It seems that the rumours about Graham, McIllroum and Hardaker being dropped are true.

1. It's conveniently gone from being late to missing a whole day at work. The having one beer at the weekend argument is weak also because my employer doesn't have rules preventing me having a drink at weekend.

2. You are totally missing the point that a drinking rule means no drinking regardless of it being one or ten.

3. Do you think Hock would have been dropped from the squad had he not been drinking and then overslept?

Look I'm not defending Hock I'm just saying he's taking all the flak when six other players have stepped out of line also.

1. That was the whole day's activies for the squad as far as I'm aware. Change it to 1 beer vs 30 minutes late if you want.
2. In motoring there is a "no speeding" rule but we treat 31mph in a 30 zone differently to 180mph in a 30 zone. Do you think that is wrong.
3. Yes.

1. Insider knowledge have we Richie?

2. That's irrelevant to this argument. If you break the speed limit and get caught you face punishment. Are you now trying to use an anology that the other six players were doing 31mph and Hock was doing 180mph in drinking terms?

3. That's ridiculous. Would you feel the same way if Tomkins, Westwood, Roby or Sinfield were dropped from the squad and publicly humiliated for simply oversleeping?

hasn't Hock admitted giving McNamara a verbal assault too when he rang him?

The other players have seemingly been dropped for this weeks game for going out drinking, and accepted their punishment. Hock didnt turn up for training, then lost it with the coach.

I'm baffled that some people still perceive Gareth Hock as having been treated unfairly in this situation; he has been treated differently, but given his past misdemeanours, it's entirely appropriate that any sanction against him is more serious than against those who have a clean sheet.

In a work situation, if you're on a final written warning and I'm not, and we both get caught in a breach of the company rules, you'll get sacked and I won't; it's not that complicated to understand.

The way I understood it was Hock lost his cool with McNamara when he was told he was out of the squad.

If the other rule breaking players are now being punished at least it's been acknowledged. I just can't imagine the other players copping hardly any criticism despite their actions also weakening England's chances on Saturday.

1. No, just the same public domain information that has mentioned two parts of training and nothing else.
2. I'm pointing out the illogical nature of your absolute stance. See the earlier question on your definition of "on the lash"
3. Hock did not "simply oversleep" he missed training.

1 . It's irrelevant to the previous argument because a whole day can't be compared to an hour.
2. Abolitional stance, hardly read my previous comments. I don't have an issue with the punishment I just have an issue with others persecuting Hock and failing to acknowledge other players broke team rules to.
3. Yes Hock simply overslept and missed training. The same question applies.

1. If your working day is one hour long, it is. Hock missed the whole day. It doesn't matter if training is 10 minutes or eight hours. It doesn't matter if it's a swim or walkthroughs. Players cannot miss training.
2. I have read your previous comments. I can only think you didn't understand mine, which (in other words) pointed out the fallacy of you wanting to treat half a pint the same as sixteen.
3. Any player missing training, without pre-agreement or a hell of an excuse, should face severe sanctions.

I want to feel sorry for Hock... but then I remember he is a thug who hasn't got 2 braincells to rub together and I can't.

Has anyone heard him speak about the incident to the BBC? He makes Jamie Peacock and Kevin Sinfield sound like MENSA candidates.