Hock approached by Canbera?????

[DaveO]

As CP says and his reasons for it you are totally wrong on the first part. It only takes one post with a rumour or accusation and it can spread like wildfire.

Not on the forum they don't. They get deleted ASAP and posters warned or even banned.

We obviously have no control of what people say down he pub but the forums are easily sanitised so its both you and CPW who are wrong here IMO.

Your point about regular posters is totally irrelevant.

Of course it's relevant because it's obviously true this place has little to no influence anywhere. It's a small group of people discussing RL not a barometer of opinion respected throughout the world.

On the subject of the 5 year contract I'm sure there will be conditions attached to it that are far stricter than on the contracts of other players and with the coaching staff we've got in place he's hardly likely to be able to take the p**s in training, during matches and even in his private life and get away with it.

I never suggested he would. I am merely saying a straight five year deal will raise eyebrows and be seen as a strange reward for player who got banned. So I hope they go for the option idea.

I think the club needs commending for the way they have given Gaz as much as an incentive as possible not only to get himself clean but also to be able to continue his career. I'm sure some people would have been happy if he'd been ignored by everyone at the club, disowned by his mates and banned from every gym in town. I'm sure Gaz knows he's been stupid, he's had plenty of time to think about it. I know on a thread about Gleeson Dave questioned why people would want to get Hock back but let Gleeson go and suggested it was hypocritical. I'd have agreed with this if Glees had come to Wigan without the reputation he had and if he was a first offender but he had an appalling track record to the point that Tony Smith couldn't wait to get rid of him.

The point I made at the time of that thread was you can't sack a player for breaking the drinking code and not sack one for getting caught doing drugs (the suggestion was Gleeson would be sacked). I think that is an entirely reasonable and logical position to adopt.

Gleesons past record has nothing to do with that and in any case don't forget Hock was doing drugs (by his own admission) long before he got caught so both players have a past.

He, like Hock most probably will when he returns to the club, will have had it made clear to him what kind of behaviour would be expected of him more than other players with his reputation in mind. Although drugs are illegal and drinking isn't the clubs major concern should be around how player performance is affected and the influence a players behaviour can have on others, coaches in the past have tried and failed to change the behaviour of certain players, Paul Cooke being a recent example.

And Hock another under Noble except by all accounts he got away with skipping training and so on so it seems they didn't even try to fix his behaviour. I am sure Madge will lay the law down for all players

All these players have one thing in common and that is the fact they have been given chances to prove their doubters wrong. Please allow Hock this chance but by all means reserve the right to say 'I told you so'.

I am certainly not waiting for him to fail but I don't think he deserves any special treatment after the way he let the club down and I think a 5 year deal is very special treatment.

Dave

[cpwigan]

Dave you are wrong. Most recently there was a post suggesting Hock had tested positive AGAIN. It was here for several hours before it was deleted. Likewise a similar post a few months was here even longer before it got deleted. In the time those posts exist they are widely read and the damage done as the chinese whispers begins.

One man was actually contacting Wigan RLFC by telephone maliciously saying Gaz Hock was doing X, Y and Z through sheer malice.

Steven Gerrard had to have the Tabloids printing stories this week telling football fans they had been hoaxed by a txt hoax that had spread like wildfire across the internet.

Most net forums have PM facilities too. You know as well as I do that whenever something is deleted on RLfans there will be 20+ posts asking the person to PM what was deleted.

[El Bobbers]

In fairness rumours spread easily enough without the internet and national media etc.

If someone has phoned the club re Hock then they must be somewhat bitter to do this and probably would make stuff up anyway.

Cp, I know you didn't make the comment about people on the site having an effect on players and surley don't believe it to be true, because if you did it would mean you single handidly ruined the cheerleading... er rugby career of one Richard Mathers!

[DaveO]

Dave you are wrong. Most recently there was a post suggesting Hock had tested positive AGAIN. It was here for several hours before it was deleted. Likewise a similar post a few months was here even longer before it got deleted. In the time those posts exist they are widely read and the damage done as the chinese whispers begins.

And because it's posted on the Internet it is of course fact. Is there anyone with half a brain on the planet that treats what is written by a random person in a forum as fact?

A Lawyer might if he thinks he can sue someone but there isn't an official in Wigan RFLC who wil take the word of an anonymous poster.

One man was actually contacting Wigan RLFC by telephone maliciously saying Gaz Hock was doing X, Y and Z through sheer malice.

