Must be plucked from the Barba case which is silly because it was a ban handed down from another organisation in another country out of competition. What examples are they of UKAD only giving out 12 match bans for in competition failures? Not any I believe. No chance he'll only be getting a 12 match ban.

Barba was out of season (albeit straight after the Grand Final). My understanding is that that’s the difference in the regulations. Out of competition is 12 matches, during competition is generally 2 years.

Hock is a more comparable case IMHO

OOC isn't actually a ban, that was an NRL imposed ban because it was his 2nd strike regarding cocaine

Without muddying the water, and I must state I have zero idea what the outcome will actually be, I believe the argument regards OOC is whether or not the Play Off Series/Grand Final is officially classed as a stand alone event or classified as a fixture within the Super League season. If a stand alone event, the days leading up to the said event would be classed as OOC. If that makes any sense?

That makes sense to me, however even if the Play Offs etc are standalone, they're still a sporting competition and must be governened by UKAD/WADA rules surely?

True, hard to dissect the little information I've heard, but it seems to around the days before/after a stand-alone event even if governed by UKAD. Very tough one to call as it really sets a precedent for future cases.

Say for instance his sample is from the day after the Saints game, then if the play off fixture was a stand alone event, the next stand alone event would be the Grand Final and between those two fixtures Zak would be OOC.

Sounds like his legal rep will have something to play with.

I completely understand that, although if it is the case it does set a dangerous precedent! It's obvious that the situation isn't straightforward as there's been no official ban yet has there? Unless I've missed something

Not really because it was after the Super 8's game vs Leeds a few weeks before that he failed.

If we want to as a club help someone with "issues" why don't we go and find a 16 or 17 year old lad with "issues" but with potential? It'll be just as hard but with less financial outlay.
I cannot agree with the signing of Hardaker in any circumstance other than perhaps he has served say a 5 year ban from playing and has also evidence to show that he has for example done lots of community work within the amateur game.

Cruncher nobody is perfect but where do you draw the line?
What does a player need to do before you say "Nah, no matter how good you are you are we wont touch you with a bargepole"?

How many other players have we signed where we knew for a fact that they take Class a drugs??

If it was a first offence then I would like to think that Cas or any other club would support him however, it isn't.
I very uncomfortable that this sounds like a done deal.

On Sky news Shaun Wane said he would be interested in Zac Hardaker.

I'll be the odd one out and say I'm quite happy we are linked with him.

He also said that he’s not heard anything and that he leaves that up to Rads and Lenegan

sorry what? Our head coach doesn’t have a say in what players we sign?

He says whose he’s interested in and Rads tries to get them.

if and its a big if he only gets 12 weeks how can they say walkers and chases bans are fair would open a big can of worms

If his case is treated similar to Hock's and he's looking at 1-2 year ban, it might make more sense that we're interested. By that time, Bateman is likely to have gone to the NRL and Lockers will have probably retired so there should be enough space under the cap. I'd be amazed if he gets anything like 12 weeks.

You can bet that there are lawyers involved and they may feel that he has a case to make sure he only gets a 12 week ban.

It’s very easy to take the moral high ground, it’s also a lot easier to stick to it if we a are talking about a mediocre player. Hardaker is a top class player, plenty of clubs will be clambering over each other to get his signature once whatever ban he receives is up. Looking at it pragmatically When a player of that quality is available we’d be pretty stupid not to see if we can lick up his signature. If we do he may end up doing something stupid again, he may not. These things come down to the quality of the player and Hardaker imo is worth taking the gamble.

I’d draw the line higher than this, to be honest. There have been at least two players at Wigan in my lifetime who came to the club with serious criminal records – which Zak Hardaker does not have. Both went on to entertain the crowds for years, and are only remembered now for all the right reasons. They turned their lives around despite very poor starts, and were great servants to the Cherry and White.

I’d be very hopeful this can happen with Zak. But in case it proves otherwise, the club needs to ENSURE that the contract protects us.

