Re: Hock : Wed Mar 30, 2011 5:32 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

I guess buying a ticket for the Wire game and being sat next to the Chairman / owner was just a big coincidence

not to troll, but I think he was Lenegans guest for that game.
ATEOTD, if he cant train with us til June, so be it. I'm personally not bothered, if he trains with us he trains with us, he still can't play til June

Re: Hock : Wed Mar 30, 2011 6:27 pm  

Hock can't play for two years. The final day of the ban is 23rd June 2011. Wigan play Huddersfield 24th June 2011.
The legal precedent has been set and WADA have no objection if the QC rules he can start training.
The footballer who set the precedent I don't know.
Rumour has it that it may have been Paddy Kenny. That is pure rumour though.
We'll know soon enough whether he can train with the club or not.
As we all know, he can't play prior to the 24th June.

Re: Hock : Wed Mar 30, 2011 7:23 pm  

sl players had better get ready for some high shots coming their way

Re: Hock : Wed Mar 30, 2011 10:04 pm  

It would be a bit unfair if Hudson did 2 years (if thats what he did?)
then Hocks was reduced.

at the same time, I would have no problem if he started playing next week
I like to watch good players, no matter who they play for, and to be honest although I agree strong messages need to be sent, he hasnt done anything that most of the population in all walks of life arnt doing or have done
The fact that any player would do it when they get tested just shows that they are not bad people, but not quite the sharpest knives in the draw

Re: Hock : Thu Mar 31, 2011 6:37 am  

saintcj wrote:

he hasnt done anything that most of the population in all walks of life arnt doing or have done

(a) that doesn't make it right, and (b) most of the population don't play rugby league and therefore don't put their team mates and opposition players at risk by being a cokehead.

Re: Hock : Fri Apr 01, 2011 6:50 pm  

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.

There is a slight inaccuracy in this comment, your barred from earning a living in the profession for a set period of time only, in a grat deal of professions if you'd been tested positive for any illegal drug you'd lose your career for life; a doctor would be struck off, as a memeber of the armed forces I would be sacked etc etc.

Re: Hock : Fri Apr 01, 2011 9:54 pm  

Fact is he knew the rules for better or worse, they are what they are. He's broke the rules so he's been punished, in his case 2 years. I think it's scandalous and reflects poorly on the Wigan club that they push the agenda like they're doing.

Re: Hock : Fri Apr 01, 2011 10:06 pm  

The Jamster wrote:

There is a slight inaccuracy in this comment, your barred from earning a living in the profession for a set period of time only, in a grat deal of professions if you'd been tested positive for any illegal drug you'd lose your career for life; a doctor would be struck off, as a memeber of the armed forces I would be sacked etc etc.

Do they really strike off doctors for drug abuse? I find it hard to believe that, say, a surgeon with twenty years of priceless experience would be canned for having a few drags of a spliff.

It's a well known fact that drink and drug abuse is rife within the medical profession (for fairly obvious reasons). They must be losing physicians by the boatload each year!

One side note: Back when I was teaching I was surprised to discover (on one of those days when the services visit school to talk to pupils) that if you are found guilty of a hoax 999 call you are instantly banned from ever becoming a policeman, fireman, doctor, teacher, solider or pilot. Indeed, you cant even get a job as a flight attendant.

Re: Hock : Fri Apr 01, 2011 11:56 pm  

Your 'well known fact' is complete cliche, drug abuse is not rife amongst the medical profession, below is taken from the BMA website...

BMA research estimates that 1 in 15 doctors, *at some point in their lifetime*, will have some kind of problem with alcohol or drugs. This can be as limited as a *single drink to aid sleep*, or a more serious problem which might affect patient care.

And below from the BMJ would suggest they would, and do, get struck off for drug use...

On top of the 85 doctors struck off last year, a further 77 were suspended indefinetly. Reasons for action included False and misleading reporting, substance abuse and substandard patient care.

And for those who say we should not suspend but instead support them, in general we're not talking about people with habits they're unable to break here, what we have is young men with a fair amount of money to spare looking for a thrill and expecting they won't get caught.

Re: Hock : Sat Apr 02, 2011 12:20 am  

The Jamster wrote:

Your 'well known fact' is complete cliche, drug abuse is not rife amongst the medical profession, below is taken from the BMA website...

BMA research estimates that 1 in 15 doctors, *at some point in their lifetime*, will have some kind of problem with alcohol or drugs. This can be as limited as a *single drink to aid sleep*, or a more serious problem which might affect patient care.

Not cliche at all. IIRC, the study was conducted by an unaffiliated body (which the BMA certainly is NOT) in the late nineties (okay, it's ten-plus years ago, but close enough) which investigated both doctors and dentists. I remember it well because at the time I was doing some software work for a practice management company down south. The sample was pretty large with many talking off the record for fear of reprisals. Amongst other issues it concluded that depression was a major factor which pushed physicians toward drugs (legal and illegal) whilst dentists seemed more inclined toward alcoholism. There was a pretty big stink up at the time and the government announced that it would investigate. Whether they did or not I don't know. I'll try to hunt down some more data tonight and if I can find a link I'll post it.

And for those who say we should not suspend but instead support them, in general we're not talking about people with habits they're unable to break here, what we have is young men with a fair amount of money to spare looking for a thrill and expecting they won't get caught.

Unless a physician or dentist or whomever has passed the point of no return I don't see any point in striking him off. Suspension, yes. It's dangerous to work under the influence of any substance - especially so in the case of doctors. Far better (not least for the taxpayer!) to treat the problem with the seriousness is warrants whilst providing an avenue back to practice.