Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:50 am  

Wigan/Leeds Andy wrote:

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?

Nothing is hard about to understand, but what you fail to understand is that the media is there to be used, in my opinion, the simple fact is IF the club stand by him, which i am sure they will, you will be proven wrong, if they do not they will be proven correct.

Its basically that simple, unless you really think he will get banned then take the p!ss going against what the club tells him then get another deal at Wigan, if you think that is the case then i think you are being naive.

I am not going to argue with you, time will be our judge.

You made the comparison with Robison by the way and his media relationship, whose future at Wigan was ended once he brought the club into disrepute, with Hock, totally different scenario's. Robinson broke a story damaging the team, Hock if anything did the decent thing confessed his guilt and remorse after the first test was positive and the results of the b sample would have been obvious, as you say.

Not bad for a lad who is as thick as 2 short planks.



He never said he would not speak to the press

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Fri Jan 08, 2010 9:01 am  

jonh wrote:

Nothing is hard about to understand, but what you fail to understand is that the media is there to be used, in my opinion, the simple fact is IF the club stand by him, which i am sure they will, you will be proven wrong, if they do not they will be proven correct.

Its basically that simple, unless you really think he will get banned then take the p!ss going against what the club tells him then get another deal at Wigan, if you think that is the case then i think you are being naive.

I am not going to argue with you, time will be our judge.

You made the comparison with Robison by the way and his media relationship, whose future at Wigan was ended once he brought the club into disrepute, with Hock, totally different scenario's. Robinson broke a story damaging the team, Hock if anything did the decent thing confessed his guilt and remorse after the first test was positive and the results of the b sample would have been obvious, as you say.

Not bad for a lad who is as thick as 2 short planks.



He never said he would not speak to the press

Sorry only being following Wigan a short while, just out of interest what did Robinson go to the press about?

[DaveO]

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Fri Jan 08, 2010 11:38 am  

Phuzzy wrote:

So to summarize: "Unless the club is run exactly along the lines I dictate, I'm going to moan about it!"

I can't believe that even you, Dave, could complain about the club not sorting the Hock situation out and then, when they do, that they sorted it out too completely! The mind boggles.

If you want to put a spin on what I wrote so you can agree with yourself that is up to you.

I am sure everyone else understands I simply have reservations about the club offering a confirmed drugs cheat a five year deal for the reasons I have given.

Dave

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

Once again people are getting their knickers in a knot about something thats not confirmed, and nobody knows the details of...

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Fri Jan 08, 2010 12:28 pm  

DaveO wrote:

If you want to put a spin on what I wrote so you can agree with yourself that is up to you.

I am sure everyone else understands I simply have reservations about the club offering a confirmed drugs cheat a five year deal for the reasons I have given.

Dave

I think the 'confirmed' bit is the key bit.

A confirmed drugs taker - yes.

A confirmed five year deal - not yet.

We'll have to wait and see, but I'll be surprised, given IL's track record in sealing canny contracts, if it's anything like as simple as you fear.

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Fri Jan 08, 2010 12:36 pm  

Wigan Peer wrote:

Once again people are getting their knickers in a knot about something thats not confirmed, and nobody knows the details of...

The usual suspects though.

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Fri Jan 08, 2010 12:40 pm  

League_rugby wrote:

Sorry only being following Wigan a short while, just out of interest what did Robinson go to the press about?

Ditto.

[Wigan6/Leeds1 Andy]

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Fri Jan 08, 2010 12:41 pm  

jonh wrote:

Nothing is hard about to understand, but what you fail to understand is that the media is there to be used, in my opinion, the simple fact is IF the club stand by him, which i am sure they will, you will be proven wrong, if they do not they will be proven correct.

Its basically that simple, unless you really think he will get banned then take the p!ss going against what the club tells him then get another deal at Wigan, if you think that is the case then i think you are being naive.

I am not going to argue with you, time will be our judge.

You made the comparison with Robison by the way and his media relationship, whose future at Wigan was ended once he brought the club into disrepute, with Hock, totally different scenario's. Robinson broke a story damaging the team, Hock if anything did the decent thing confessed his guilt and remorse after the first test was positive and the results of the b sample would have been obvious, as you say.

Not bad for a lad who is as thick as 2 short planks.



He never said he would not speak to the press

I'll spell this out as yet again you've still not got the point.

This is MY opinion of why I wouldn't retain Hock. What the club do is something else and doesn't prove or otherwise what my opinion is. If they do retain Hock it is pretty obvious the reason for it, and no doubt it would be very different had the player in question not been one of our few genuine world class talents.

The only comparison I've made between the Hock and a certain scrum half is the fact they both went to the press when they shouldn't have done, not the actual detail of the two very different stories and situations, you're the only one making that detailed comparison, not me. Again completely misunderstanding my point. It's very easy to be contrite when you know you're guilty and will be proved so, especially when there's a nice cheque waiting for you.

And if you seriously think the club was in anyway involved in or agreed to Hock going to the press when UK Sport was still testing samples, and only a couple of days after they put out a statement saying they and Hock wouldn't be saying anything until after the full investigation was complete, I actually wouldn't call you naive, I'd say you were as intelligent as Gareth. I mean putting himself in the situation that's he's potentially ruined his career by failing a drug test for a non performance enhancing substance is real Mensa material isn't it?

[Wigan6/Leeds1 Andy]

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Fri Jan 08, 2010 12:55 pm  

Cruncher wrote:

I think the 'confirmed' bit is the key bit.

A confirmed drugs taker - yes.

A confirmed five year deal - not yet.

We'll have to wait and see, but I'll be surprised, given IL's track record in sealing canny contracts, if it's anything like as simple as you fear.

Agreed.

Lenagan has been very canny in contracts where there is any element of risk. If he is going to forgive Hock I'd be surprised if anything was agreed until after the ban was completed as he'll still have 6 months on his current contract (unless he's ripped that up), and will want to be absolutely sure Hock has changed his ways. If Hock fails another test ever, he's banned for life.

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:01 pm  

cadoo wrote:

Ditto.

allegedley broke news to paper that pongia had hepatitus(sp?)

CRUNCHER - not being pompous at all. think a number of people are missing the point that the club is being tarnished by standing by a criminal. if this was a nameless case and we did a poll id wager that the majority would say he should serve time in jail to help eradicate the drugs problem from this country blah blah blah. instead we have a majority here arguing not only that he should not be sacked from his contract (which he has violated) but that his employer should stand by him even when it discredits them!

his name, profession etc should not matter. if i were to break terms of my contract i would be sacked. if i did it illegally i would expect to be turned over to the authorities. i wouldnt see support from my employer and nor should i get any.