i wont bother responding to the rest of yourpost as it is all irrelevant but the main point is relating to the information getting to the press so early.

I do not know whether it was leaked but i do believe it is not normal practice to release to the press details until enquiries are concluded or until the B sample is tested and then it is pending a hearing to establish guilt.
Eg the Sibbit case
where the test was in june of the previous year but details did not go to the press until enquiries / decisions had been made
www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/ma ... per-league.

Drug testing is notoriously difficult to confirm on the basis of one test eg lots of false positives,samples being compromised etc which is why they have the A and B sample system to help counteract that possibility. Until the B sample is confirmed he is now tarnished with being a drug user when technically / legally it may not be the case.

i wont bother responding to the rest of yourpost as it is all irrelevant but the main point is relating to the information getting to the press so early.

I do not know whether it was leaked but i do believe it is not normal practice to release to the press details until enquiries are concluded or until the B sample is tested and then it is pending a hearing to establish guilt.
Eg the Sibbit case
where the test was in june of the previous year but details did not go to the press until enquiries / decisions had been made
www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2009/ma ... per-league.

Drug testing is notoriously difficult to confirm on the basis of one test eg lots of false positives,samples being compromised etc which is why they have the A and B sample system to help counteract that possibility. Until the B sample is confirmed he is now tarnished with being a drug user when technically / legally it may not be the case.

This has gone exactly the same way as it did for Flanagan at Batley, whose ban was confirmed 11th June:

"The ban began in April, when the provisional notice of suspension was made."

www.batleynews.co.uk/news/Drugs- ... 5376415.jp

Given Hock is now banned I don't see how they could have done anything else and in reality this has to be standard practise.

Sibbit's case is irrelevant here as he was found to have an elevated level of salbutamol as a result of over medicating for treatment of his asthma. This will be a condition the RFL will be aware of and the ban was put on hold subject to an appeal to the world doping agency. Quite a different scenario.

This has gone exactly the same way as it did for Flanagan at Batley, whose ban was confirmed 11th June:

"The ban began in April, when the provisional notice of suspension was made."

www.batleynews.co.uk/news/Drugs- ... 5376415.jp

Given Hock is now banned I don't see how they could have done anything else and in reality this has to be standard practise.

Sibbit's case is irrelevant here as he was found to have an elevated level of salbutamol as a result of over medicating for treatment of his asthma. This will be a condition the RFL will be aware of and the ban was put on hold subject to an appeal to the world doping agency. Quite a different scenario.

I am not surprised you could not provide any facts to support your negative assessment of IL's principles (I assume you had no facts).

In your first post you said :

As for Wigan dealing with it properely i find it concerning and unfair [iit [uhas been leaked[/u[/i before his b sample has been tested

Now you say:

I do not know whether it was leaked

You say you are concerned that the info was out before the b test AND say you understand the rules....yet the rules are clear that announcements will be made if the a test is +ve and a b test is being awaited. You do not understand the rules.

The assertion about the 'notorious' nature of drug testing appears totally without evidence. Do you have any - other than anecdote - or is it another case of 'assuming something and drawing unfounded conclusions'?

if you took the time to understand drug testing you would also understand the reasons for the whole a and b testing process. Somehow I think you will not bother to do so.

It appears IL can be called unprincipled when there is no objective evidence but Hock is 'tarnished' when a drugs test is proven +ve. Ho hum.

I am not surprised you could not provide any facts to support your negative assessment of IL's principles (I assume you had no facts).

In your first post you said :

As for Wigan dealing with it properely i find it concerning and unfair [iit [uhas been leaked[/u[/i before his b sample has been tested

Now you say:

I do not know whether it was leaked

You say you are concerned that the info was out before the b test AND say you understand the rules....yet the rules are clear that announcements will be made if the a test is +ve and a b test is being awaited. You do not understand the rules.

The assertion about the 'notorious' nature of drug testing appears totally without evidence. Do you have any - other than anecdote - or is it another case of 'assuming something and drawing unfounded conclusions'?

if you took the time to understand drug testing you would also understand the reasons for the whole a and b testing process. Somehow I think you will not bother to do so.

