WiganWarriorsFans.com

Cherry_Warrior wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:58 pm

ancientnloyal wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:35 pm If I got sacked for taking cocaine my employer would not offer me help. Why should Wigan? Why should sport be different?

And this.

Players need to realise that playing professional sport is a privelage and playing for Wigan is certainly a privelage. They earn lots of money for doing so and should not be molly coddled because they were stupid enough to take drugs. The game does not owe them a living, they forfeit the privelages when they flaunt the law and bring the club into disrepute. If they need help, go to a doctor like everyone else does.

Exactly

old hooker wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 10:55 am

Cherry_Warrior wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:58 pm

ancientnloyal wrote: ↑Thu Apr 04, 2019 8:35 pm If I got sacked for taking cocaine my employer would not offer me help. Why should Wigan? Why should sport be different?

And this.

Players need to realise that playing professional sport is a privelage and playing for Wigan is certainly a privelage. They earn lots of money for doing so and should not be molly coddled because they were stupid enough to take drugs. The game does not owe them a living, they forfeit the privelages when they flaunt the law and bring the club into disrepute. If they need help, go to a doctor like everyone else does.

Exactly

Agreed. Players need to take some personal responsibility for their actions like we all need to do. What I would say though, is that players with mental health issues do need the full support of the club.

.......and here's me thinking Gabreil is an angel?

I think we need to break off the Terry Newton thing now its very rarely related.

Also i don't know why the assumption when someone does drugs is that they suddenly have mental health issues - its an easy excuse for bad behaviour.

There is a big difference between someone struggling with Mental Illness and struggling to cope to someone who's just making poor decisions in their life, unfortunately some people are just w****rs.

The agenda of duty of care i would argue is facilitating unruly behaviour not stamping it out

Wigan_forever1985 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 11:54 am I think we need to break off the Terry Newton thing now its very rarely related.

Also i don't know why the assumption when someone does drugs is that they suddenly have mental health issues - its an easy excuse for bad behaviour.

There is a big difference between someone struggling with Mental Illness and struggling to cope to someone who's just making poor decisions in their life, unfortunately some people are just w****rs.

The agenda of duty of care i would argue is facilitating unruly behaviour not stamping it out

For somebody that gets caught taking recreational drugs then why not quote mental health? It’s a no lose situation for the player.

Morally wrong, but if they’re willing to to take recreational drugs in a sport that’s tested, then they probably won’t have an issue with citing mental health even if it isn’t.

Wigan_forever1985 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 11:54 am I think we need to break off the Terry Newton thing now its very rarely related.

Also i don't know why the assumption when someone does drugs is that they suddenly have mental health issues - its an easy excuse for bad behaviour.

There is a big difference between someone struggling with Mental Illness and struggling to cope to someone who's just making poor decisions in their life, unfortunately some people are just w****rs.

The agenda of duty of care i would argue is facilitating unruly behaviour not stamping it out

Totally agree

All we know at this point is that there is an "Anti Doping Violation"

Until the facts of the case are established then we simply don't know what we're dealing with here. At one end of the spectrum we could be dealing with a Scott McLeod type offence where he's fallen foul of a different brand of Asthma inhaler that has a banned substance in it. It could be an Alan Baxter type where a cough medicine has something untoward in it.

Alternatively we could have a Hock/Hardaker situation where he's been caught doing recreational drugs.

We simply don't know but what I would say is that the fact he was put on the first flight back to Australia would indicate this is at the serious end of the spectrum rather than an honest mistake.

Sounds fine to me Nick but what does a dishonest mistake look like. Just jesting

Wigan_forever1985 wrote: ↑Fri Apr 05, 2019 11:54 am I think we need to break off the Terry Newton thing now its very rarely related.

Also i don't know why the assumption when someone does drugs is that they suddenly have mental health issues - its an easy excuse for bad behaviour.

There is a big difference between someone struggling with Mental Illness and struggling to cope to someone who's just making poor decisions in their life, unfortunately some people are just w****rs.

The agenda of duty of care i would argue is facilitating unruly behaviour not stamping it out

I agree apart from the last bit but definitely agree on the Newton thing. It gets quoted every time a player does something seriously wrong. If we bin them off they are going to go down the same slippery slope. It does not follow at all.

As to duty of care facilitating unruly behaviour if that is happening the club is being taken for a ride. It must surely be possible to exercise duty of care without it being inevitable that this must mean the player resumes his career at the club after any ban for example? In fact I am pretty sure it is because duty of care exists between employer and employee and while duty of care covers mental health it is surely not possible for a player who is no longer an employee to insist they are given another contract because not doing so would affect them mentally thus breaching duty of care guidelines. If a player who is banned for drug use gets a contract at Wigan or any other club it is because the club wants to give them one, not because duty of care says they have to.

It's also not a one way street. The employer can't be held liable under duty of care for the stupidity of the employee if what the employee does harms themselves outside of work. For example if Wigan operated a free bar for players after training and knew they came to work in their cars they might be liable under duty of care if the players left over the limit to drive home. If on the other hand a player is found over the limit after a night on the town the club has no duty of care at all.

In the NFL last season you had the Kansas City Chiefs. They were on fire easily the best offense (bar LA Rams). Their star player Kareem Hunt was flying.

Until a video emerged of his hands being a bit flappy with a female. They got rid straight away. Even the top end players, similar to the NRL with all that’s gone down with Barba etc, aren’t immune.

Why should Wigan have a duty of care?

Anyone who takes drugs is thick. I’d happily say that to anyone taking them too. Awful people.