: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:05 pm  

wigan_knight wrote:

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

The other clubs will chase him in 2 years when his ban is up, and what is to stop Wigan doing the same. Surely he would owe you something then. That isn;t my issue.

I guarantee you won;t see any other club take him on in a backroom role during the next two years.

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:08 pm  

gateaux wrote:

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.

No issues whatsoever with what happens after the 2 years, whether it is Wigan or any other club that he signs for.

My main point that started this was the difference in standards. As far as I am aware, Wigan RL would be the first Rugby club to continue to employ somebody banned for drugs. Is that a precendent that fans want their club to set?

If you are a 2nd teamer you get sacked, but if you are an international player you can get a backroom job? What kind of deterrant is that?

Give him a job volunteering at Wigan, and help him with his rehab, suport him that way, and then offer him a conditional contract for 2 years, if he can sort himself out he can return, give him something to work towards. I'm not convinced giving him a different job at Wigan RL is the way to go, but that is just my opinion.

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:12 pm  

I may be missing something but I haven't seen anything to suggest that Wigan are going to give him any sort of backroom role, the way I have understood the way people on here talking (which of course in no official indication of what the club will do) is just Wigan would keep hold of his registration so he could play for them after the ban.

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:20 pm  

gateaux wrote:

I may be missing something but I haven't seen anything to suggest that Wigan are going to give him any sort of backroom role, the way I have understood the way people on here talking (which of course in no official indication of what the club will do) is just Wigan would keep hold of his registration so he could play for them after the ban.

I may have misunderstood, but I thought there was mention on the previous page about LE mentioning he could be employed as part of the community team.

I would have no issue with them simply retaining his registration, as after the two years he will have completed his ban.

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:22 pm  

So is the B sample test today then ???

And how long until the results are confirmed ???

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:24 pm  

Pie Eyed wrote:

So is the B sample test today then ???

And how long until the results are confirmed ???

I read it that the results would be due today, so we may hear something tomorrow.

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:24 pm  

Like it or not RL is a business and Hock will, in 2yrs be a valuable commodity. Wigan should give him some sort of community role, and so keep him sweet for 2011.

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:30 pm  

Saint Simon wrote:

Like it or not RL is a business and Hock will, in 2yrs be a valuable commodity. Wigan should give him some sort of community role, and so keep him sweet for 2011.

So do all morals go out of the window?

As a sport haven't we got massive issues with how Union have behaved in the past? If anything goes, then they are surely vindicated in everything they have done?

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:40 pm  

Dave T wrote:

So do all morals go out of the window?

As a sport haven't we got massive issues with how Union have behaved in the past? If anything goes, then they are surely vindicated in everything they have done?

Pretty much
did saints have morals when they retained longy (gamblegate) and pryce more recently?
did warrington when they bought a player serving a ban for gamblegate?
why should wigan now?
I could probably name a situation from every superleague club.

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:45 pm  

Saint Simon wrote:

Pretty much
did saints have morals when they retained longy (gamblegate) and pryce more recently?
did warrington when they bought a player serving a ban for gamblegate?
why should wigan now?
I could probably name a situation from every superleague club.

Some of the above incidents I would have liked to have seen handled differently, but every club I have seen have sacked players when they were found guilty of drugs.

With regards to the three examples you quote, they were all banned from playing matches, not from all Rugby related activity. It was a ban just like a high tackle ban.

A drugs ban is different in that he wouldn;t be allowed to be involved with the Rugby side of things, yet that's what he is, a Rugby player, so why would you continue to employ him.

Signing him to play in 2 years is absolutely fine.

You also didn't quote the two instances this year where Wire and Cas sacked players for gross misconduct.