: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:47 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?

So does 'having morals' mean punishing Wigan as well as punishing Hock?

We lose our star player for two years, through no fault of ours. And you feel it only fair that we shouldn't be allowed to take any steps to get him back afterwards?

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:49 pm  

Dave T wrote:

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.

or where saints sacked a young lad for taking cocaine, because the simple fact is, if they were more high profile players they would not have been sacked.
I don't distinguish between a drugs ban and any other, esp. recreational.
Long and Gleeson could have directly affected the game they bet on, much worse IMO. Saints, leeds and hull kr have all got players with assault convictions (as do wigan) which are just as bad as a very stupid boy being convinced to taking something by his mates.

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:55 pm  

Cruncher wrote:

So does 'having morals' mean punishing Wigan as well as punishing Hock?

We lose our star player for two years, through no fault of ours. And you feel it only fair that we shouldn't be allowed to take any steps to get him back afterwards?

Unfortunately, Wigan will be punished either way if the B Test is positive as they will lose him on the field for 2 years.

I have no issues with Wigan standing by him, supporting him, providing counciling etc. but I don't believe he should bd given a job behind the scenes.

We often hear that no player is bigger than any club, yet if this kind of things means that a club (especially a club with the stature of Wigan RLFC) abandons any morals, then that isn't really true.

Providing Hock is guilty, he has let your club down big style, yet people look to be advocating bending over backwards to retain him.

[Wigan6/Leeds1 Andy]

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:56 pm  

Dave T wrote:

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

The B sample is being tested today at a different lab, independent of where the A sample was tested.

It can take up to a week for the results to be known, so its unlikely we'll hear anything now until next week.

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:57 pm  

Saint Simon wrote:

or where saints sacked a young lad for taking cocaine, because the simple fact is, if they were more high profile players they would not have been sacked.
I don't distinguish between a drugs ban and any other, esp. recreational.
Long and Gleeson could have directly affected the game they bet on, much worse IMO. Saints, leeds and hull kr have all got players with assault convictions (as do wigan) which are just as bad as a very stupid boy being convinced to taking something by his mates.

My point when I compared drugs v other offences is that the other offences still allowed for the player to continue working with the team in his role. He was getting paid to be a Rugby player, and he could still be involved in the training etc. whereas this is different with a drug offender.

He is not allowed to be involved in the football activities, meaning that his employment is worthless.

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 3:59 pm  

Wigan/Leeds Andy wrote:

The B sample is being tested today at a different lab, independent of where the A sample was tested.

It can take up to a week for the results to be known, so its unlikely we'll hear anything now until next week.

Aah, right. I assumed that when a positiv test was found, a 2nd test would be conducted straight away, which would sort of fit in with the date of today.

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 4:02 pm  

This might have been answered previously but what examples could be given for the statement bellow?

In exceptional circumstances where an athlete can show he bears no fault or negligence for the Anti-Doping Rule Violation, where an athlete can show he bears no significant fault or negligence for the Anti-Doping Rule Violation or where an athlete provides substantial assistance to the RFL or UK Sport which results in the discovery of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation by another person, the period can be reduced.

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 4:04 pm  

TrentBarrett wrote:

This might have been answered previously but what examples could be given for the statement bellow?

In exceptional circumstances where an athlete can show he bears no fault or negligence for the Anti-Doping Rule Violation, where an athlete can show he bears no significant fault or negligence for the Anti-Doping Rule Violation or where an athlete provides substantial assistance to the RFL or UK Sport which results in the discovery of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation by another person, the period can be reduced.

Didn't Cunningham have something that may have been affected by this?

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 4:04 pm  

TrentBarrett wrote:

This might have been answered previously but what examples could be given for the statement bellow?

In exceptional circumstances where an athlete can show he bears no fault or negligence for the Anti-Doping Rule Violation, where an athlete can show he bears no significant fault or negligence for the Anti-Doping Rule Violation or where an athlete provides substantial assistance to the RFL or UK Sport which results in the discovery of an Anti-Doping Rule Violation by another person, the period can be reduced.

Would that not be things like cold remedies or prescription drugs which although they shouldn't have taken they can prove they did only take for the required purposes of the drug and they didn't realise they weren't allowed or an ingredient in the wasn't?

: Tue Jun 30, 2009 4:06 pm  

gateaux wrote:

Would that not be things like cold remedies or prescription drugs which although they shouldn't have taken they can prove they did only take for the required purposes of the drug and they didn't realise they weren't allowed or an ingredient in the wasn't?

I don’t think coke is on the NHS, how accurate are these tests at pin pointing the specific drug used?