was, why punish him more afterwards?

When he has served his time treat him like any other player. If you are good enough, you can play.

If he was to serve his ban and then sign for another club then that would be one hell of a smack in the face for Wigan (Staff and IL). They have stuck with him behind the scenes and IL will not yet make a statement as it would be unwise as Hock still needs to feel like he is not indespensible. IL will be speaking behind the scenes to Hock and his family but will keep it low key and will conciously not promotes Gareth Hocks ego or beleif that no matter what Wigan will gaurantee his employment back at the club. All in my opinion of course...

I seem to remember IL saying at the time of Hock's ban that Wigan would retain his playing registration until his ban is served. Is this correct or am I making stuff up? If that is true I think that means that we'll get first refusal on him when he's allowed to play again

Why have I been told a few times from different people that Hock will be back around 5-6 games into the new season? Although not a full 2 years will be up, supposedly it was reduced to 18 months on appeal....etc?

I have also heard that he was due back 5 games into the season. From the horses mouth

Are you not re-signing Stu Fielden.

If we do, it will be at around a third of what he's on now.

And teams cant spend more than 1.6m on wages..but we all know thats aload of balls

clubs will do what they want.wouldnt be surprised if he signed a deal the day after he got the ban.