Re: Hock : Tue Mar 29, 2011 1:09 pm  

Mugwump wrote:

If you don't understand it by now I'm wasting my time explaining any further.

I understand what you're saying, what I'm failing to see is how it backs up you're original point, and my answer to it.

Re: Hock : Tue Mar 29, 2011 1:34 pm  

jonnythesaint wrote:

It's cost him two years of his career, and brought shame upon himself, and his family.

Maybe , or maybe because of the break he will just play on longer at a higher level. As for the shame side of things it wasnt a bright thing to do but at least he's not a cheat. Plenty people in plenty walks of life take recreational drugs and tbh it's at there own risk so I'm not really that bothered, taking performance enhancers is a different matter though.

Re: Hock : Tue Mar 29, 2011 2:11 pm  

No1 Saint wrote:

Maybe , or maybe because of the break he will just play on longer at a higher level. As for the shame side of things it wasnt a bright thing to do but at least he's not a cheat. Plenty people in plenty walks of life take recreational drugs and tbh it's at there own risk so I'm not really that bothered, taking performance enhancers is a different matter though.

Cocaine is classed as a performance enhancing drug by WADA, and it is of course illegal.

Re: Hock : Tue Mar 29, 2011 2:13 pm  

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.

there are plenty of professions whereby if you get caught taking illegal drugs "on the job" you will get sacked.

Re: Hock : Tue Mar 29, 2011 2:15 pm  

EHW wrote:

Cocaine is classed as a performance enhancing drug by WADA, and it is of course illegal.

Well I've never heard of it enhancing many performances , at least not on the Rugby field anyways. Being illegal is a Police matter not a sporting one.

Re: Hock : Tue Mar 29, 2011 2:22 pm  

EHW wrote:

there are plenty of professions whereby if you get caught taking illegal drugs "on the job" you will get sacked.

Of course, but it's very rare where you're then totally barred from being in a particular industry.

Re: Hock : Tue Mar 29, 2011 2:44 pm  

No1 Saint wrote:

Well I've never heard of it enhancing many performances , at least not on the Rugby field anyways. Being illegal is a Police matter not a sporting one.

And you're better placed than WADA, with their host of scientists and resources, to adjudicate whether cocaine is a performance enhancing drug?

For the record:

"Aggressiveness increase
Alertness increase
Competitiveness increase
Responsiveness increase
Tiredness reduction
Weight loss"

Re: Hock : Tue Mar 29, 2011 2:47 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

Shows the absolute lack of morality still exists at wigan. In days gone by it was buying the title at the sports detriment now its employing drunks and drug addicts. They should have sacked Hock bbut they didn't and now they will happily play him again with a big 'he's back's fanfare. I would be ashamed if Saints behaved like this. Wigan have no class. They can't even abide by the rules of his ban without trying to get special treatment.

Scum.

A bit like employing and welcoming back gamblers and cheats??

Re: Hock : Tue Mar 29, 2011 3:09 pm  

Wigan Stu wrote:

:lol: A bit like employing and welcoming back gamblers and cheats??

We didn't. It was all Martin Gleeson's fault, he made Longy do it and was subsequently binned off.

Re: Hock : Tue Mar 29, 2011 3:30 pm  

No1 Saint wrote: Well I've never heard of it enhancing many performances , at least not on the Rugby field anyways. Being illegal is a Police matter not a sporting one. http://cannazine.co.uk/class-a-substanc ... r-ban.html “There is a new flexibility in the revised code in relation to specified substances and this flexibility can be used to lessen the sanctions. However, cocaine is not one of the specified substances. Its status as a prohibited substance remains as it was before.” Wada has never used the term “recreational drug” and when deciding on whether to ban a drug, it uses three criteria: is it performance-enhancing; is its use against the spirit of sport; is its use harmful or injurious to the athlete? If Wada is satisfied that the drug meets two of these criteria, it is banned. Cocaine is believed to fit all three criteria."

No1 Saint wrote: Well I've never heard of it enhancing many performances , at least not on the Rugby field anyways. Being illegal is a Police matter not a sporting one. http://cannazine.co.uk/class-a-substanc ... r-ban.html “There is a new flexibility in the revised code in relation to specified substances and this flexibility can be used to lessen the sanctions. However, cocaine is not one of the specified substances. Its status as a prohibited substance remains as it was before.” Wada has never used the term “recreational drug” and when deciding on whether to ban a drug, it uses three criteria: is it performance-enhancing; is its use against the spirit of sport; is its use harmful or injurious to the athlete? If Wada is satisfied that the drug meets two of these criteria, it is banned. Cocaine is believed to fit all three criteria."