if Gaz Hock wasnt a great playermost on here would want him sacked and dumped in the bin.......i for one think he wonty learn a dam thing if he is kept on at the club and others will think ...if hock is given a cushy number for 2 years its worth the risk.the club should show the world we mean it when we say we will NOT tollerate drugs in our sport

DaveO has taken a fair bit of stick from people because he uses the official wording of rules to illustrate why rumours about Hock being employed are not likely to be true. Although it may mean me getting some of that stick I have to agree with him.

The rules in this type of situation are what govern what can and can't be done and are the only thing that must be adhered to regardless of what people think should be done.

The situation is quite clear, for the duration of any ban (likely to be 2 years) Gareth Hock (or any other banned player) can not be employed in any capacity by any club or organisation that is affiliated to the RFL nor can he undertake any activity organised by any such organisation. He can not do any job for Wigan RLFC whether it be mowing the pitch, selling tickets, community programmes or whatever people suggest regardless of whether or not he is suitable (he couldn't even do so without pay). He can't be involved with the Club at all - simple as.

The only thing that Wigan or any other organisation affiliated to the RFL are able to do during the ban period is to organise for Hock to go through a rehabilitation or educational programme as the recipient.

My exact words:

I'm not sure if they can legally make that work - I mean within the RFL's terms of legality - but if they're allowed to, then I'm all for it

Both sentiments, which you seem to think are at odds with each other, are included in that original sentence. Now for Heavens' sake, stop rewriting what people have said to try and strengthen your position.

The rest of it - i.e. regarding the rights and wrongs of trying to keep Hock affiliated to the club in some way, and therefore prevent him toppling into the abyss, is a matter of opinion. Yours and mine differ, so let's leave it at that.

As for the parents of Scholarship kids etc. If, by their actions, the club in effect choose to disagree with your view, that doesn't mean they "lack sense" (which is what you quite clearly implied in your last post). It means they've weighed up the pros and cons - from a position of better understanding than you have - and are making an informed decision. If they're not allowed to do this by the RFL, they're not allowed to - it's as simple as that and will not be an issue. If however, they are allowed to keep Hock on the books in some capacity, it's doesn't mean they've found a way to "get round the rules", it means the RFL don't see it as a major problem either.

Why don't you stop putting a negative slant on everything the club does, and accept that looking into the possibility of assisting Gareth Hock through a very difficult time is actually an honourable thing to do. And the fact that other employers wouldn't do it doesn't make any difference to that at all.

I'll ask the question again while you chose to let a cartoon answer it for you the last time.

If you are allowed to take responsibility for your wrongdoings, why shouldn't Gareth Hock be given a chance to do the same for his?

And don't bother going off on one. I won't be listening to you again until you give a clear and concise answer to that question.

Out of almost three pages of DaveO and Cruncher going back an two at each other that is the most sensible post on here.

If i had kids i would not have a problem with them learning from a bloke who has 99.9% ruined a fantastic career. Good post mate !!

I wasn't given second chances Cruncher, i had to Man up and sort myself out, because the guy is talented he is going to be put into a position where he can let everyone down again, he isn't going to learn this way, he has damaged the name of this ONCE great club and should not be allowed to enter through the doors again.

So your only answer is to be judgemental from a position of ignorance. Well done.

No mine from a position of experience, nobskin

That response says it all. I don't need to add anything else.

Congratulations

Give the lad a chance let him work with the kids but make sure he is clean from drugs ie test him every week this might be a deterant to up and comming players to keep off the drugs

Well if I was IL I would be prepared to offer him a 2nd chance once he has served his punishment. But would make it clear that he would be tested on a regular basis to ensure he didnt re-offend and sacked if he did.

I think he would owe us big time.

It's the product or the brand that generates sales and revenue though Jon, in this case it's Hock and Wigan RL respectively. For the sake of the brand he just can't be associated during his ban. He's done the crime and he must now do the time and that should be the end of it. But if Wigan can get themselves in the position of having 1st option on his registration/signing once he's served his ban then all the better. At that point what's in the past should stay in the past. A lot of that will now depend on Hock's personal drive to get back. But during the ban it's best all round if he's off the scene and Wigan aren't seen as guilty by association for the duration. Just look at how the bad smell of Long and Pryce's antics hang around Saints battered reputation.

Good post.

I couldn't agree more.

And how do you conclude my reference to the rules making this unlikely makes any sort of comment on you being all for it if it were possible? I merely pointed that your assumption in the first part of your sentence was was correct. You clearly took this the wrong way and jumped in as you did.



I have absolutely no problem with the club helping Hock get rehabilitated. I am merely pointing out it is not possible to do so with him as an employee of the club.



I am sure you can read the rules as well as I can. Are they not plain enough?

I am not stupid enough to believe that the RFL would not find a way around their own clearly stated rules if they felt like it but were they to do so in this case it I can't see why describing that as getting around the rules would be wrong.



How any of this is putting a negative slant on things I really do not know. If anything were the club and the RFL to simply implement the rules as they are written, including what they say about rehabilitation that would be a positive thing for the game as a whole.

Dave

Spot on....

That's the key for me. If he is to be kept on he would need to be tested at any given time just to make sure he is off it.

While I understand where you are coming from I am of the opinion that if we can turn a positive out of this, in his and use him as an example to the younger generation (with a supervised coach) then it may well be the making of him, and deter another from following the path.

Looking from Hocks point of view having 2 years away from the game with nothing to do, would most likely end in nothing but tears, the devil makes work for idle hands.

What he did was wrong, but i personally think it could end with a credit to the club if we can make a difference in his life, potentially save his career by keeping him on the scene and what better image for the Academy and Scholarship who are going to be most exposed to this culture than have a fallen hero round the club kicking his heals.

hock could get a job like the rest of us and that may make him realise what a bloody fool he has been. How can our club support him for breaking the rules.

do you honestly think hock would of stopped drugs if he wasnt caught by the tester???

he has to be punished in the correct way to send a message to other players ...DRUGS WILL NOT BE TOLLERATED IN OUR SPORT.....
why should he be an exception to the 2 year ban?

I am all for giving most people a second chance.

Imo I hope he does get some role and I hope he learns from it, comes away a better person and focuses on exploiting his undoubted talent to the full.

Nobody said he should. They said he shouldn't be totally ostracised and treated like a leper.

He isn't, he got banned.

a lifeline or just a line

Personally I think Gaz Know`s this and if he is true to his word he would welcome it with open arms.

Secondly if he does comes back a better player his contract should say he is a wigan player until wigan see fit to release him.