Personally I'm quite happy for Hock to do some kind of "community service" why he is suspended. He's made a big mistake but we've probably all made a big mistake in one way or another during our lives.

If he sat around for the next two years doing nothing I'd fire him off but if he puts something back into the game at grass roots level then credit him I say.

I've a feeling his wages will be pretty minimal. I mean I don't think we'd have been able to recall Mossop and Goulding if he was still being paid full pelt.

alexandr Vinokourov - cyclist got found out with drugs (and still suspended)
now works with Astana team


perfectly fine and good news if The Sun is accurate. Nice to see (if true) we aren't dumping him on the scrap heap.

Absolute Scum!

I have no problem with the club doing this at all as long as Gaz really is truly sorry and stays well away from drugs.

It's not like he beat glassed a woman up or attacked a couple in an house, now that seems to be ok to carry on playing with the RFL.

The rules ands regs say this:

"A Person who has been declared Ineligible may not, during the period of Ineligibility, participate in any capacity in a Competition or other activity (other than authorised anti-doping education or rehabilitation programmes) organised, convened or authorised by the RFL or by any body or Club that is a member of, or affiliated to, or licensed by the RFL."

There is no way that allows Hock to work in the Junior Development setup.

In any case I am sure the parents of the juniors would be well pleased to have a player known to be be a drug user looking after their kids. He hasn't just cleaned up his act overnight and needs to be rehabilitated and there would need to be evidence he had succeeded in his rehabilitation before he could be let near the juniors. In fact I wonder if Hock would get CRB clearance to work with kids anyway.

So if the club think they have found a way around the above rule and want to try and use him in junior development they are misguided IMO.

Dave

I'm sure they know more about it than you.

Any decision they reach will be based on consultation with the appropriate people, not with some computer nerd who goes stampeding to the rulebook every time he wants to disagree with someone.

Trying to prevet Hock spiralling downwards into complete self-destruction seems to me a worthy ambition.

Well done to the club if true

Hocks made a mistake and will be punished by not playing for 2 years.

I laugh at the people who dont want to give him a second chance in life. theres murderers and rapist with second chances walking the streets far christsake.

There are players STILL playing after doing far far worse than Hock

Some of the best people to work in any form recovery programmes are the people with experience of not just being a drug user/alcoholic/burglar etc but who have proven that they have overcome their problems. This should be Hock's first priority, to show that for a lengthy period he is "clean" and is capable of being a role model to young players/drug users and so on. He would then become a positive influence for the club or community to draw on. I am not sure that a couple of weeks post ban qualifies him for that postion yet.

I think you need to remember what you said before you accuse someone of disagreeing with you.

You said "I'm not sure if they can legally make that work - I mean within the RFL's terms of legality..."

All I have done is confirm your opinion that it is against the RFL rules!

Now if you think the club know more about it, on what basis did you offer your opinion they could not do it in the first place?



I am also not the first one to point this rule out to users of the board so why don't you have a pop at W/L/A as he was the first one to do so when the idea was first suggested the club should employ him in some way?



And saying they should not employ him with the juniors does not mean they can't rehabilitate him in some other way.

Unless you can't understand what the rules say then it is obvious the club would need to find a way around this rule to employ him in the role suggested. If they have found such a way it won't affect what is written in the rules and they are written in plain English.

It is it merely a matter of opinion whether they should do that or not and no one needs a rule book to form an opinion on that.

I would not want Hock coaching my son if he was involved at Wigan. I am sure I am no the only parent who would think that.

Dave

Exactly my points in my earlier post in this this thread.

Dave

Exactly right. Being sorry for what has happened isn't the same as kicking the habit for good. He needs to prove he is free from the stuff before he does anything else.
He has to show everyone he has let down that he deserves a second chance, then and only then will people be prepared to give him that chance.

I don't think "free of the stuff" is the reality of it no matter how the spin doctors will have and will put it.

He wasn't an addict, he just could afford it, liked it and thought he would get away with it. It is the eqivalent of having an affair. Once you get caught the fun stops with a bang and reasons for your "weakness" come flooding out. If people still aren't sympathetic, check into The Priory.

It's a "want to" issue....not a "need to" one. Stupid...yes...Amy winehouse...no!

Hock was no more addicted to Coke than Riddell is to pies!

Lets put it into perspective. He should be banned for being so arrogant to have thought he could get away with it and then given a second chance in 2 years time like anyone else who does a self destructive crime.