: Tue Jun 30, 2009 12:18 pm  

as I said on another board - use the 2 years to take loads of roids and come back as pacey 19 stone powerhouse prop and rip up SL in 2011

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 12:48 pm  

nikos wrote:

as I said on another board - use the 2 years to take loads of roids and come back as pacey 19 stone powerhouse prop and rip up SL in 2011

You may well laugh but although not away for a 2 year stint some of the things i have heard regarding young prospects going to Australia for a season about 10-15 years ago suggest incidents like this may not be that far fetched in the not too distant past.

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 1:09 pm  

He will be doing community work also a spot of rehab and hopefully come back a better player on and off the field and he seems determind to do so.

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 2:34 pm  

Out of interest (not trolling) can anybody recolect any other player at any club being banned for drugs but being kept on employed by their club?

Genuine question, and I wonder whether people would still want him to stay even if he was an overseas player or a poor second teamer?

Like I say, not trolling, just interested as to why people think he should be kept on at the club, when surely he would be sacked for gross misconduct (assuming they have a clause in the contract relating to drugs)?

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 2:39 pm  

Dave T wrote:

Out of interest (not trolling) can anybody recolect any other player at any club being banned for drugs but being kept on employed by their club?

Genuine question, and I wonder whether people would still want him to stay even if he was an overseas player or a poor second teamer?

Like I say, not trolling, just interested as to why people think he should be kept on at the club, when surely he would be sacked for gross misconduct (assuming they have a clause in the contract relating to drugs)?

Because hes the best S/R in SL and after his 2 year ban every club in SL will be knocking on his door.

Why give our best player to one of our rivals

[Pemps]

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 2:44 pm  

Dave T wrote:

Out of interest (not trolling) can anybody recolect any other player at any club being banned for drugs but being kept on employed by their club?

Genuine question, and I wonder whether people would still want him to stay even if he was an overseas player or a poor second teamer?

Like I say, not trolling, just interested as to why people think he should be kept on at the club, when surely he would be sacked for gross misconduct (assuming they have a clause in the contract relating to drugs)?

I suppose Ryan Hudson was the last high profile player to get banned. He wasn't kept on by Bradford. It's a whole different argument but cocaine isn't really cheating like performance enhancing drugs are so maybe different circumstances can be applied to Hock.

There would be nothing worse than for him to come back in 2 years time, sign for Saints/Warrington and run us ragged for the remainder of his career. Hocks a great talent and it really would be a sad loss to the game if he were to disappear as a hod carrier on some building site. If Wigan can help him and at the same time keep an eye on him then why not get him involved at the club. It could be as a grounds man, an office worker even IL's personal assistant. If this is the case and he does get an arm put around him, then it must be made crystal clear, in no uncertain terms at all, that this is his last chance and if anything even remotely similar happens again then he'll be hung out to dry.

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 2:45 pm  

wigan_knight wrote:

Because hes the best S/R in SL and after his 2 year ban every club in SL will be knocking on his door.

Why give our best player to one of our rivals

Because he may have taken drugs and be guitly of gross misconduct?

Surely we aren't going to have one rule for good players and another for crap players? If this is Wigan's stance with all offenders, that they will support them and assist with rehab, then fine, that may be commendable, but it just seems a little strange to me.

And before anybody asks, I wanted Reardon sacked from Wire and was made up when he was, even though he hadn;t actually broken any Rugby or doping rules.

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 2:47 pm  

Pemps wrote:

I suppose Ryan Hudson was the last high profile player to get banned. He wasn't kept on by Bradford. It's a whole different argument but cocaine isn't really cheating like performance enhancing drugs are so maybe different circumstances can be applied to Hock.

There would be nothing worse than for him to come back in 2 years time, sign for Saints/Warrington and run us ragged for the remainder of his career. Hocks a great talent and it really would be a sad loss to the game if he were to disappear as a hod carrier on some building site. If Wigan can help him and at the same time keep an eye on him then why not get him involved at the club. It could be as a grounds man, an office worker even IL's personal assistant. If this is the case and he does get an arm put around him, then it must be made crystal clear, in no uncertain terms at all, that this is his last chance and if anything even remotely similar happens again then he'll be hung out to dry.

Like I say, in principle I have no major issues, it just disappoints me that the main reason people don't want to sack him is becasue he is a good player.

Your point about recreational v performance enhancing is a valid one, however I do believe other recreational takers have been sacked from their clubs.

It's an interesting one tbh, as there aren't many high profile players who have been caught. Maybe Wendall Sailor, and he was sacked IIRC.

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 2:48 pm  

Dave T wrote:

Because he may have taken drugs and be guitly of gross misconduct?

Surely we aren't going to have one rule for good players and another for crap players? If this is Wigan's stance with all offenders, that they will support them and assist with rehab, then fine, that may be commendable, but it just seems a little strange to me.

And before anybody asks, I wanted Reardon sacked from Wire and was made up when he was, even though he hadn;t actually broken any Rugby or doping rules.

Thats the way of the game though, some players are easily replaceable and aren't as important to the club so the club - regardless of the club - the "big" names are rightly or wrongly going to be more important to the clubs to protect.

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 2:48 pm  

Dave T wrote:

Like I say, in principle I have no major issues, it just disappoints me that the main reason people don't want to sack him is becasue he is a good player.

Your point about recreational v performance enhancing is a valid one, however I do believe other recreational takers have been sacked from their clubs.

It's an interesting one tbh, as there aren't many high profile players who have been caught. Maybe Wendall Sailor, and he was sacked IIRC.

My intital view was he should be hung out to dry, but when someone else will almost certainly sign him at the end of his ban, why dont we try the "arm around" approach. It wouldnt be my choice, but sadly given the cut throat nature of professional sport, it seems to be the sensible one.