Re: Hock : Tue Mar 29, 2011 11:20 am  

Which footballer set the precedent? The article didn't say.

Re: Hock : Tue Mar 29, 2011 11:23 am  

Rogues Gallery wrote:

If the INDEPENDENT commission say he can't train until June, then so be it.

No great drama.

Lets wait and see.

So if it were any other Club than yours you would condone the early return of a guilty drug cheat then would you?

As Mugwump states, your attitude is very predictable.

Re: Hock : Tue Mar 29, 2011 11:25 am  

I personally think he should be allowed to train, given as much help as possible to help him get on the right road, and resume his career.

I don't understand why sport is possibly the only profession where if you get caught taking recreational drugs, you're barred from earning a living in said profession. People like Hock, Danny Langtree, Matt Stevens, et al, should be helped rather than banished from their profession for two years. It sounds like Wigan, to their credit, have. Performance enhancing drugs is, a different kettle of fish, mind you.

Re: Hock : Tue Mar 29, 2011 11:30 am  

jonnythesaint wrote:

I personally think he should be allowed to train, given as much help as possible to help him get on the right road, and resume his career.

I don't understand why sport is possibly the only profession where if you get caught taking recreational drugs, you're barred from earning a living in said profession. People like Hock, Danny Langtree, Matt Stevens, et al, should be helped rather than banished from their profession for two years. It sounds like Wigan, to their credit, have. Performance enhancing drugs is, a different kettle of fish, mind you.

What??

Let me put it this way. If you had a young child who idolised a player and said player was caught taking rcreational drugs; without redress from the authorities, would you then be happy for your young child to believe that taking these things was acceptable?

In my opinion, any player, from ANY Club (ours included) should be banned for a far greater period than the mandatory 2 years. Behaviours don't change without significant consequences.

Re: Hock : Tue Mar 29, 2011 11:30 am  

jonnythesaint wrote:

I don't understand why sport is possibly the only profession where if you get caught taking recreational drugs, you're barred from earning a living in said profession.

The reason is simple: sport is unlike any other profession. To draw parallels with a fork-lift driver or a policeman is nonsense.

If you DON'T believe sport is different then you won't mind if players leave with a week or a month's notice to play for someone else. Perhaps just before a Grand Final?

Re: Hock : Tue Mar 29, 2011 11:34 am  

Mugwump wrote:

The reason is simple: sport is unlike any other profession. To draw parallels with a fork-lift driver or a policeman is nonsense.

If you DON'T believe sport is different then you won't mind if players leave with a week or a month's notice to play for someone else. Perhaps just before a Grand Final?

good points, doubt the policeman would keep his job though

Re: Hock : Tue Mar 29, 2011 11:35 am  

Mugwump wrote:

If you DON'T believe sport is different then you won't mind if players leave with a week or a month's notice to play for someone else. Perhaps just before a Grand Final?

If they haven't signed a fixed term contract, no I wouldn't.

Re: Hock : Tue Mar 29, 2011 11:45 am  

jonnythesaint wrote:

If they haven't signed a fixed term contract, no I wouldn't.

There is very little common ground between the fixed contracts that exist in sport and all others. The EU has already stated it regards sport and the contracts that exist within sport as a special case. It's the reason they didn't come down heavy ten years ago and effectively remodel all sport into something unrecognisable.

Re: Hock : Tue Mar 29, 2011 11:48 am  

Allez wrote:

What??

Let me put it this way. If you had a young child who idolised a player and said player was caught taking rcreational drugs; without redress from the authorities, would you then be happy for your young child to believe that taking these things was acceptable?

In my opinion, any player, from ANY Club (ours included) should be banned for a far greater period than the mandatory 2 years. Behaviours don't change without significant consequences.

I have a child who idolises Ricky Hatton for instance, and I was mortified to see the pictures of him in NOTW.

I've left him in no doubt it's wrong, but explained the pressures sportsmen come under, and the temptations that they face. I just don't understand that a silly mistake you can make when you've had a few beers can cost you so much, when in any other walk of life it doesn't. If they get caught once, they need help, if they continue to do it after receiving such help, in the long run, their performances will suffer and they will become a liability and no club would touch them.

Re: Hock : Tue Mar 29, 2011 11:50 am  

Mugwump wrote:

There is very little common ground between the fixed contracts that exist in sport and all others. The EU has already stated it regards sport and the contracts that exist within sport as a special case. It's the reason they didn't come down heavy ten years ago and effectively remodel all sport into something unrecognisable.

And the point is?