HOCK SIGNS 5 YEAR CONTRACT

[cumbria_warrior]

If this is true this is great news, Yes Gaz has done wrong but I am sure he will have a lot to prove on return and also alot to repay the club and fans that have stood behind him, Hope we see you soon Gaz and prove all the doubters wrong

[cpwigan]

I will check but my understanding is that Gaz cannot actually sign the contract until his ban is completed but that meeting/discussions have been held and everything is sorted.

[ddtftf]

CP ring me I will give you the info

DT

[ddtftf]

CP I think you will find that the ban cannot interfere with his human rights to secure a future job prospect. You can accept a job offer when you are still in prison serving time, for when you are released.
I understand that at least 5 super league clubs were willing to match his contract with Wigan, but he felt that he owed the club some loyalty for the way they have helped him, and stood by him in his hour of need.

[LORENZO]

Judging by what the club are supposed to be paying Price, and assuming that Hock is only on a retainer salary for the next 18 months then this would appearto be a great deal. Here's to him having learned a very hard lesson and him coming back a stronger and more determined player.

[cpwigan]

He currently receives nothing from Wigan. He cannot do so for the duration of his ban. Hence he bought himself a burger van.

[Mike]

Like he did last time you mean while taking drugs? Hock has a lot to prove and we rip into players like Riddell and Feka for simply being unfit (which is fair enough) yet Hock is viewed as some kind of Saint?

I don't think any poster on here has ever had Hock down as a saint, and no-one on here has ever (as far as i can recall) condoned what he has done,

The point I was making was the contrasting treatment we give to the players I mentioned. Riddel and Feka get slated for being unfit. Other players become scapegoats (rightly or wrongly) and yet with Hock who has done far worse than any of them people want to give him a five year deal?

I don't get it and the reason I don't is that although a very good player on his day he isn't IMO indispensable by any means.

So as I said earlier up Hock getting a contract with the club again should at least only happen IMO in 18 months time when the teams situation is clear then.

And that disregards any moral considerations about rewarding someone who got banned for taking drugs with a five year deal which is a longer contract than any other player we have except Sam Tomkins.

Now that strikes me as rather odd to say the least. What must players who have been model professionals who are offered shorter contracts think about that? Why does Hock deserve a five year deal before them? IMO he doesn't.

Dave - we play sport. In sport if you are a good player, you are more valuable than average players. So you get special treatment and you can misbehave and still get a 5 year deal. If you are average and misbehave, you get dumped. Simples.

There is also no guarantee he will be able to regain his former standard when he returns so it is very strange to hand out such a long contract under the circumstances. A short contract with the option of more years in the clubs favour is what I would expect.

Dave

And that is probably what is on the table. We have not heard anything other than a statement from a fan. Lenegan's deals have in general been savvy.

[DaveO]

Dave - we play sport. In sport if you are a good player, you are more valuable than average players. So you get special treatment and you can misbehave and still get a 5 year deal. If you are average and misbehave, you get dumped. Simples.

I think any club would be making a rod for the sports back by giving any player banned for drugs a five year deal. The idea of the ban is to deter players from taking the drugs. If top players think they can chance their arm and if they are unlucky enough to get caught no matter, a five year deal will be waiting then it just weakens the whole anti-drug policy of the sport.

I don't think you are wrong in what you say that top players can get such special treatment and if this rumour is true about then in Hock we will have a good example. It doesn't make it right and it does not show Wigan in a good light at all IMO. I thought the club was above that sort of thing and confident enough in its ability to produce top players not to need to pander to players in this way. Apparently not.

There is also no guarantee he will be able to regain his former standard when he returns so it is very strange to hand out such a long contract under the circumstances. A short contract with the option of more years in the clubs favour is what I would expect.

Dave

And that is probably what is on the table. We have not heard anything other than a statement from a fan. Lenegan's deals have in general been savvy.

They have but even 1 year + 4 optional years is just being too generous for a player returning from a drugs ban IMO.

Dave

[cpwigan]

It is just a measure of how good a player Gaz Hock is.

Look at the NRL, players are found guilty of far worse and signed time and time again. Often offences where they repeat offend. Nobody in RL has ever reoffended after a drugs ban and a social drug in this case.

[weststand-rich]

This is still very difficult to deal with and an emotive issue. Gareth Hock has done the crime, is doing the time and come the end of his ban is free to play where he wants.

Regardless of what people may think, drug addiction is a disease. The club is like any other employer and has a duty of care to it's employee's. The whole issue of recreational vs performance enhancing drugs muddies the waters, but any other employer can't just sack you for having a drug problem. GH had the misfortune of taking a recreational drug that crossed technically into performance classification.

If for example, I had an alchol addiction and went into work steaming drunk, pissed in a corner and then went to sleep for the afternoon I couldn't be sacked. I repeat I couldn't be sacked. I would be pulled in, reprimanded and then formal alcohol councelling from occupational helath would be offered but compulsory. The same would be true if I replaced alcohol in the above description with heroin, valium, jellies or cocaine.