Re: hock tested. : Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:58 am  

Thanks Andy.

Found the rule, but it's so vague as to be useless:

The RFL wrote:

10.10.1 A Participant who has been declared Ineligible may not, during the period of
Ineligibility, participate in any capacity (or, in the case of an Athlete Support
Personnel, assist any Athlete participating in any capacity) in a Competition, Event
or other activity (other than authorised anti-doping education or rehabilitation
programmes) organised, convened, authorised or recognised by the NGB or by
any body that is a member of, or affiliated to, or licensed by the NGB

So basically, Gareth can't be involved in any activity that has been arranged or even authorised by the club.

If you really wanted to push it, that would in fact exclude him from things like barbeques, if the club "recognises" it as a team day.

I would say that it would certainly cover any organised training schedules, but as mentioned above, there's nothing to stop him from employing Mark Bitcon as a "personal trainer", for a nominal fee and the club not recognising this as official, but not objecting either.

It's all very grey.
I thought these rules were supposed to be clearer than this.

[DaveO]

Re: hock tested. : Mon Mar 08, 2010 10:56 am  

Baked Bean Boogie wrote:

what if Madge doesn't want him back?

That's a possibility IMO.

what if another team offers more than IL?

As is that but I think he really wants to play for Wigan so provided he wasn't offered peanuts he could well forgo a better offer though given how short the rest of his career will be he's be daft to IMO.

will there be a place for him when new signings have been made?

That is the interesting question. We have HH, JT, Mossop and Farrell. None of whom have been banned for drug use and the first three are looking excellent in SL under the new training regime and Farrell is supposedly playing very well.

Why should any of these lose their place to a player who has been banned for two years for taking drugs? I don't think it's the same thing as Wigan simply signing a better player than any of those four I mention which in theory could always happen so they would lose out on merit. They would be losing out to a player who let the team, the fans and the sport down.

will there be enough money left to pay the guy?

If we sign those four I mentioned up on decent contracts to keep them at Wigan paying a high wage for another back row forward means a lot of the cap money is being spent there. So perhaps a smaller offer would be made and as I said above he may take it as he wants to play for Wigan but as I also said he'd be daft not to maximise his earnings.

after being out of the game for 2 years do you think he is going to be fit enough to play at this level given that he is now 2 years older and has not played a game in this time?

i say let him go elsewhere as he will be a shadow of the player he once was.

If he went elsewhere and was as good as he was previously it would not bother me because it would IMO send the right message out and that message would be hard work and dedication will be rewarded and unprofessional behaviour won't be tolerated. This is after all the sort of ethos Maguire and Wane are trying to promote IMO so re-signing him doesn't seem very compatible with that. This is why the first point of yours I quoted is a possibility IMO.

Dave

[DaveO]

Re: hock tested. : Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:02 am  

Pie Eyed wrote:

Found the rule, but it's so vague as to be useless:
So basically, Gareth can't be involved in any activity that has been arranged or even authorised by the club.

If you really wanted to push it, that would in fact exclude him from things like barbeques, if the club "recognises" it as a team day.

I would say that it would certainly cover any organised training schedules, but as mentioned above, there's nothing to stop him from employing Mark Bitcon as a "personal trainer", for a nominal fee and the club not recognising this as official, but not objecting either.

It's all very grey.
I thought these rules were supposed to be clearer than this.

I don't think it's vague. He simply can't have any involvement with the club unless it is with a drugs education program and I don't think the club would conclude the rules were vague enough for them to do otherwise. It's just too risky and I doubt they would sanction the bending of the rules as you suggest either. Not what the current regime is about IMO.

According to cpwigan on Mike's board Hock has employed his own fitness expert and it's not Mark Bitcon.

Dave

Re: hock tested. : Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:08 am  

[quote="DaveO"]That's a possibility IMO.



That is the interesting question. We have HH, JT, Mossop and Farrell. None of whom have been banned for drug use and the first three are looking excellent in SL under the new training regime and Farrell is supposedly playing very well.

Why should any of these lose their place to a player who has been banned for two years for taking drugs? I don't think it's the same thing as Wigan simply signing a better player than any of those four I mention which in theory could always happen so they would lose out on merit. They would be losing out to a player who let the team, the fans and the sport down.

If we sign those four I mentioned up on decent contracts to keep them at Wigan paying a high wage for another back row forward means a lot of the cap money is being spent there. So perhaps a smaller offer would be made and as I said above he may take it as he wants to play for Wigan but as I also said he'd be daft not to maximise his earnings.

one thing you've over-looked dave is the possibility of one of them 4 players playing in a different position. im being told there looking at moving joel tomkins to left centre next season,because they want to give liam farrell a fair chance to show what he can do here.if hock does come back imo he'l be brought in as a prop.

[DaveO]

Re: hock tested. : Mon Mar 08, 2010 1:59 pm  

one thing you've over-looked dave is the possibility of one of them 4 players playing in a different position. im being told there looking at moving joel tomkins to left centre next season,because they want to give liam farrell a fair chance to show what he can do here.if hock does come back imo he'l be brought in as a prop.

I don't like that idea much. I think he has proved his worth in the 2nd row and I think him being missing from there when covering for Carmont last week was a big factor in the loss. If Liam Farrell is good enough to force JT into the centres he must be absolutely amazing because IMO JT has been our best back row forward so far.

As to Hock at prop we may well have a vacancy there but I have always felt this idea was dreamt up as a way to get him back in the side a no ones else's expense (as in no one in the back row making way) rather then because it was a particularly good idea. I don't know if he can hack it there or not but I have never really seen him as a prop.

Dave

Re: hock tested. : Mon Mar 08, 2010 2:11 pm  

As things stand I can see Feka and Bailey leaving the club so that would leave us two forwards down.

It's impossible to say what the make up of our pack would be after that for 2011 but i'd expect it to really revolve around homegrown players including Hock(for the 2nd half of the season anyway). I'd really like to see us bulk Mossop up abit and gradually ease him into the prop position and I think that can be done intime for Hock coming back.

What happens besides that is anyones guess! We may sign a new forward besides Hock or Maguire may trust guys like O'Carroll, Mossop and Farrell to really step up in that early part of 2011.

Re: hock tested. : Mon Mar 08, 2010 3:33 pm  

Hock has been training daily at a little boxing gym in Bryn. Apparently he is being beasted by the owner (Adele). Also Mike Forshaw as been known to go there, as well as numerous other rugby players past and present.

Re: hock tested. : Mon Mar 08, 2010 3:47 pm  

MOUSE13 wrote:

Hock has been training daily at a little boxing gym in Bryn. Apparently he is being beasted by the owner (Adele). Also Mike Forshaw as been known to go there, as well as numerous other rugby players past and present.

Very true, apparently just as fit as he's ever been if not fitter. Would be really stupid to just let him go, bring him in and judge him on the pitch.

Re: hock tested. : Mon Mar 08, 2010 3:59 pm  

Where is this announcement we where supposed to be getting regards to Hock at the end of February?

Re: hock tested. : Mon Mar 08, 2010 4:48 pm  

jameswk wrote:

i think it would be foolish of people to think that wigan are having no involvment in the way hock is training right now. If wigan are to re sign him they will be having a big influence in what he is doing

Shhhhhhhhhhh !!!!