No no no dave give it a rest your boring

Your 'mates' seem clueless i bet your 'mates' didn't know that stipulations are in his 5 year deal (one being drug tested on a regular basis) did they?

Our sport will never take off down in london because they love the football too much and the rfl are to dumb to see that

Oh and yes your crowds are on the bbc website everytime you play at home

You are missing the point completely, as usual.

Why are you dragging Harlequins into this? You seem obsessed. Or paranoid. Or both.

I was replying to your first reply on the last page

Your saying people shouldn't be given second chances which is way off the mark

Hock isn't the brightest blub as we all know you really think he's going to chuck this chance away when he's got nothing to fall back on?

It was the same with terry newton no one wanted to know the guy after what he did come out and look what happened there,if players show they are willing to change there lifestyle and turn a corner do you not think it is a good thing?

Yes, in response to your opening irrelevant comment.



Where have I said that?

More or less says it i cant be d arguing with you dave your boring me a few people said your clueless so leave it at that

Yet another well thought out, eloquent response from king warrior.

I'm assuming you filled them in on actual details then? Of what Hock has been doing during his suspension? Of his work to gain skills to allow him to talk to kids in schools, young offenders' institutions and jails (and other community work)? Of how he went to college and learned plumbing skills allowing him to work for a local plumbing firm to earn his keep? And how he's trained non-stop with an ex-army Sergeant, working not only his physical form, but mental development and leadership skills? Of just what an outstanding player he was before the his suspension? Of how Wigan chose, rather than dump him on the scrapheap, to show faith in his dedication and rehabilitation?

What, you mean you didn't tell them all that? Well then, your "non-rl friends" are indeed extremely ill-informed and should therefore reserve judgement until they know the facts. Should you bother to tell them.

But you're probably right, he should be condemned as "a bloke who did cocaine, recieved a ban from RL, immediately came back and bagged himself a 5 year contract". Because that's a positive move for all concerned. We all know RL lads shunned over drugs can handle it.

Again, good job Lister.

Oh my god. You really aren't grasping this are you? Arghhhhhhhhh.

This board is just impossible sometimes.

Yes, fine, the bloke is a hero, 5 year contract well earned.

That's an interesting angle: "everyone else just doesn't get it."

I asked you to expand on your point earlier and you chose to skip it. I've shown why your non-RL friends' views on the 5-year contract are ill-informed and you ignore it. I'm starting to see a pattern.

You're starting to sound riled, Lister.

So did you explain all of those details in full to your 'non-rl friends' to allow them to make a fully informed judgement? It's a simple question and the second time I've asked.

And what length of contract did they deem acceptable? Again, second time I've asked.

Their opinion is perfectly valid - as long as they are in full possession of the facts. Otherwise it's an ill-informed judgement and deserves to be treated as such.

I've not said I think he deserves his contract. You're making that up. As it happens I think it's a long contract to award to any player - never mind one in Hock's circumstances. But as I'm in full possession of the facts as they've been released in the public arena, I don't make crass judgements such as claiming it's a reward for drug-taking or a farce, and I'm pleased with Hock's rehabilitation and development and grateful Wigan have supported and shown faith in him.

I'm not riled at all, especially after reading this post. I agree with your final paragraph. I have never said it was a reward for drug taking either, nobody that I have refered to taking to saw it like that.

No, I didn't fill them in with the full account of the facts that you have pointed out. Some of them I did, some of them I didn't. Does that invalidate their opinions? I doubt they would completely change their mind to be honest. You might be a greater believer of someone having "served their time", therefore everything should be brushed under the carpet, but others are not.

Fair enough, I was wrong to assume you thought he deserves it. "Deserves" would lead one to believe that he has shown qualities worthy of reward - I think a 1 or 2 year deal would have been more suitable, but then that is my opinion.

Fair enough.

my thoughts are that he has obviously been training with the club when he shouldnt have been (in some capacity)

no one in their right mind would offer a 5 year contract to a player who has been out of the game for so long without seeing them in regular action.

Can't agree that Hock was 'average'. He's probably the most dynamic British forward around apart from Sam Burgess. If he gets back his previous form (even including penalties and dropped ball) he'd walk into any other SL side. If he can get rid of the mistakes he could be a world-class forward.

I'm not sure about a 5-year deal, but I also don't have a problem with clubs showing loyalty to players who make mistakes but sort themselves out. Leeds did the same with Walker and Bailey, and I'd rate Hock's offence as far less serious than assault.