and wigan have already shown their lax attitude wth hock. effectively standing by a drug user. clubs need to be punished - sky money, points etc thatd make them wake up and think about how and who they employ

IMO that's not "a lax attitude" pk.

The player has admitted that he's been a muppet and taken the (admittedly obligatory) 2 year suspension.

Now, if he can show over that 2 year period that he has stopped using, stayed clean and kept himself in good enough shape to resume his career, then we have simply left ourselves the option to re-sign him.

If, however, he slips back into the abuse cycle, then he will no doubt be left to fend for himself.

As IFL told us at the forum a couple of weeks back, no decisions have yet been made, nor will any be made until at least next month, when Hock has served 1/3 of his ban.

At that point, I would imagine that the club could start to talk to him about what he's done so far (in regard to rehab, etc.), whether he would submit to voluntary random and/or planned tests by the club/RFL and what he is doing to keep himself in shape RL-wise.

Just because a player makes the mistake of taking drugs (with the exception of performance-enhancers), I don't think that they should be ex-communicated from RL.
I fully believe that the way forward is for the player to sort himself out, and for us to both offer the support necessary to allow that to happen and to advise the player on what he needs to do to keep up in Rugby terms.

i want clubs to take responsbility in the punishment - points, cap, money deductions will mean that if another hock happened at wigan we wouldnt be in this airy fairy situation of he's a muppet but underneath it all we can change him - if he'd lost us points he'd be out on his ear which is where i think he should be.

that where i think the rfl need to go with this - turn some responsbility back on the clubs to run their own testing programmes? how about everyone gets an extra 200k on the cap with which they should do their own regular drug testing and if a player from your club gets done (either by you or rfl testing) you lose cap and points?

in terms of wigan and hock ive always said wigan should have made a stand and sent a signal. we didnt and havent which sends another message of drugs cheats/users/abusers are bad, but not that bad.

id also like to know whether hock is still being paid? either in full or as a retainer or as a renoufs wife type arrangement? if so then wigan are 100% taking a lax attitude and condoning hock. if he is unpaid then the argument becomes a matter of principal, does he deserve a 2nd chance? if hock is being paid then wigan are not just setting a bad example but you can argue are effectively condoning hock. youd never find your answer tho as IL wont answer anything he doesnt want to - which is why fans forums are like a soviet press conference without the gulag.

If I lost my driving licence due to drink driving, I would in all probability loose my job, and wouldnt get another in the field I work in.

After having completed my ban and getting my drivers licence back, do you think i should continue to be "banned" from working in my field?

No he thinks that if you took recreational drugs and got caught then you and your employer should be punished.

Apparently in RL when losing an international from the squad and potentially that player never comming back to the game it's just not enough to have the gap in the squad which must be filled by a less experienced player. For some reason the club must be punished for something that may have happened outside of the country nevermind outside of working hours. Something that the players already know what the punishment is and still manage to put their income at risk for.

For players like Newton who have a wife and kids where losing the major and possibly only income are at stake what exactly could the club do as a punishment worse than the potential to lose your financial security, house, future income etc. If the players can't see the risk to their family do we think they would care about a few point being docked?

Also with the fine/points etc, whats to stop a disgruntled player at the end of his career taking some perfromance enhancing "fat burner" and having a test to give the club he has fallen out with a kick in the teeth on the way out?

I like the Brisbane approach of appointing an indipendant agencey that they have no control over - the players can be tested 365 days a year at any time of the day and in 2007 over 800 players where tested.

Brisbane adopt a three strikes and your out policy but it is only quite recently that they have changed their approach to players that take drugs. As Wayne Bennet says there is an unwritten rule in the game that despite your off field activities if you turn up on time, train hard, play hard and are talented then you will be protected.

However i don't think that this is a problem just for rugby league but for sport generally and their will be coaches out there that simply want to get results and will be tempted to turn a blind eye to what players get up to away from the game.

At 31 and if found guilty then it would be a terribley said end to a great playing career.

www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... ement.html He did it.

www.sportinglife.com/rugbyleague ... ement.html He did it.

Well, I guess there's something to be said for owning up to his actions.

so go on then. tell us something useful and give us a suggestion of how to solve this issue. cos at the minute all we have is a player getting caught and his club waiting to re-employ him. what a message that sends out!!! (that is if he isnt already still employed)

It's called a second chance. Taking a drug recreationally and taking a drug for its performance enhancing capabilities are two different matters. Each case has to be treated on its own individual merit. Although i'd like the Hock situation to be cleared up, i think we need to take however long is necessary. The guy probably needs professional help and it wouldn't be very fair to kick him to the curb without giving him a some support. Sure, if he stuffs it up, then it's out the door, but that's a clause that every prospective employer would have in Hock's new contract...

my thoughts exactly, wasn't it called the monday club or something

Still dont think hock should be banned from playing rl, however newton should never be allowed to cross the threshold of a rugby club ever again! Certainly not in an employed role.

Taking performance enhancing drugs, is the lowest of the low in sports. It is impossible to prove and he wont admit it, but he should as they do in athletics, be made to payback/giveback all monies and titles that he has earned in his time on the steriods!

If that includes our challenge cup win so be it!

That may seem harsh on his team mates, but cheats should never ever ever be allowed to prosper!

According to the reports at the time of the Hock story, cocaine has a performance-enhancing metabolite. In the light of that do you still think Hock shouldn't have been banned?

saints fan cocaine DOES NOT COME UNDER PERFOMACE ENHANCING and has never been taken for performance