I mean with the clubs supporting them. As you have pointed out it seems to be the case that if they are a great player they have more chance of being kept on than an average player.

I'm sure we could show good morals and sack him

But were will the morals be from the rest of SL when every one of the clubs are chasing him.

NO i think we'll keep hold thank you

But if it is in their contract that they shouldn;t take drugs (which I believe it is) then I would want to sack them. Hock was signed as a player, not as a community officer, or a groundsman, he surely isn;t qualified for any of those jobs. If he can't do his job as a player (he's been banned) then the club has every right to be angry and terminate his contract.

I suppose 1 way of looking at it is Wigan have spent a lot of time and money developing Hock and they need a return for that investment. Why let all that go to waste by allowing him to go off the rails for 2 years and waste his future, or, keep himself in shape and then go to another local club.

They have. David Allen, a young lad from Saints, a lad from Oldham (I think). None of those would be classed as either high profile or world class. I suppose there are 2 ways of looking at this.

1) Drugs are a scurge on society and need to be stamped out. Let's make an example of him and terminate any involvement with our club and make sure there's no way back for him.

or

2) Drugs are a real problem that needs to be sorted. Let's put an arm around him, help him out and in time help him get back on his feet and back to where he was.

I think RU is a different case altogether. It's very much an international game rather than a club game. Bringing 'shame' on your nation is perhaps perceived as being worse than shaming your club.


All this being said, I don't think we know if he's being kept on by the club in some capacity or just being left to his own devices.

I have no idea what is in players contracts so I'm not going to comment on that.

He can't play for them for 2 years if he is banned but that doesn't mean at the end of the 2 years he can't come back and have a role within the club, what support the club provide in the meantime if surely an issue for the player and the club to establish.

The other clubs will chase him in 2 years when his ban is up, and what is to stop Wigan doing the same. Surely he would owe you something then. That isn;t my issue.

I guarantee you won;t see any other club take him on in a backroom role during the next two years.

No issues whatsoever with what happens after the 2 years, whether it is Wigan or any other club that he signs for.

My main point that started this was the difference in standards. As far as I am aware, Wigan RL would be the first Rugby club to continue to employ somebody banned for drugs. Is that a precendent that fans want their club to set?

If you are a 2nd teamer you get sacked, but if you are an international player you can get a backroom job? What kind of deterrant is that?

Give him a job volunteering at Wigan, and help him with his rehab, suport him that way, and then offer him a conditional contract for 2 years, if he can sort himself out he can return, give him something to work towards. I'm not convinced giving him a different job at Wigan RL is the way to go, but that is just my opinion.

I may be missing something but I haven't seen anything to suggest that Wigan are going to give him any sort of backroom role, the way I have understood the way people on here talking (which of course in no official indication of what the club will do) is just Wigan would keep hold of his registration so he could play for them after the ban.

I may have misunderstood, but I thought there was mention on the previous page about LE mentioning he could be employed as part of the community team.

I would have no issue with them simply retaining his registration, as after the two years he will have completed his ban.

So is the B sample test today then ???

And how long until the results are confirmed ???

I read it that the results would be due today, so we may hear something tomorrow.

Like it or not RL is a business and Hock will, in 2yrs be a valuable commodity. Wigan should give him some sort of community role, and so keep him sweet for 2011.

So do all morals go out of the window?

As a sport haven't we got massive issues with how Union have behaved in the past? If anything goes, then they are surely vindicated in everything they have done?

Pretty much
did saints have morals when they retained longy (gamblegate) and pryce more recently?
did warrington when they bought a player serving a ban for gamblegate?
why should wigan now?
I could probably name a situation from every superleague club.

Some of the above incidents I would have liked to have seen handled differently, but every club I have seen have sacked players when they were found guilty of drugs.

With regards to the three examples you quote, they were all banned from playing matches, not from all Rugby related activity. It was a ban just like a high tackle ban.

A drugs ban is different in that he wouldn;t be allowed to be involved with the Rugby side of things, yet that's what he is, a Rugby player, so why would you continue to employ him.

Signing him to play in 2 years is absolutely fine.

You also didn't quote the two instances this year where Wire and Cas sacked players for gross misconduct.

So does 'having morals' mean punishing Wigan as well as punishing Hock?

We lose our star player for two years, through no fault of ours. And you feel it only fair that we shouldn't be allowed to take any steps to get him back afterwards?

or where saints sacked a young lad for taking cocaine, because the simple fact is, if they were more high profile players they would not have been sacked.
I don't distinguish between a drugs ban and any other, esp. recreational.
Long and Gleeson could have directly affected the game they bet on, much worse IMO. Saints, leeds and hull kr have all got players with assault convictions (as do wigan) which are just as bad as a very stupid boy being convinced to taking something by his mates.

Unfortunately, Wigan will be punished either way if the B Test is positive as they will lose him on the field for 2 years.

I have no issues with Wigan standing by him, supporting him, providing counciling etc. but I don't believe he should bd given a job behind the scenes.

We often hear that no player is bigger than any club, yet if this kind of things means that a club (especially a club with the stature of Wigan RLFC) abandons any morals, then that isn't really true.

Providing Hock is guilty, he has let your club down big style, yet people look to be advocating bending over backwards to retain him.

The B sample is being tested today at a different lab, independent of where the A sample was tested.

It can take up to a week for the results to be known, so its unlikely we'll hear anything now until next week.

My point when I compared drugs v other offences is that the other offences still allowed for the player to continue working with the team in his role. He was getting paid to be a Rugby player, and he could still be involved in the training etc. whereas this is different with a drug offender.

He is not allowed to be involved in the football activities, meaning that his employment is worthless.

Aah, right. I assumed that when a positiv test was found, a 2nd test would be conducted straight away, which would sort of fit in with the date of today.

This might have been answered previously but what examples could be given for the statement bellow?

In exceptional circumstances where an athlete can show he bears no fault or negligence for the Anti-Doping Rule Violation, where an athlete can show he bears no significant fault or negligence for the Anti-Doping Rule Violation or where an athlete provides substantial assistance to the RFL or UK Sport which results in the discovery of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation by another person, the period can be reduced.

Didn't Cunningham have something that may have been affected by this?

Would that not be things like cold remedies or prescription drugs which although they shouldn't have taken they can prove they did only take for the required purposes of the drug and they didn't realise they weren't allowed or an ingredient in the wasn't?

I don’t think coke is on the NHS, how accurate are these tests at pin pointing the specific drug used?