Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:03 pm  

Wigan/Leeds Andy wrote:

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.

I would be suprised if anbody would disagree with you there Andy...

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:35 pm  

pk wrote:

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.

It is extremely pompous to assume that just because not everybody agrees with you, they are damned to some kind of outer darkness. That may not be what you meant, but it's certainly the impression you gave with your previous post.

As for Hock - I think you'd be surprised to learn just how many people in the UK actually have criminal records, even though a vast number of them are not what the average man would consider to be 'archetypical criminals'; i.e. they have jobs, families, mortgages, they sign documents under their own name, they're good to their mothers, they basically lead ordinary lives, and nobody cocks a snook. The reason behind this is simple. Everyone can make mistakes, overstep the line - whatever you want to call it (especially when they're young), and society recognises that. Not because society is inherently good and forgiving. But because if society were to ostracise everybody who gets things wrong once in a while, there wouldn't be enough people left to run the country.

I also think you're being naive about the relationship between employers and employees. You refer to your own situation - I can't comment on that because I don't know you. But do you think the City of London or even the Houses of Parliament are entirely staffed by people who are squeaky clean? I'd like to bet there are dozens of slick operatives in those institutions, and in others that are equally important, who have breached the rules far more seriously than Hock did, yet are still there because their gaffers feel they are extremely useful. Whether that's right or wrong is a moot point, but this situation is nowhere near as straightforward as you suggest (and as previously stated, I'm sure that any contract he is issued will reflect this).

Drug addiction is not an unimportant issue, and I firmly believe that drugs-taking celebrities have caused its proliferation in the last few decades. Spoiled brat rock stars of the 1960s popularised drugs-taking to a hugely irresponsible degree, and they're not the ones picking up the pieces in the ghettos today. I totally agree with those who revile the drugs culture. But there are degrees of punishment, and Hock has already been severely punished. He's taken a huge hit to his earnings, his career may still be over (at 26!!!), his reputation is forever tarnished - people like DaveO can now legally, if somewhat inaccurately, refer to him as a drugs 'cheat', which is disastrous for a sportsman.

I think some perspective is called for. And as I said before, Wigan need to take their own postion into account. If Hock goes to another club because they decide they simply can't forgive him, and he then wreaks havoc at our expense - as Sean Long did - it's the board who will be in the firing line, not those pious fans posting anonymously on internet forums.

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:41 pm  

Wigan/Leeds Andy wrote:

faced with the only facts out in the public domain .

Andy, whilst I respect that you're entitled to your view on this, I think it worth pointing out the phrase above. It's not often that what's in the public domain is the whole story. I find it difficult to believe that the club were unaware of this and did not give it their backing. The article was in no way derogatory to the club (although I can see why you feel it was) and given the way the club has given him it's full backing, both before and after the article, I'm sure it was ok by them.

I'm sure we are all guilty of making our minds up based on what we know. However, what we know isn't always the whole story.

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Fri Jan 08, 2010 1:52 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'm sure many don't too, Dave!

I have no problems with your reservations. You're as entitled to your view as anyone else. I am merely commenting on your inconsistency. For example, you attempt to take the moral high ground regarding the length of his signing yet you state you would be ok, should we need him after his ban is served, to re-sign him then. What's the difference? You either object or you don't!

Particularly though, I am commenting on your 'damned if they do, damned if they don't' approach to your posting. You asked for the Hock situation to be cleared up yet as soon as a rumour (and it is still only a rumour!) surfaces about them doing so you immediately go on the offensive again! As I say, it seems that, unless the club is run exactly on the lines you dictate, you'll look for any way to have a go!

How about a post saying: I'm so glad the Hock situation is being resolved and even if it's not exactly to my liking I'll support the club for doing what I asked them to do. Nope? Thought not.

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Fri Jan 08, 2010 2:08 pm  

pk wrote:

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. .

PK, you're mising the point. He isn't a criminal! He hasn't been charged with this...in fact, it would have gone unnoticed had he not been a professional sportsman. The only sentence he is subject to is one handed down by a sporting body, not the courts! And before you get on your moral high horse about "he should have been charged" or similar let me show you this:





Can you imagine working for a company that has a little more than 600 employees and has the following employee statistics .

29 have been accused of spouse abuse

7 have been arrested for fraud

9 have been accused of writing bad cheque's

17 have directly or indirectly bankrupted at least 2 businesses

3 have done time for assault

71 cannot get a credit card due to bad credit

14 have been arrested on drug-related charges

8 have been arrested for shoplifting

21 are currently defendants in lawsuits

84 have been arrested for drink driving in the last year

Which organisation is this ? ............................



