Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:07 pm  

The 4th Hock thread in 2 months?

How many more are we going 2 see before the season starts?

I've said it before and I'll say it again that this whole drawn out Hock fiasco isn't good for anyone and we need some sort of communication from the club sooner rather than later!

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:09 pm  

Wigan/Leeds Andy wrote:

snip.

I understand and respect your view, Andy, even if it is different to mine.

Whilst I agree the events could be as you state I think it's equally possible, given IL's shrewdness, that he was well aware of the article and realised it put the blame firmly on Hock's own shoulders and pretty much cleared the club of any potential implications. That would be reason enough, in my opinion, from his point of view to allow the article. I think you're pssibly setting too much store by one stateent (that no comment would be made until...etc.) The problem with published statements are that they appear absolute even though, as we all know, this is rarely the case. Views and opinions are fluid. At the time of the statement IL may have seen this as the right course of action regarding damage limitation. Having seen the article (if indeed he did ok it!) he may have changed his view. Unfortunately once an article or statement is in print (sic) it obviously doesn't morph into the new view but stands as a statement of intent. Only a contradictory statement would have negated this and, let's face it, this was never going to happen! Much better to just let the article appear. That way all the fallout (should there be any) is on Hock's shoulders and not the club's.

I'm not saying this is what happened. Just that we obviously don't know and there could be any number of equally plausible versions of events. The fact that the club are still considering offering Hock a contract suggests that there is more to this than a simple statement of 'no comment' made immediately following the failed test.

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Fri Jan 08, 2010 3:36 pm  

thepriestman85 wrote:

The 4th Hock thread in 2 months?

How many more are we going 2 see before the season starts?

I've said it before and I'll say it again that this whole drawn out Hock fiasco isn't good for anyone and we need some sort of communication from the club sooner rather than later!

I'm guessing that the reason for this thread is because a communication is immiment. Surely it's now self-evident why it's taken them so long? A lot has needed to be sorted out here.

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Fri Jan 08, 2010 4:25 pm  

Wigan/Leeds Andy wrote:

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?

Given the first sample was being talked about on here at least 2 days prior to the media story broke i think it is safe to say the second result was known when he went to press.

Secondally there are many many reasons why he could have gone to press, and i am sure he will have consulted with the club prior to doing so.

I do not agree with his drug use in any way but if he is working to put himself right then he like anyone deserves a second chance.

The media angle you use is in my opinion not relevant at all, as i cannot see anyway he will not have consulted with the club prior to going to the press.

I doubt very much should he have been banned for 2 years then gone totally against the clubs wishes he would be retained in the future, as i said time will tell.

[DaveO]

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Fri Jan 08, 2010 4:59 pm  

Cruncher wrote:

I'm guessing that the reason for this thread is because a communication is immiment. Surely it's now self-evident why it's taken them so long? A lot has needed to be sorted out here.

What needed to be sorted out that prevented the club from stating their intention they were either going to sack him or offer him the chance to restart his career at Wigan once the ban was over? Nothing. That was a straightforward black and white decision to take.

If he subsequently said he didn't want to come back with Wigan, or both parties could not agree terms or whatever then you just make another announcement saying so and move on.

They could only start contract negotiation after they decided to offer him the deal and I don't see why those negotiations needed to be concluded before the clubs intention to offer him a deal (as opposed to sack him) is to be communicated to the fans (we assume).

You may as well say the club should say nothing until the ban is up because nothing is certain. He could fall off the wagon and scupper the whole thing.

Dave

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Fri Jan 08, 2010 5:38 pm  

DaveO wrote:

What needed to be sorted out that prevented the club from stating their intention they were either going to sack him or offer him the chance to restart his career at Wigan once the ban was over?

Dave

An analysis of the depth of Hock's problem ???

Medical consultations regarding his ability to get over it and bounce back to professional fitness levels should he be offered a deal ???

A convincing statement from Hock and his agent that he has the willpower and desire to make this work ???

An opinion from the man who would be his head coach should such a deal be offered (a significant delay there, I suspect) ???

An assessment of the legalities involved (the RFL's rules, employment law, human rights, etc) ???

Testing the water with fans to see whether such a thing would be desirable or not ???

The fact that there were many other issues to consider at the time - the recruitment of an entirely new coaching staff, for example, the retention of key players ???

It all adds up.

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Fri Jan 08, 2010 6:13 pm  

Cruncher wrote:

The fact that there were many other issues to consider at the time - the recruitment of an entirely new coaching staff, for example, the retention of key players ???

It all adds up.

The fact that all this has to keep being explained to people just beggers belief !!!

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Fri Jan 08, 2010 6:48 pm  

DaveO wrote:

What needed to be sorted out that prevented the club from stating their intention they were either going to sack him or offer him the chance to restart his career at Wigan once the ban was over? Nothing. .

Dave

Are you for real Dave? I'm sorry but I really can't believe that you're simplistic enough to think this a black and white decision. You're in management aren't you (apologies if not)? Are you seriously suggesting that all aspects of a situation shouldn't be weighed up before making a decision, let alone an announcement? You surely don't expect the club to make a knee-jerk reaction without properly considering all the ramifications..that would be poor management in the extreme. What is your hurry in all this anyway? He has a 2 year ban to serve. It's hardly a pressing matter. There have been things to sort out for this season that were far more important than what will happen halfway through 2011!

I really don't see your problem with this, other than that of the proverbial 'busy body' who thinks he should know everything and know it now! Wait, have a little patience, and all will be revealed in good time...

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Sun Jan 10, 2010 1:07 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.

Re: Rumours and signings 2010 v1 : Sun Jan 10, 2010 4:15 pm  

Cruncher wrote:

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.

2 things to reply to...

1. i dont see what was pompous about my original post at all. imo andys post was one of the more sensible things i have seen on these boards in years. i think the majority opinion on here is wrong and so i said so. if its pompous to say so, and you will be attacked as such, then people will simply stop posting on what is a forum for discussion.

2. the big thing that people replying to me are missing is a condoning of what is wrong. you can dress it up however you want, comparisons to MP's etc but it is still wrong. the condoning that is happening here is adding to the problematic situation that our country finds itself in - this is becoming a blame game with finger pointing along the lines of 'other people do much worse so lets forget it...' andys original post is what i agree with - the club should take the lead here and set the example - wigan rlfc do not want anything to do with illegal drugs, people who take them, use them, condone them etc etc. instead we are ignoring all this because the guy who got caught was/is a v good rl player. wigan should let him leave. the team played better when he wasn't in the side last year. wigan have a lot to lose by standing by someone who, if not arrested as, has taken part in a criminal act.