yep. Cunnigham, Senior and Bailey have all used this when prescribed something they took innocently..

I guess if Hock could prove that he somehow unwittingly took the cocaine he could use it as his defence, but I find it doubtful.

Especially after Kev Brown has already given the game up



I've not even given the B sample a thought. He's done for 2 years, he knows it, Wigan know it and everybody knows it.

Perhaps he could blame it on mathers.

Yeah, people seem to be talking about it quite openly about the fact that he is gutted and that he has made a mistake. It seems pretty clear that he will not be preparing a defence.

Loving all these transparent fans who think wigan should sack him.

For one simple reason

They want him in there colours in 2 years time

Nah, you are wrong. If you were to terminate his contract after a positive B Test, what is to stop you signing him again in 2 years anway?

It is nothing to do with that.

How many on here thought Saints did the right thing when retaining Leon Pryce?

Some of us do have morals.

If this is a moral stance, its a skewed one. Hock is already being punished by being banned from the game for two years.

As you said earlier, Wigan are also being punished - this is a lad they've invested lots of time and money in, and haven't yet reaped the reward for. But taking action to prevent them getting first call on him in two years time is punishing them twice.

I have already said to offer him a conditional contract for 2 years time if you really want him back.

I have never ever seen an instance of a player being guilty of drug use and being retained by their club. As mentioned, Bath Rugby have recently parted company with 5 high profile players, including an England player and a co-captain.

Just done a search and found an old article from 2005 where a Union player had been banned for Cocaine, and he was banned from:

[i"playing, training with or being a member of a club, coaching, administering or acting in any official capacity within the sport".[/i

I made the same point yesterday. It's pointless for Wigan not to sack otherwise they would be paying him to be say at home.

If he test's positive I don't want him in Wigan colours in 2years time after his ban. I couldn't care where he ended up TBH.

so people who work in the community for the club are worthless? thats just wrong! all clubs have people who go to schools etc and teach kids about drugs in sport etc. who would be better than their fallen hero? there are lots of jobs in a SL club that dont involve rugby.

wats going on? I would have thought there would have been an official announcement today? Isnt he supposed to get the results of the B test?

He has been provisionally suspended by the RFL, with the B sample test result due in early July.

[itimesonline.typepad.com/rugby_league/2009/06/my-entry-6.html[/i

Strange. Other reports suggested the result was due today.

I suppose when you think about it he had his first drug test on the Friday of the 2nd Salford game but the results didn't come out according to Wigan until Monday of last week so if they've tested the B sample today it may take another week or so to get those results.

Like i've said previously though they may aswell not bother testing the B sample as he's(or his family have) held his hands up.

Having re-read the original story, it does actually say that the B Sample will be tested today, not that the results will be given today.

He can do that but not on our wedge.

I note that Hock is currently contracted until the end of the 2011 season. If, as expected, he is suspended for two years, does that not mean that his contact (which I presume will also be suspended) will still be running in 2011 when he is permitted to return, thus meaning that Wigan will retain his registration.

Not if Wigan sack him.

why would they want to retain him, or re-sign him??
clubs put a lot of time and effort, and invested a lot of money into bringing him on as a player.
so IF hes guilty, why would they want him??

look at it this way...if he was a bankers advisor/stockbroker, who they had spent time and money training up and he got 2 years for fraud, do you think they would re-employ him after his 2 year sentence was up????
NO WAY.........and the same applies in this case imo.

But if the banker was sacked for taking drugs, he would not be banned from banking.
Wigan need to keep him under their wing and help the lad. Ok he might have done something silly but don't condemn him to a life without rugby.If he gets banned, and he keeps his fitness up, then clubs would be queing up to sign him.

Exactly

It took 17 days for the club to be informed after the A test. I wonder if it will take that long with the B test.

I disagree. We should dump him on his a[ir[/ise. The rules state don't take drugs, simple.

Everyone makes mistakes, why punish him twice, going from 100k+ to nothing will mean he looses his home as well as his job and respect. He could go really off the rails and i think it would be right of the club to support him if they can.