Quote: glow "You expect a sports governing body not to follow the laws of the country? '"
...interesting. Presumably there is insufficient evidence to prove that Hock has broken the laws of this country, otherwise he would be prosecuted for same. But Sports Governing bodies don't ban players for, say, drink-driving, or for tax fraud. And taking pseudoephadrine is not illegal, but that would get Hock the same ban, as it's a prescribed substance. I see where you're coming from, but I don't think this argument holds.
Quote: glow " Don’t know what field you work in, but in the automotive game most employers have a no drugs policy, with the help of rltheserl I've previously dismissed 2 people for working whilst under the influence of drugs and would happily do it again'"
I'm sure if Hock has turned up at Wiggin under the influence of drugs, he'd have been dismissed. In the automotive game, the implications of taking drugs are such that it could lead to the deaths of colleagues or bystanders, so again, I'm not convinced the analogy works. There is a wider question about how far a employer's rights extend into the private lives of its staff (qv the recent discussion as to whether medical staff can be disciplined for smoking publically while in uniform but not in work). But again, that's not at issue. Hock doesn't face sanction from his employer, but from the governing body of the sport. If Wigan terminate his contract, it will be because he cant fulfil the obligation to play, not directly because of his failed drug test, one assumes.
None of this is to excuse someone breaking the rules. But neither does it demand or justify a witch-hunt. There are rules, it seems he broke them, if he did there are punishments that will be implemented. Nuff said.
