I posted this on the Wigan forum: Quote The Biffs Back="The Biffs Back"I agree 100% JWarriors I would ask all Wigan fans to read my post with an open mind and then make their own conclusions as to whether or not I have a valuable point. I posted the comments made by Lenagan when Zak was initially signed when he stated that there would be no more controversies allowed from him https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-leagu ... lay-drugs/ Is this not a controversy from Zak? IMO Lenagan is more than happy to get rid of players that step out of line when they aren't really a valuable asset on the field anymore,but he clearly has ulterior motives with his choices of who gets the bullet and who doesn't Mossop was hung out to dry when he was the innocent party after an unsavoury incident with Bateman (although in reality his form was poop since his return from the NRL and he also wasn't a playing asset to the club moving forward where as Bateman was a top line player) Mossop's exit was an easy decision to make by Lenagan to get rid and he did Joel Tomkins' "Rectum of Wigan" video was cringe worthy at best,but surely it was not worthy of him being made to move on to Hull KR was it? Although Lenagan clearly realised that it was an ideal opportunity to get rid of Joel's salary from the wage bill as he was clearly past his sell by date and he did Does Lenagan think that RL fans will not scrutinise his decisions and make their own conclusions regarding his motives? Was Mossop actually the guilty party on that fateful day? Was Rectumgate worthy of getting Joel the boot? So why does Zak get his reprieve from his latest controversy? IMO Lenagan would not be so sympathetic regarding Zak's drink driving indiscretion if he had run over a member of his own family (As is a very likely scenario when drivers over the limit take the decision to drive whilst under the influence of alcohol) But the fact that Zak didn't actually run anyone over is obviously deemed OK by Lenagan,as is the fact that he is also the best Full Back in SL and is a valuable asset to Wigan So Rehab it is for Zak and a slap on the wrist until his next indiscretion Honest opinions guys am I right or are you happy with Lenagan's decisions?'"

I posted this on the Wigan forum: Quote The Biffs Back="The Biffs Back"I agree 100% JWarriors I would ask all Wigan fans to read my post with an open mind and then make their own conclusions as to whether or not I have a valuable point. I posted the comments made by Lenagan when Zak was initially signed when he stated that there would be no more controversies allowed from him https://www.telegraph.co.uk/rugby-leagu ... lay-drugs/ Is this not a controversy from Zak? IMO Lenagan is more than happy to get rid of players that step out of line when they aren't really a valuable asset on the field anymore,but he clearly has ulterior motives with his choices of who gets the bullet and who doesn't Mossop was hung out to dry when he was the innocent party after an unsavoury incident with Bateman (although in reality his form was poop since his return from the NRL and he also wasn't a playing asset to the club moving forward where as Bateman was a top line player) Mossop's exit was an easy decision to make by Lenagan to get rid and he did Joel Tomkins' "Rectum of Wigan" video was cringe worthy at best,but surely it was not worthy of him being made to move on to Hull KR was it? Although Lenagan clearly realised that it was an ideal opportunity to get rid of Joel's salary from the wage bill as he was clearly past his sell by date and he did Does Lenagan think that RL fans will not scrutinise his decisions and make their own conclusions regarding his motives? Was Mossop actually the guilty party on that fateful day? Was Rectumgate worthy of getting Joel the boot? So why does Zak get his reprieve from his latest controversy? IMO Lenagan would not be so sympathetic regarding Zak's drink driving indiscretion if he had run over a member of his own family (As is a very likely scenario when drivers over the limit take the decision to drive whilst under the influence of alcohol) But the fact that Zak didn't actually run anyone over is obviously deemed OK by Lenagan,as is the fact that he is also the best Full Back in SL and is a valuable asset to Wigan So Rehab it is for Zak and a slap on the wrist until his next indiscretion Honest opinions guys am I right or are you happy with Lenagan's decisions?'"

did you get banned?

true. To be fair to him you do need them for driving.

Brilliant post and 100% correct. It's disgusting from Wigan. They clearly know with Sam Tomkins going Hardaker is very very much in need assuming he is the player he was. Hardaker will never ever learn whilst clubs like Wigan act in the way they have. Shocking

Nah i'm still here Tad


Although I didn't think it was anywhere close to be classed as trolling,IMO it was just an honest opinion
One of Wigan's mods posted after me and has the self same opinions with regards to Lenegan

you never needed to troll to get banned on there, just post something they don't like!

I'm actually concerned about Zak's mental state as he can't stop having these indiscretions,and irrespective of which club environment he is in.

After each indiscretion Zak always trots out the "I've finally learnt my lesson and I'm now gonna sort my self out" excuse,It's almost like that he feels Invincible and can do whatever he wants whilst believing that he'll always have another club that will take him on after he stuff's up.

What happens to Zak when he finally runs out of chances and clubs willing to pay his big salary?

If he doesn't use this rehab and to also seek further medical help regarding his mental state then sadly I fear another Terry Newton scenario could be just around the corner for him

Let's hope not

Leeds gave Zak many more chances than is commonly known so we can hardly complain at Wigan giving him another chance. Unfortunately for them it will be thrown back in their faces at some point.

That is correct - Leeds bent over backwards to provide Zac with appropriate support - shame the player didn't appreciate the help that was offered

And yet Lenegan intimates that Zak has had no support structure in place over his previous - " issues that we believe could and should have been confronted already."

To be honest who cares? He's their problem now. Whilst its a bit rich talking about somehow doing a better job managing him, at the same time its exactly what I'd expect Wigan to say - they're hardly likely to say that they can't do anything and its just a matter of time before he implodes again.

Maybe if he moves out of Pontevegas then he will have a chance to distance himself from the element that seem to lead him astray.