Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Thu Jan 07, 2010 8:59 pm  

Wigan/Leeds Andy wrote:

I personally wouldn't let Hock anywhere near the club again, not because of any particular moral issues on drugs, but because he's shat on the club - twice.

1. For being thick as pig shite and disrupting the club by getting himself banned for two years because he couldn't say no to his mates, who didn't have as much to lose as he did.

2. For going to the papers to sell his story days after the club said they and he wouldn't be making any further comment until UK Sport had finished the process - a certain scrum half was rightly kicked out the club for blabbing to the same paper about the club a few years ago.

It's time the club had a backbone on this issue and sent a message out that nobody fecks the club over like he did and gets away with it. If he signs for someone else so be it, he hasn't treated them with the disrespect he has to the club and its supporters.

We don't know the whole story though, we don't know whats been discussed.

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:03 pm  

jonh wrote:

In truth never heard of him, but i do know they needed to replace there last one, who was all muscle no brain and like us in my opinion a major part of there failings.

Gone are the days when a club can go with a conditioning coach with no real interest or background in Sports Science. Knowledge is not everything they have to be able to communicate that at a level accepted by the players, knowledge mixed with a good grasp on the art of coaching and you will not go far wrong as if you do the research there are very few secrets in the game.

Regards Geoff Evans although i have know knowledge of him he has worked at a good few clubs across different sports so the fact he has cross sport demand would lead me to conclude he certainly is no mug.

Thnx jon.

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Thu Jan 07, 2010 9:19 pm  

pk wrote:

The best post I have read on this board for years.

If that makes me in the minority too then I fear for the majority.

Yes. Because their willingness to forgive and forget once the crime has been paid for puts them beyond the pale.

Have an opinion about it, by all means, but let's not get pompous.

[Wigan6/Leeds1 Andy]

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Thu Jan 07, 2010 10:47 pm  

Odemwingie wrote:

We don't know the whole story though, we don't know whats been discussed.

So Hock didn't fail a drug test and then didn't sell his story to the papers when told not to?

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Thu Jan 07, 2010 10:52 pm  

Wigan/Leeds Andy wrote:

So Hock didn't fail a drug test and then didn't sell his story to the papers when told not to?

Was he told not to?

Were i involved with the club i would ensure that for his own good he would sell his story as long as it was not damaging to the club.

Robinson harmed the club with his story, Hock's situation was already public and he simply from the articles i read confessed personal weakness.

The club was never brought into disrepute in the wake of the failed test from what was written, at least not from what i read.

[Wigan6/Leeds1 Andy]

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Thu Jan 07, 2010 11:11 pm  

jonh wrote: Was he told not to? Were i involved with the club i would ensure that for his own good he would sell his story as long as it was not damaging to the club. Robinson harmed the club with his story, Hock's situation was already public and he simply from the articles i read confessed personal weakness. The club was never brought into disrepute in the wake of the failed test from what was written, at least not from what i read. "Neither the club nor player will be making any further comment on this matter until the investigation by UK Sport is completed." was the official statement the day Hock's A sample failure was made public. So yes he was told not to. So not only did Hock drag the club's name through the mire again just when Lenagan was trying to restore Wigan's good name after the Whelan and Lindsay years, he then completely ignored the club by talking to the press before the B sample test results were known. You'd have thought Hock would have wanted to keep his nose clean (!) after his A sample came back positive.

jonh wrote: Was he told not to? Were i involved with the club i would ensure that for his own good he would sell his story as long as it was not damaging to the club. Robinson harmed the club with his story, Hock's situation was already public and he simply from the articles i read confessed personal weakness. The club was never brought into disrepute in the wake of the failed test from what was written, at least not from what i read. "Neither the club nor player will be making any further comment on this matter until the investigation by UK Sport is completed." was the official statement the day Hock's A sample failure was made public. So yes he was told not to. So not only did Hock drag the club's name through the mire again just when Lenagan was trying to restore Wigan's good name after the Whelan and Lindsay years, he then completely ignored the club by talking to the press before the B sample test results were known. You'd have thought Hock would have wanted to keep his nose clean (!) after his A sample came back positive.

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Thu Jan 07, 2010 11:41 pm  

Wigan/Leeds Andy wrote: "Neither the club nor player will be making any further comment on this matter until the investigation by UK Sport is completed." was the official statement the day Hock's A sample failure was made public. So yes he was told not to. So not only did Hock drag the club's name through the mire again just when Lenagan was trying to restore Wigan's good name after the Whelan and Lindsay years, he then completely ignored the club by talking to the press before the B sample test results were known. You'd have thought Hock would have wanted to keep his nose clean (!) after his A sample came back positive. Once again i am not sure where after the event a confession of guilt and admission that he was in the wrong brings the club into disrepute. If you think Hock did not take advise from the club on his story i think you are being a little naive. He held his hand up, confessed he had made an error in no way brought the club into it. The story was already out there. Robinson generated the Pongia story so to compare the 2 I feel is wide of the mark.

