Weighing up what we know so far, which is precious little in truth, I think the advantages of having Gareth Hock back on our books would outnumber the disadvantages.

For me, the moral issue expires once Hock has done his time. But that doesn't mean that Wigan wouldn't need to keep a careful check on his actitivities, which I'm sure they would as provisos seem to be IL's style when it comes to issuing contracts.

The supposed five-year thing would surprise me, I must admit. It seems like a lot, but if it's five years on a 'yearly approval' basis, then I don't see the real harm in it. If, for example, at the end of each year, Hock has to tick various boxes in terms of his behaviour in order to activate the next year, that would surely benefit everyone. Hock would have no choice but to stay on the straight and narrow, which would do him no harm at all. And Wigan would have an annual get-out clause if there were any problems. At the same time, they'd be seen as having imposed a form of parole on Hock - an extra little punishment, if you like, to indicate both to him and neutral observers that all has not yet been forgiven and that trust has to be re-earned.

Whether this would happen or not, I don't know. But in that respect I don't think a five-year deal would be as big a disaster as some fear. The alternative would be to offer him a shorter-term deal, also with parole-type provisos attached, and then watch him accept a better deal from someone else.

I think that's the brutal reality of it. To see the Wigan club subjected to taunts on message boards, and maybe even in the press, about being kind to drug-users would not be as painful to me as seeing Gareth Hock turning out against us in a Warrington or St Helens shirt.