I think this is the key, Hock is elite, he is the top of the tree. No company in there right mind sacks there top man for such an offence if found out, you do not cut off your nose to spite your face. They may sack someone on the shop floor for the same offence, but not there top sales director who brings in the revenue to keep the business going, and is almost impossible to replace. Is it right? No, but we do not live in such an ethical world sadly.

Personally were it Fielden for example i am sure they would be gone, as its Hock, i understand the reason to stand by him even if it is perhaps not morally correct.

Okay, so you've taken responsibility for your wrong-doings. But Hock shouldn't even get the chance to take responsibility for his own?

There are people all over this country who've bounced back from far more serious offences and are holding down jobs and living decent lives.

Stop talking like the master of some Dickensian workhouse.

The guy's career is ruined, his name is mud - and you want him tarred and feathered as well.

if Gaz Hock wasnt a great playermost on here would want him sacked and dumped in the bin.......i for one think he wonty learn a dam thing if he is kept on at the club and others will think ...if hock is given a cushy number for 2 years its worth the risk.the club should show the world we mean it when we say we will NOT tollerate drugs in our sport

DaveO has taken a fair bit of stick from people because he uses the official wording of rules to illustrate why rumours about Hock being employed are not likely to be true. Although it may mean me getting some of that stick I have to agree with him.

The rules in this type of situation are what govern what can and can't be done and are the only thing that must be adhered to regardless of what people think should be done.

The situation is quite clear, for the duration of any ban (likely to be 2 years) Gareth Hock (or any other banned player) can not be employed in any capacity by any club or organisation that is affiliated to the RFL nor can he undertake any activity organised by any such organisation. He can not do any job for Wigan RLFC whether it be mowing the pitch, selling tickets, community programmes or whatever people suggest regardless of whether or not he is suitable (he couldn't even do so without pay). He can't be involved with the Club at all - simple as.

The only thing that Wigan or any other organisation affiliated to the RFL are able to do during the ban period is to organise for Hock to go through a rehabilitation or educational programme as the recipient.

My exact words:

I'm not sure if they can legally make that work - I mean within the RFL's terms of legality - but if they're allowed to, then I'm all for it

Both sentiments, which you seem to think are at odds with each other, are included in that original sentence. Now for Heavens' sake, stop rewriting what people have said to try and strengthen your position.

The rest of it - i.e. regarding the rights and wrongs of trying to keep Hock affiliated to the club in some way, and therefore prevent him toppling into the abyss, is a matter of opinion. Yours and mine differ, so let's leave it at that.

As for the parents of Scholarship kids etc. If, by their actions, the club in effect choose to disagree with your view, that doesn't mean they "lack sense" (which is what you quite clearly implied in your last post). It means they've weighed up the pros and cons - from a position of better understanding than you have - and are making an informed decision. If they're not allowed to do this by the RFL, they're not allowed to - it's as simple as that and will not be an issue. If however, they are allowed to keep Hock on the books in some capacity, it's doesn't mean they've found a way to "get round the rules", it means the RFL don't see it as a major problem either.

Why don't you stop putting a negative slant on everything the club does, and accept that looking into the possibility of assisting Gareth Hock through a very difficult time is actually an honourable thing to do. And the fact that other employers wouldn't do it doesn't make any difference to that at all.

I'll ask the question again while you chose to let a cartoon answer it for you the last time.

If you are allowed to take responsibility for your wrongdoings, why shouldn't Gareth Hock be given a chance to do the same for his?

And don't bother going off on one. I won't be listening to you again until you give a clear and concise answer to that question.

Out of almost three pages of DaveO and Cruncher going back an two at each other that is the most sensible post on here.

If i had kids i would not have a problem with them learning from a bloke who has 99.9% ruined a fantastic career. Good post mate !!

I wasn't given second chances Cruncher, i had to Man up and sort myself out, because the guy is talented he is going to be put into a position where he can let everyone down again, he isn't going to learn this way, he has damaged the name of this ONCE great club and should not be allowed to enter through the doors again.

So your only answer is to be judgemental from a position of ignorance. Well done.

No mine from a position of experience, nobskin

That response says it all. I don't need to add anything else.