i heard from people inside the club that hock is doing some sort of education programme with teens telling them where he went wrong and where he went right (when he first signed) this was my understanding but i am also surprised there as been no anouncement yet

HOCK is about a clever as a brick wall

he probably is the best foreward at wigan but he is daft and is head is filled with cocaine

'Was'

Oh the irony.

Why was? do you know differently ?

past tense.No longer plays for us,hence "was"

I don't often agree with Odemwingie, but he's right. There's so much positive stuff going on at Wigan at the moment, why even bother thinking about Gareth Hock for the next 18 months? He can't play for you or anyone else for that matter so why even discuss it?

What was the story when Hock (Charnock) left the club as a kid and returned after a name change asking for another chance?

Old story is old.

I think people are being harsh in criticising the club for this.

It would be entirely professional for the management to assess GH over a reasonable period.

Would you commit to re-employing someone who had his contract suspended/terminated without proof he had learnt the errors of his ways?

Is GH regularly and randomly tested during his absence to ensure he is clean rather than playing the system by going clean prior to a test?

Oh, i thought jtb was referring to his head 'was' full of cocaine. It may still be, i believe its hard to kick the habit, and everyone on here is assuming that Hock is in rehabilitation.

The reason it will get discussed is because the club promised a statement and has not made one.

Hock will get discussed on and off over the next 18 months because he was a high profile player, what happened with him was a significant event and because we are in the dark about his future with the club.

If the club made its position clear, that he had a chance (though no guarantee) of coming back depending on various factors or he was finished with Wigan then I think there would very little discussion on it but as it stands we are none the wiser as to the clubs position so IMO threads like this will crop up every now and again.

Dave

If we are still paying Hock throughout the duration of his suspension it will be because we can get something out of it as a club, obviously.

A couple of things are true:

Firstly he has proven to be one of the best British back row forwards around.

Secondally he has proven that he cannot discipline himself enough to turn awa from his evils.

If we were to keep him on the pay roll I suspect it would be to supervise his rehabilitation. That said Wigan may get a quality player out of it, possibly even on a reduced contract at the end of his ban.

Nothing has been said about it because nothing needs to be said.

i know for a fact that a statement had been prepared and was being checked "legally" before it was distributed. This was some two months ago but it has never been released, and I have no idea why.

Maybe MM wants to speak to Hock himself face to face to tell him what is expected, which I suppose is reasonable.

But as someone else has stated it will be quite low on the list of priorities at this time.

Exactly.

And yes, there is alot of positives coming out of the club at the moment, but this is something that should have been boxed off.

"Hypothectically", what if the club knew that he still had a problem. If you were the club would you issue a statement saying he will come back once he had served his ban or would you give him more time or would you sack him?

If he is still taking the stuff, the club have no option but to sack him imo.

Why?

You can't just 'box off' someone's drug dependency?

The situation with Hock is far from simple. We don't know how much he 'needs' the stuff. We don't know what steps are being taken to 'cure' him. But we can be certain that there's no magic bullet for this kind of thing. Wigan are not really in a position to make a final statement on the matter, unless it's something like "he will never play for Wigan again", which we know is not the case, or something open-ended like "we're sorry that this is happened to Gareth, and will review the situation in the future, after we've seen how he's coping", which is more or less what they've already said.

They're certainly not in a position to say whether or not they will definitely be rehiring him once his time is served. How could they be?

There is also, as others have pointed out, the Michael Maquire factor. He has only just come on board as head-coach, and may well want to review the situation - but it won't be a priority for him as he has an entire squad to assess, and Hock can't be part of that for two seasons.

It seems to me that if Wigan did make a mistake here, it was saying there'd be a statement. What they should have said is "there will be a statement in due course" - then no-one would have anything to complain about. But if I'm honest, I've known them make bigger mistakes than that.

I dont know if this point has been raised but what is happening with hocks sallery as this wouldnt have been planned into the 2010 sallery cap surley we must have around 100k to spend on a player.

Sam Tomkins was given a new four year deal which will have taken some of that money.

I believe a few of the reserves/ academy players contracts have also been upgraded.

What im saying this wasnt planned but upgrading contracts would have happend with t smith leaving and trent would have left at the end of this year.

We all know exactly what needs to be done for Hock to have the chance of playing again. He must stay clean for the duration of his ban and submit to regular testing to prove this.

We also know the one thing Wigan would be allowed to do in relation to Hock is assist him with a drugs rehabilitation program.

The club needed to take a decision about Hock before MM arrived because it has been months since Hock was banned and hence any involvement by the club in his rehabilitation needed to start back then because that is when his rehab needed to start.

No one is suggesting they offer Hock a guaranteed position in the side in 2011.

The bottom line is as I said before there is and will be speculation about Hock's future with the club (if he has any) because the club has not made a statement when it said it would.

If they are assisting in his rehab they could say so without implying or saying he had a place in the side in 2011. Helping Hock in this way would be seen as a supportive act and generate positive publicity so I don't see why no such statement could be made.

Given there have been no such positive statements I think he has most likely been sacked. Pure speculation on my part but that is what you get when the club does not issue promised statements.

Dave

100% correct.

Trent had already left and we have signed Gleeson. The money from Hocks wage may have been what has enabled the club to upgrade contracts of junior players. Had Hock not been removed from the wage bill perhaps the club would not have been able to upgrade these contracts?

All these comings and goings have happened over a period of time and as money has become available it has been spent IMO. So there is no pot of money available because of Hocks departure.

Dave