It's the 635 members of the House of Commons, the same group that cranks out hundreds of new laws each year designed to keep the rest of us in line.


Puts into perspective a young sportsman making a mistake doesn't it?

[Wigan6/Leeds1 Andy]

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Fri Jan 08, 2010 2:13 pm  

Phuzzy wrote:

Andy, whilst I respect that you're entitled to your view on this, I think it worth pointing out the phrase above. It's not often that what's in the public domain is the whole story. I find it difficult to believe that the club were unaware of this and did not give it their backing. The article was in no way derogatory to the club (although I can see why you feel it was) and given the way the club has given him it's full backing, both before and after the article, I'm sure it was ok by them.

I'm sure we are all guilty of making our minds up based on what we know. However, what we know isn't always the whole story.

I appreciate we don't know most things but my opinion on this is based on what actually happened and also what I think of the way Lenagan operates. He was very clear when he took over the club that he wanted to get the clubs good name back after what had happened previously. I actually think the way he said it pissed off Whelan so much that it was a major factor in why we had to play that play-off game at Widnes.

Given this I doubt Lenagan would have wanted anything to be said in the press until UK Sport had finished everything in terms of testing Hock's sample. He's a pretty straight up and down kind of bloke what I can see and he'll have wanted due process to be complete before saying anything again. The fact is the club has said absolutely nothing since the original statement on the 23 June, and while there's rumours of us supporting Hock, the club have been completely silent. That 23 June statement was very clear that the club and Hock would say nothing unless UK Sport had finished everything (which wasn't until the end of August/ early Sept), yet a few days later Hock was selling his story when his B sample hadn't been tested and he officially hadn't been banned for two years yet. I just don't see Lenagan wanting to cause any problems with UK Sport when final confirmation was still many weeks away, and why they would specifically mention Hock was also going to keep silent only for that to change days later.

Hock could quite easily have sold his story after the 2 year ban was confirmed and UK Sport had finished and I'm not suggesting what he said in that article brought the club into disrepute.

My problem with Hock is that not only did he drag us through the mire again by failing a test and getting a ban, he also seems to have spoken to the press when told not to (until everything was official), when you would think he should be keeping his head down and pleading with the club for a second chance.

I'd be surprised if Hock wasn't retained, I just wouldn't for the reasons stated, no matter how good or bad he was as a player.

[DaveO]

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Fri Jan 08, 2010 2:42 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.

Well if five years figures in the equation at all it must range form five years straight down to 1 year plus an option on the other four or somewhere in between. I can't really think of any other ways to give a player a five year deal and if Hock gets some sort of five year deal however it's structured, I think it is too long for a player coming off a drugs ban. Such generous length of contract should be reserved for the absolute best players who have not transgressed like he did IMO.

In fact in the past when four or five year deals have been given to players there has always been the odd question asked if that is too long a deal for the club to commit to for any player so I just find the whole idea we give such a deal to a player coming off a drugs ban very strange. So you never know, perhaps there is nothing in it after all.

Dave

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Fri Jan 08, 2010 2:48 pm  

five years is far too long for everyone apart from the best upcoming stars, for all we know his heart might not be in it anymore after a 2 year lay-off

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:00 pm  

Hock is banned for around 18 months yet and can't train or play with our club or any other.
His "speaking" to the press, how do we know he did?
The story could have been "lifted" from a number of sources and the "interview" could have been from one of his mates quoting him.
There was no quote from the club regretting his newspaper story and perhaps the journo who is creditied with the article is a desk journo and doesn't work outside their office. Maybe Wigan RL know he didn't speak to the press and that's why there's been no reaction.
At the end of the 18 months he will be available to train and play again.
If Wigan RL don't offer him a contract plenty others will.
Whoever he plays for though, his selection or otherwise will be down to the coach. No one expects Hock to walk into the team because he's Hock. He will have to earn his place.
That's no different to any other player.

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:01 pm  

He is being kept on, don't know about the 5 year deal though, it would be foolish not to regardless of what he has done you don't cut your nose off to spite your face.

He is serving a 2 year ban and when that is up he has paid for his mistake.

He came back after a long absence in 2006 in made the GB squad and ripped it up in the tri-nations down under.

I doubt Wane and Maguire will take any shi'ite off him so a clean slate is in order, 3 strikes and your out.