It appears IL can be called unprincipled when there is no objective evidence but Hock is 'tarnished' when a drugs test is proven +ve. Ho hum.

i am not sure the Flanagan case is the same as it seems to confirm the point i was making that his details went to the press after his hearing eg test in March, disciplinary hearing in June followed by the story going to press. As opposed to Hock tested in june, b sample still to be tested ( 30/06/09) and story in the press on 23/06/09

i am not sure the Flanagan case is the same as it seems to confirm the point i was making that his details went to the press after his hearing eg test in March, disciplinary hearing in June followed by the story going to press. As opposed to Hock tested in june, b sample still to be tested ( 30/06/09) and story in the press on 23/06/09

The story went to the press in April.

www.batleybulldogs.co.uk/index.p ... &Itemid=29

Although it makes no reference in this particular article it was certainly mentioned in other articles that it was due to failing a drugs test and made reference to a cocaine derivative.

The story went to the press in April.

www.batleybulldogs.co.uk/index.p ... &Itemid=29

Although it makes no reference in this particular article it was certainly mentioned in other articles that it was due to failing a drugs test and made reference to a cocaine derivative.

Mention in this match report dated 10th April.

www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/r ... 5161358.jp

Mention in this match report dated 10th April.

www.yorkshireeveningpost.co.uk/r ... 5161358.jp

Kevin Brown's view on Hock (his brother in law)

www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sp ... r-ban.html

Kevin Brown's view on Hock (his brother in law)

www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/sp ... r-ban.html

From the quotes it seems pretty open and shut, doesn't it. A text I got from a Wigan pal today reads:

"The worst kept secret in Wigan is finally out. Hock is such an a4sehole."

As I've said before, he's a silly lad.

From the quotes it seems pretty open and shut, doesn't it. A text I got from a Wigan pal today reads:

"The worst kept secret in Wigan is finally out. Hock is such an a4sehole."

As I've said before, he's a silly lad.

Looks like the story was out for a while if they press have managed to speak to people and run a story so quickly.

Possibly Hock has admitted his guilt which explains why the story came out so quickly before his b sample is analysed.

Looks like the story was out for a while if they press have managed to speak to people and run a story so quickly.

Possibly Hock has admitted his guilt which explains why the story came out so quickly before his b sample is analysed.

So you don't know a thing re the leak / non leak. I do see that. It comes through loud and clear.

Other than rape cases people who are charged are named! there is often a huge time lag between a person being charged and a trial.

The well established procedures for sport are clear that a +ve 'a' sample that is challenged by the athete leads to a b sample and a 'tribunal'. The athlete is suspended pending the 'tribunal'. Naming the athlete while the b test is pending is standard practice and not a leak.

And I see you have no evidence that sports drugs tests are 'notoriously unreliable' .

There will be a 'b' test and a proper 'tribunal'. Hock will go through a legally robust process.

So you don't know a thing re the leak / non leak. I do see that. It comes through loud and clear.

Other than rape cases people who are charged are named! there is often a huge time lag between a person being charged and a trial.

The well established procedures for sport are clear that a +ve 'a' sample that is challenged by the athete leads to a b sample and a 'tribunal'. The athlete is suspended pending the 'tribunal'. Naming the athlete while the b test is pending is standard practice and not a leak.

And I see you have no evidence that sports drugs tests are 'notoriously unreliable' .

There will be a 'b' test and a proper 'tribunal'. Hock will go through a legally robust process.

IIRC Penkwyicz was banned pending a second test and hearing when he got done for the 'roids.

www.independent.co.uk/sport/gene ... 84756.html

This seems to confirm that so it certainly seems as if these kind of cases, involving drugs not associated with medical conditions and more of recreational or enhancing variety, are dealt with in this way normally. Whether that is the right thing to do is another matter but it seems Wigan haven't done anything unusual with their treatment of the player or reporting of the incident.

IIRC Penkwyicz was banned pending a second test and hearing when he got done for the 'roids.

www.independent.co.uk/sport/gene ... 84756.html

This seems to confirm that so it certainly seems as if these kind of cases, involving drugs not associated with medical conditions and more of recreational or enhancing variety, are dealt with in this way normally. Whether that is the right thing to do is another matter but it seems Wigan haven't done anything unusual with their treatment of the player or reporting of the incident.