Also, while I don’t like drugs or drugs-dealers, I don’t totally buy into the argument that having someone like Zak at the club sets a bad example for youngsters. On one hand it does, but let's not overstate it. The youngsters of Wigan hit the clubs and pubs every Friday and Saturday night, and drugs are for sale in large numbers of them. They’ll meet drugs-users and drugs-peddlers throughout their lives, they’ll see them on TV etc. If at some point they are turned onto drugs, it will be very hard to say with certainty that Wigan signing Zak Hardaker was the cause.

In light of all this, and in light of how good ZH is - and you can guarantee that if Wigan don't snap him up, one of our rivals will! - I feel we should give him a chance.

What's easier than saying if he's a good player there are no standards however, if he's shoite then he's got be whiter than white and keeping to standards is a prerequisite to getting on at the club?
I didnt think I could oppose a view so dramatically than this in my wildest dreams.
I don't think Hardaker is the anti Christ but he ain't the second coming either.
Personally I couldn't give a fishes tit if other clubs are clambering over him.

I will have to respectively disagree. The 2 players I assume are Gill and Hanley. Without knowing either of them I doubt that either of them would take a class a drug days before a major final with the debris that was left behind for their teammates. The guy is selfish and until I see something tangible that demonstrates he has changes I don't buy into his self pity

I was going to reply earlier to a post about where the bar should be set (but it may have been on the other site?)
Anyway, the point i was going to make is bear in mind "That incident" of 18/20minths ago and there were many many different views.
BUT a lot of them seemed to want a certain player (who we all seem to ackowledge due to the amount of the ban etc believed to be the agressor) to stay, whilst the victim was booed by some on his next appearance at Salford and wanted out of the club by some.
Now I don't know how said player avoided prosecution etc but even before we knew that a lot of people wanted that player to stay due to his on field performances etc and as far as im concerned if theres any truth in what ive been told (and not just in a a bar room etc.) Then that player should have gone in my book.
Plenty ifs and buts there I acknowledge but I'm just pointing out that what that player did could have damaged someone else and imo potentially in a far worse way and no-one now even blinks an eye or remembers.

As cruncher has pointed out, it's a fine line with many differing points to be taken into account, there's no doubt there are risks associated with this potential signing in many fronts, but I do hope that Wigan have doneb thwir homework and at least looked into all possibilities rather than take a moral high ground that isn't enforceable.
Ask yourself the same question, where is that bar? How high or how low?
In that same season there were other things that went on in the background that weren't publicised (involving well known players) and that behaviour was questionable to say the least. Those players continue to play and are cheered on by all fans.
I'm not saying we should ignore people's past, but we should also look to see if we can potentially work together and if that could be mutually benefitable to both then at least consider it (and cover yourself with some really good Philadelphia lawyer speak).

Having read Shaun Wane's comments I'd be very worried if he was coach and took on Hardaker. These are quotes from him:

"I don’t know all the details of what Zak has done – I would never ask him about that. But I know him as a person, I’ve met him many times and he’s a fantastic character. There will be more to it but I’m not really interested, I just know Zak is a very good player and we want good people at this club. If Zak has made an error, he’s going to be punished for it. There’s nobody more difficult than Micky Mac in other areas off the field and we stuck with him and made him into a fantastic person. We’re a club that looks after our players.”

I've read similar quotes before when clubs look at taking on troublemakers - he's a great lad, we can help him etc, which IMO is completely delusional - whether Hardaker comes back and is any good after a ban is 100% down to him changing his whole attitude, and is very little to do with what any club can 'do for him'.

Personally I have no problem with Wigan or anyone else signing him post ban, and from England's perspective I genuinely hope he comes back as good as ever. But there really needs to be some onus on Hardaker here. This isn't a naughty boy, he's a grown man who has let himself, his teammates and supporters down on numerous occasions, and some of his comments about Leeds for example after he left were symptomatic of a guy with virtually no self awareness. If he hasn't got that by 26 I'm not sure he ever will, unless this ban shocks him enough to really change.