And I am sure they believed every word he said.

Steven Gerrard had to have the Tabloids printing stories this week telling football fans they had been hoaxed by a txt hoax that had spread like wildfire across the internet.

There is a slight problem here in that Hock went to the News of the World before his ban was confirmed admitting what he had done. Have you forgotten that? He can't go to the press and then complain if the press take an interest and print rubbish. It's what the press do and he has given then the invitation to do so.

Most net forums have PM facilities too. You know as well as I do that whenever something is deleted on RLfans there will be 20+ posts asking the person to PM what was deleted.

You have sent me such PM's in the past so what's your point?

Dave

[cpwigan]

Dave you are wrong. Most recently there was a post suggesting Hock had tested positive AGAIN. It was here for several hours before it was deleted. Likewise a similar post a few months was here even longer before it got deleted. In the time those posts exist they are widely read and the damage done as the chinese whispers begins.

And because it's posted on the Internet it is of course fact. Is there anyone with half a brain on the planet that treats what is written by a random person in a forum as fact?

You did Dave only this a day ago re Karl Pryce posting it on RLfans. It was true BTW but could quite easily have not been so. So what does that say about you and/or the internet?

Look at the Steven Gerrard rumour. It was absolutely ridiculous and could not be true but it was believed and spread like wildfire.

Do I need to go on disecting your post Dave?

[Fujiman]

And because it's posted on the Internet it is of course fact. Is there anyone with half a brain on the planet that treats what is written by a random person in a forum as fact?

You did Dave only this a day ago re Karl Pryce posting it on RLfans. It was true BTW but could quite easily have not been so. So what does that say about you and/or the internet?

Look at the Steven Gerrard rumour. It was absolutely ridiculous and could not be true but it was believed and spread like wildfire.

Do I need to go on disecting your post Dave?

I think I've missed the Stevie G rumour. Was it that he was world class BTW I genuinely have missed it

[DaveO]

I think I've missed the Stevie G rumour. Was it that he was world class BTW I genuinely have missed it

Me to. I have no idea what he was on about so it just goes to show that perhaps the power of the Internet isn't all its cracked up to be for spreading rumours. The tabloid press are still the main source of malicious rumours that gain credibility IMO.

Dave

[DaveO]

I think I've missed the Stevie G rumour. Was it that he was world class BTW I genuinely have missed it

Me to. I have no idea what he was on about so it just goes to show that perhaps the power of the Internet isn't all its cracked up to be for spreading rumours. The tabloid press are still the main source of malicious rumours that gain credibility IMO.

Dave

h[url]ttp://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-129162 ... ffair.html[/url]

The press also have websites !!

Which was kind of my point that the press propagate this stuff as much ans any Internet forum. I would never have read that nor frequented any football forums myself hence my ignorance of the issue and I have only found out about it now via a link to the press.

It's interesting that he is alleged to have had an affair with his wife's sister who does not even exist. Which backs up another point I made that just because it's on the Internet doesn't mean its the truth.

That article also says it's impossible to stop the spread of gossip by the Internet which I think is true when you have such interest throughout the country and world in something like soccer. In contrast any rumour about a RL player started on this site has not got many places to actually spread to! Hock is not national news whereas Gerrard is world-wide tabloid fodder.


Dave

[DaveO]

Still no justification for such a malicious rumour about hock, lets say re-offending !

People are BOUND to say that in the pub and on any social networking site you care to think of because some people are basically nobs. There is nothing that can be done about it except on here we can delete such posts.

Such sites like this may be viewed by officials from clubs or the game itself or even someone who holds a grudge against Hock for what ever reason, the guy could be completely clean yet a post on here still sets tongues wagging and could do irreparable damage

But club officials are not stupid and so I disagree it can do irreparable damage. They definitely won't take the view just because it's on the net it must be true and they don't need to.

They will have the evidence otherwise because Hock will be on a very strict testing regime so they will not be lurking round here and consequently giving Hock a hard time due to some anonymous poster starting a rumour. They will know the situation with 100% certainty so will pay no attention to any rumours.

Dave

[gpartin]

Dave I really don't know what you're getting at. Why would libel even be an issue if nobody read the forum outside a small group of people. Don't you believe that stories originating on the internet have made it in the press despite evidence to the contrary? By your argument I'd like to know why you think we bother censoring anything on here.