Morally right?!

Wigan stood by Hock during his drugs ban

It was in Wigan's best interest to stand by Hock and he's more than paid off this interest by playing well for them since his ban was over.

Wigan are still looking after their own interests to this day by not allowing Gareth Hock sign for his preferred club. If there's any way that could send Gareth spiraling back into bad habits then this is it. Hopefully Widnes will look after him until things get sorted out.

Why was it in Wigan's best interest?

Wigan wanted to look like a cuddly and sympathetic club that doesn't cast players out in the cold when things go wrong. Even if Hock came back a terrible player it would have been a great PR stunt to show that Wigan isn't an evil club like some people would have them

In reality Wigan saw Hocks two year ban as collateral damage because they knew that they'll be getting a good player back once this ban was over.

I'd rather have Westwood any day

I like to have a read on the pie's board as it usually gives me a giggle, but it would appear having spent a while on there tonite there is alot more to this than meets the eye.
Most seem to be glad rid of a bad apple, some are gutted he's gone. But there are one or two suggesting something is very wrong behind the scenes in pie land. Internall disputes, conflicts between managment and players even the local mafia are being mentioned. nothing concrete as they seem unwilling to reveil what they know. Anyway looks like it could be an interesting year over the hill!!

You were saying Leeds were some benevolent entity that allowed players to avoid contractual obligations. I was merely demonstrating that was not the case.

Leeds were legally and morally right to enforce the contract, just as Wigan have been right to do likewise with Hock's contract. Players would be up in arms if teams could simply avoid their obligations under a contract. Simply tear up a contract a year into a three year deal. Same principal should apply both ways.

Failing to understand your empathy with Hock in any way shape or form.

I don't see what Wigan have done so wrong other than showing disrespect to Widnes but their Chairman has form of that from the infamous "clubcall" speech.
He's already had 2 extra pay increases on a 5yr contract he was happy to sign and happy to take their support (and work whilst banned from RL btw).
Damo -The way you repay the faith and support the likes of Hock received is to show complete respect,some loyalty and stick to your contract agreements (especially after 2 pay increases) and work as hard if not harder than anyone for that Club rather than bite the hand that feeds you.
You mention morals what morals was Hock sticking to when throwing the white stuff up his nose then blaming all and sundry when caught?
He's been treated with the same level of respect his conduct appears to have shown the club.

If Hock didn't plan on playing for Wigan for five years, then he shouldn't have signed a five year deal. Simple as that.

Hock displays an awful degree of self entitlement and shows little appetite to earn things. Can't see why Damo would empathize with those traits.

The above quote features your words and not mine. I never said that Leeds [iwere some benevolent entity that allowed players to avoid contractual obligations[/i. All I wrote was [iThis would never happen at Leeds Rhinos[/i and it hasn't happened at Leeds. Hock has being given very little choice in what he wanted to do and now he finds himself loaned out at Widnes where he won't even be able to play against his hometown team.

A couple of Leeds Rhinos players have gone out on loan in recent years and have being allowed to play against Leeds Rhinos. Ben Cross is a super league baddie who got released by mutual consent with Leeds Rhinos mid season and then went on to play with Wigan Warriors without any of the constraints that Hock has now.

Regarding your points concluding [iSame principal should apply both ways[/i, clubs are a lot richer than players and therefore will always have the upper arm. Clubs can always recover from player loses as no player is bigger than the club in this sense. However you can't really say that a player can recover from a club ripping up a contract. It is not equal when you look at the bigger picture. Players have short careers whilst clubs pretty much stay around forever.

My empathy with Hock lies with the fact that he is human and this hasn't being taken into consideration by most people. Ian Lenagan is a very wealthy man and can afford to bribe players with better deals to keep them in his club. However money doesn't always make things better and it hasn't in this case. The Wigan Warriors owner can't have his own way so he throws toys out of his pram by having a sulk in the media to make Gareth Hock look really bad.

Nobody forced Hock to sign a 5 year deal.

And its been for Christ's sake.

Gareth Hock has repaid the faith by performing well for Wigan on the field.

Unfortunately this wasn't enough for Wigan and they wanted more of Hock than what he could give. Five years is a long time and a lot can change so it's unrealistic to expect a five year contract to go smoothly. Maybe as a sport we can learn from this, look at what can be done and think about changing the law so we don't have another tragic case like whats happened to Gareth Hock.

I don't know the full details behind white stuff nose sniffing incidents but I can safely assume it's not all Gareth Hocks fault. We live in the society that has created the white stuff nose sniffing incidents and it'll be unreasonable to just blame these incidents just on the individuals involved. We've all being morally wrong in our lives but clubs should know better than the young men they employ.

Regarding your last point - clubs should know better!