There isn't a chance they will change the decision, unless the original judge who set the precedent stated in the Obiter Dicta, the original case in which the precedent was set was an exceptional case. which by my knowledge and if i remember correctly has only ever happened twice in the history of judicial precedent.

Hock can't play for two years. The final day of the ban is 23rd June 2011. Wigan play Huddersfield 24th June 2011.
The legal precedent has been set and WADA have no objection if the QC rules he can start training.
The footballer who set the precedent I don't know.
Rumour has it that it may have been Paddy Kenny. That is pure rumour though.
We'll know soon enough whether he can train with the club or not.
As we all know, he can't play prior to the 24th June.

sl players had better get ready for some high shots coming their way

It would be a bit unfair if Hudson did 2 years (if thats what he did?)
then Hocks was reduced.

at the same time, I would have no problem if he started playing next week
I like to watch good players, no matter who they play for, and to be honest although I agree strong messages need to be sent, he hasnt done anything that most of the population in all walks of life arnt doing or have done
The fact that any player would do it when they get tested just shows that they are not bad people, but not quite the sharpest knives in the draw

(a) that doesn't make it right, and (b) most of the population don't play rugby league and therefore don't put their team mates and opposition players at risk by being a cokehead.

There is a slight inaccuracy in this comment, your barred from earning a living in the profession for a set period of time only, in a grat deal of professions if you'd been tested positive for any illegal drug you'd lose your career for life; a doctor would be struck off, as a memeber of the armed forces I would be sacked etc etc.

Fact is he knew the rules for better or worse, they are what they are. He's broke the rules so he's been punished, in his case 2 years. I think it's scandalous and reflects poorly on the Wigan club that they push the agenda like they're doing.

Do they really strike off doctors for drug abuse? I find it hard to believe that, say, a surgeon with twenty years of priceless experience would be canned for having a few drags of a spliff.

It's a well known fact that drink and drug abuse is rife within the medical profession (for fairly obvious reasons). They must be losing physicians by the boatload each year!

One side note: Back when I was teaching I was surprised to discover (on one of those days when the services visit school to talk to pupils) that if you are found guilty of a hoax 999 call you are instantly banned from ever becoming a policeman, fireman, doctor, teacher, solider or pilot. Indeed, you cant even get a job as a flight attendant.

Your 'well known fact' is complete cliche, drug abuse is not rife amongst the medical profession, below is taken from the BMA website...

[iBMA research estimates that 1 in 15 doctors, *at some point in their lifetime*, will have some kind of problem with alcohol or drugs. This can be as limited as a *single drink to aid sleep*, or a more serious problem which might affect patient care.[/i

And below from the BMJ would suggest they would, and do, get struck off for drug use...

[iOn top of the 85 doctors struck off last year, a further 77 were suspended indefinetly. Reasons for action included False and misleading reporting, substance abuse and substandard patient care.[/i

And for those who say we should not suspend but instead support them, in general we're not talking about people with habits they're unable to break here, what we have is young men with a fair amount of money to spare looking for a thrill and expecting they won't get caught.

Not cliche at all. IIRC, the study was conducted by an unaffiliated body (which the BMA certainly is NOT) in the late nineties (okay, it's ten-plus years ago, but close enough) which investigated both doctors and dentists. I remember it well because at the time I was doing some software work for a practice management company down south. The sample was pretty large with many talking off the record for fear of reprisals. Amongst other issues it concluded that depression was a major factor which pushed physicians toward drugs (legal and illegal) whilst dentists seemed more inclined toward alcoholism. There was a pretty big stink up at the time and the government announced that it would investigate. Whether they did or not I don't know. I'll try to hunt down some more data tonight and if I can find a link I'll post it.



Unless a physician or dentist or whomever has passed the point of no return I don't see any point in striking him off. Suspension, yes. It's dangerous to work under the influence of any substance - especially so in the case of doctors. Far better (not least for the taxpayer!) to treat the problem with the seriousness is warrants whilst providing an avenue back to practice.

North Sea offshore industry, total ban from all companies if caught.

Taxpayers (or employers generally) are not mummies to employees. It is up to individuals to sort out their own lives, not for employers to do so. If a person puts the lives of individuals at risk by indulging their destructive drug related habits then they are no longer fit to work in that field. Until they sort themselves out they should not be allowed near any job where others are put at risk. I think being fired or suspended from a job due to drug or drink related behaviour is a very good example of the employer, including the taxpayer, taking the matter extremely seriously and I for one don't want to see any compromise to that.

Wigan should be embarrassed by themselves and I hope their bid fails.

www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... ml&BID=480 he's back so much for the tough stance against drugs

www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... ml&BID=480 he's back so much for the tough stance against drugs