Wigan/Leeds Andy wrote: "Neither the club nor player will be making any further comment on this matter until the investigation by UK Sport is completed." was the official statement the day Hock's A sample failure was made public. So yes he was told not to. So not only did Hock drag the club's name through the mire again just when Lenagan was trying to restore Wigan's good name after the Whelan and Lindsay years, he then completely ignored the club by talking to the press before the B sample test results were known. You'd have thought Hock would have wanted to keep his nose clean (!) after his A sample came back positive. Once again i am not sure where after the event a confession of guilt and admission that he was in the wrong brings the club into disrepute. If you think Hock did not take advise from the club on his story i think you are being a little naive. He held his hand up, confessed he had made an error in no way brought the club into it. The story was already out there. Robinson generated the Pongia story so to compare the 2 I feel is wide of the mark.

[Wigan6/Leeds1 Andy]

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Thu Jan 07, 2010 11:54 pm  

jonh wrote:

Once again i am not sure where after the event a confession of guilt and admission that he was in the wrong brings the club into disrepute.

If you think Hock did not take advise from the club on his story i think you are being a little naive.

He held his hand up, confessed he had made an error in no way brought the club into it. The story was already out there.

Robinson generated the Pongia story so to compare the 2 I feel is wide of the mark.

Where have I said he brings the club into disrepute? All I've indicated is that he went against the club and publicly admitted everything before UK Sports had completed the process.

The only person being naive is you when faced with the only facts out in the public domain - i.e. the club's official statement that neither they nor Hock would comment until the process had been completed, that you somehow think they would then happily advise Hock to talk to the Screws of the World a few days later. Why would the club specifically say that Hock wouldn't be saying anything then agree to him to do so days later? They could quite easily have said the club would be making no comment until the investigation was complete and leave it at that.

Its not about admitting his guilt, its about not keeping his head down when he was in enough trouble as it was, especially so when the club said he would say nothing.

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Fri Jan 08, 2010 12:26 am  

Wigan/Leeds Andy wrote:

Where have I said he brings the club into disrepute? All I've indicated is that he went against the club and publicly admitted everything before UK Sports had completed the process.

The only person being naive is you when faced with the only facts out in the public domain - i.e. the club's official statement that neither they nor Hock would comment until the process had been completed, that you somehow think they would then happily advise Hock to talk to the Screws of the World a few days later. Why would the club specifically say that Hock wouldn't be saying anything then agree to him to do so days later? They could quite easily have said the club would be making no comment until the investigation was complete and leave it at that.

Its not about admitting his guilt, its about not keeping his head down when he was in enough trouble as it was, especially so when the club said he would say nothing.

Did his story cast the club in a bad light?

Could it have?

Are the club standing by Hock?

If he had so badly gone against the club would they stand by him?

Forgive me but the club know the full story, and if they had been so badly treated by Hock do you think they would stand by him?

If you think the timing of the story and the views in it again are coincidence then again i think you are being naive. The club will have know his guilt, also both the club and the player will more than likely have been told of the b sample results, and even if they did not guilt would have been faced.

[Wigan6/Leeds1 Andy]

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:00 am  

jonh wrote:

Did his story cast the club in a bad light?

Could it have?

Are the club standing by Hock?

If he had so badly gone against the club would they stand by him?

Forgive me but the club know the full story, and if they had been so badly treated by Hock do you think they would stand by him?

If you think the timing of the story and the views in it again are coincidence then again i think you are being naive. The club will have know his guilt, also both the club and the player will more than likely have been told of the b sample results, and even if they did not guilt would have been faced.

The B sample hadn't even been tested when Hock spoke to the NOTW, so what that last paragraph was about I don't know? I doubt many Wigan fans were surprised when the original A sample news came out, so pretty much everyone assumed his guilt not just the club.

Given the club have yet to make a statement, we don't know what is happening or whether they will be standing by him.

It obvious you can't understand the simple fact he talked to the press days after the club said he wouldn't. Really what's so hard to understand about that? Why would the club say Hock wouldn't be saying anything then let him few days later, why even mention Hock keeping quiet - you've yet to answer that rather important fact?

This added to the actual failed drug test is WHY I wouldn't have him back at the club, again what's so hard to understand?