: Tue Jun 30, 2009 2:48 pm  

One last point, Bath didn't take the use of Recreational drugs in Union lightly.

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 2:50 pm  

gateaux wrote:

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.

See my comments regarding Bath.

Clubs pride themselves on their community work with kids.

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 2:53 pm  

Dave T wrote:

See my comments regarding Bath.

Clubs pride themselves on their community work with kids.

And rightly so. But in a way isn't it good that clubs are showing that even if you make a mistake if you work hard you can build things up again and not be "on the scrap heap"

Tbh I would like to see that being the policy across the board for the first time a player -of any calibre - is banned for recreational drug use. They serve their 2 year ban and then they are given the chance to come back and prove they have turned things around, but being subjected to strict testing to make sure they have turned things around.

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 2:53 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

drugs cheats have to pass drugs tests before they are allowed to compete again following a ban.

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 2:55 pm  

gateaux wrote:

And rightly so. But in a way isn't it good that clubs are showing that even if you make a mistake if you work hard you can build things up again and not be "on the scrap heap"

Tbh I would like to see that being the policy across the board for the first time a player -of any calibre - is banned for recreational drug use. They serve their 2 year ban and then they are given the chance to come back and prove they have turned things around, but being subjected to strict testing to make sure they have turned things around.

I don;t understand your point. They can, and do come back after 2 years.

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 2:57 pm  

Dave T wrote:

I don;t understand your point. They can, and do come back after 2 years.

I mean with the clubs supporting them. As you have pointed out it seems to be the case that if they are a great player they have more chance of being kept on than an average player.

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 2:59 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.

I'm sure we could show good morals and sack him

But were will the morals be from the rest of SL when every one of the clubs are chasing him.

NO i think we'll keep hold thank you

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:00 pm  

gateaux wrote:

I mean with the clubs supporting them. As you have pointed out it seems to be the case that if they are a great player they have more chance of being kept on than an average player.

But if it is in their contract that they shouldn;t take drugs (which I believe it is) then I would want to sack them. Hock was signed as a player, not as a community officer, or a groundsman, he surely isn;t qualified for any of those jobs. If he can't do his job as a player (he's been banned) then the club has every right to be angry and terminate his contract.

[Pemps]

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:00 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.

I suppose 1 way of looking at it is Wigan have spent a lot of time and money developing Hock and they need a return for that investment. Why let all that go to waste by allowing him to go off the rails for 2 years and waste his future, or, keep himself in shape and then go to another local club.

Dave T wrote:

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

They have. David Allen, a young lad from Saints, a lad from Oldham (I think). None of those would be classed as either high profile or world class. I suppose there are 2 ways of looking at this.

1) Drugs are a scurge on society and need to be stamped out. Let's make an example of him and terminate any involvement with our club and make sure there's no way back for him.

or

2) Drugs are a real problem that needs to be sorted. Let's put an arm around him, help him out and in time help him get back on his feet and back to where he was.

Dave T wrote:

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.

I think RU is a different case altogether. It's very much an international game rather than a club game. Bringing 'shame' on your nation is perhaps perceived as being worse than shaming your club.


All this being said, I don't think we know if he's being kept on by the club in some capacity or just being left to his own devices.

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:02 pm  

Dave T wrote:

But if it is in their contract that they shouldn;t take drugs (which I believe it is) then I would want to sack them. Hock was signed as a player, not as a community officer, or a groundsman, he surely isn;t qualified for any of those jobs. If he can't do his job as a player (he's been banned) then the club has every right to be angry and terminate his contract.

I have no idea what is in players contracts so I'm not going to comment on that.

He can't play for them for 2 years if he is banned but that doesn't mean at the end of the 2 years he can't come back and have a role within the club, what support the club provide in the meantime if surely an issue for the player and the club to establish.