Quote: Aboveusonlypie "I rather think they would. The drug wasn't performance enhancing, merely recreational. Your post smacks of hypocrisy if you believe that Leeds wouldn't have supported the player in the same way that Wigan did. Do you seriously believe that Hock is the only player in the game to have issues with recreational drugs?
The main difference between Hock and Bailey is that Hock can play.'"
I have no issues with Hock as a player, or his club employing him after his ban. Anyone who watched rugby league 20 years ago or before will tell you Hock and Bailey are angels. Both of them would have been handed their backsides by some of the terrifying creatures that inhabited the game back then. There are hard men and there are blokes who act hard in a game that has moved on safe in the knowledge that there is nobody interested in battering them anymore.
Hock and Bailey play a different game. Bailey, when he turns up to play, has been a consistant and quality forward for Leeds for nearly 10 seasons, of course he can play. Hock on the other hand has a great talent but has spent far too much of his career unfit - and I don't mean injured - just not fit enough. Even so, I would have been happy to see him in a Leeds shirt when he moved from Wigan - I think he would have been worth the risk. Although I don't think our coach would have been able to manage him frankly.