Because hes the best S/R in SL and after his 2 year ban every club in SL will be knocking on his door.

Why give our best player to one of our rivals

I suppose Ryan Hudson was the last high profile player to get banned. He wasn't kept on by Bradford. It's a whole different argument but cocaine isn't really cheating like performance enhancing drugs are so maybe different circumstances can be applied to Hock.

There would be nothing worse than for him to come back in 2 years time, sign for Saints/Warrington and run us ragged for the remainder of his career. Hocks a great talent and it really would be a sad loss to the game if he were to disappear as a hod carrier on some building site. If Wigan can help him and at the same time keep an eye on him then why not get him involved at the club. It could be as a grounds man, an office worker even IL's personal assistant. If this is the case and he does get an arm put around him, then it must be made crystal clear, in no uncertain terms at all, that this is his last chance and if anything even remotely similar happens again then he'll be hung out to dry.

Because he may have taken drugs and be guitly of gross misconduct?

Surely we aren't going to have one rule for good players and another for crap players? If this is Wigan's stance with all offenders, that they will support them and assist with rehab, then fine, that may be commendable, but it just seems a little strange to me.

And before anybody asks, I wanted Reardon sacked from Wire and was made up when he was, even though he hadn;t actually broken any Rugby or doping rules.

Like I say, in principle I have no major issues, it just disappoints me that the main reason people don't want to sack him is becasue he is a good player.

Your point about recreational v performance enhancing is a valid one, however I do believe other recreational takers have been sacked from their clubs.

It's an interesting one tbh, as there aren't many high profile players who have been caught. Maybe Wendall Sailor, and he was sacked IIRC.

Thats the way of the game though, some players are easily replaceable and aren't as important to the club so the club - regardless of the club - the "big" names are rightly or wrongly going to be more important to the clubs to protect.

My intital view was he should be hung out to dry, but when someone else will almost certainly sign him at the end of his ban, why dont we try the "arm around" approach. It wouldnt be my choice, but sadly given the cut throat nature of professional sport, it seems to be the sensible one.

One last point, Bath didn't take the use of Recreational drugs in Union lightly.

See my comments regarding Bath.

Clubs pride themselves on their community work with kids.

And rightly so. But in a way isn't it good that clubs are showing that even if you make a mistake if you work hard you can build things up again and not be "on the scrap heap"

Tbh I would like to see that being the policy across the board for the first time a player -of any calibre - is banned for recreational drug use. They serve their 2 year ban and then they are given the chance to come back and prove they have turned things around, but being subjected to strict testing to make sure they have turned things around.

drugs cheats have to pass drugs tests before they are allowed to compete again following a ban.

I don;t understand your point. They can, and do come back after 2 years.

I mean with the clubs supporting them. As you have pointed out it seems to be the case that if they are a great player they have more chance of being kept on than an average player.