WiganWarriorsFans.com

If IL does get rid of Gleeson for his love of the Ale then he most definatley can NOTbring back Hock, its simple as that

shawxshark wrote:i dont want but i will...

TOLD U SO.

only to certain posters guys, it was just a blip he's back.........well playing ok

St Helens, Tony Smith and the present Wigan coaching staff must have all been wrong and Shawxshark told them so

medlocke wrote:If IL does get rid of Gleeson for his love of the Ale then he most definatley can NOTbring back Hock, its simple as that

The two are totally unconnected.

GeoffN wrote:

medlocke wrote:If IL does get rid of Gleeson for his love of the Ale then he most definatley can NOTbring back Hock, its simple as that

The two are totally unconnected.

Sorry Geoff but to say they are unconnected is rubbish. At the very least it would be double standards to get rid of a player for breaking club rules on drinking and then to re-employ a player after a two year ban for drugs.

Turning Medlocks's comment around I'd say if the persistent rumours that IL will re-employ Hock are true why would he even consider sacking a player who broke the drinking rules (as drinking is way down the last compared to taking drugs)?

If he sacked Gleeson over drinking then Hock should have been sacked the day after his drug offence was confirmed because otherwise the club can't have a credible disciplinary system if it only applies to some players and not others.

Dave

DaveO wrote:

GeoffN wrote:

medlocke wrote:If IL does get rid of Gleeson for his love of the Ale then he most definatley can NOTbring back Hock, its simple as that

The two are totally unconnected.

Sorry Geoff but to say they are unconnected is rubbish. At the very least it would be double standards to get rid of a player for breaking club rules on drinking and then to re-employ a player after a two year ban for drugs.

Turning Medlocks's comment around I'd say if the persistent rumours that IL will re-employ Hock are true why would he even consider sacking a player who broke the drinking rules (as drinking is way down the last compared to taking drugs)?

If he sacked Gleeson over drinking then Hock should have been sacked the day after his drug offence was confirmed because otherwise the club can't have a credible disciplinary system if it only applies to some players and not others.

Dave

The crucial difference is that the drinking affected Gleeson's training and performances, whereas Hock's misdemeanours didn't affect his game.

As a club, we're in the business of producing RL athletes, we're not on some sort of moral crusade.


What players do in their private lives is no business of the club's until it affects performances on the pitch. Alcohol does that, recreational drugs do not.

GeoffN wrote:

DaveO wrote:

GeoffN wrote: The two are totally unconnected.

Sorry Geoff but to say they are unconnected is rubbish. At the very least it would be double standards to get rid of a player for breaking club rules on drinking and then to re-employ a player after a two year ban for drugs.

Turning Medlocks's comment around I'd say if the persistent rumours that IL will re-employ Hock are true why would he even consider sacking a player who broke the drinking rules (as drinking is way down the last compared to taking drugs)?

If he sacked Gleeson over drinking then Hock should have been sacked the day after his drug offence was confirmed because otherwise the club can't have a credible disciplinary system if it only applies to some players and not others.

Dave

The crucial difference is that the drinking affected Gleeson's training and performances, whereas Hock's misdemeanours didn't affect his game.

As a club, we're in the business of producing RL athletes, we're not on some sort of moral crusade.


What players do in their private lives is no business of the club's until it affects performances on the pitch. Alcohol does that, recreational drugs do not.

Im sorry but i dont agree at all. While its true players private lives are there own i do not want the my club to be full of p%$s heads and drugies, if they are winning matches or not.

This is Wigan RL we are talking about, and while im aware that some of our most gifted and loved players enjoyed vice's, i would never turn around and say do what you want as long as you win matches. To me a professional sportsman/woman should be that both on and off the pitch there are a lot of people especially children who look up to their heros in cherry and white and they deserve role models on and OFF the pitch!

GeoffN wrote: The crucial difference is that the drinking affected Gleeson's training and performances, whereas Hock's misdemeanours didn't affect his game.

Really? How can you gauge how it influenced him? I'd beg to differ Geoff, but after a night on the beak Hock wouldn't have been in any great shape to train. You can also bet that Hocks cocaine binges were accompanied by some hefy pints down the pub - company, coke and beer mix well together if that's your thing.

Ask Brian Noble. Getting him into training sessions on time was a job at the best of times. Without using cocaine heavily, Hock would have been an even better player for us - of that I'm sure.

Moderators please, can you have a look at the post on 16.02

GeoffN wrote:

DaveO wrote:

GeoffN wrote: The two are totally unconnected.

Sorry Geoff but to say they are unconnected is rubbish. At the very least it would be double standards to get rid of a player for breaking club rules on drinking and then to re-employ a player after a two year ban for drugs.

Turning Medlocks's comment around I'd say if the persistent rumours that IL will re-employ Hock are true why would he even consider sacking a player who broke the drinking rules (as drinking is way down the last compared to taking drugs)?

If he sacked Gleeson over drinking then Hock should have been sacked the day after his drug offence was confirmed because otherwise the club can't have a credible disciplinary system if it only applies to some players and not others.

Dave

The crucial difference is that the drinking affected Gleeson's training and performances, whereas Hock's misdemeanours didn't affect his game.

Of course it affected his game. It stopped him playing it for two years!

Who's game has been more affected by their actions? Gleeson (poor for a couple of weeks) or Hock (gone for a couple of years)?

And even before he was caught you don't know what effect the drugs had on his game or training given he was taking them during the season. These drugs only result in a ban if taken in-competition so they must have some effect deemed incompatible with sport (as opposed to simply morally wrong to be taking them).

As a club, we're in the business of producing RL athletes, we're not on some sort of moral crusade.

Sport as a whole including RL is most definitely on a moral crusade against drugs and drug use. It's all about role models etc as you well know.

You can not get away from the fact letting a player go for breaking a drinking code and retaining a player who was banned for drugs is hypocritical.

What players do in their private lives is no business of the club's until it affects performances on the pitch. Alcohol does that, recreational drugs do not.

The "what players do in their private lives...." line is simply an out dated idea if it were ever true in the first place. People in the public eye have their private lives exposed whether it's anyone's business or not.

And as the club wants to promote itself as a place to provide healthy environment and wants to attract family audiences etc any club brushing recreational drug use under the carpet as an issue because it's none of their business would be sticking its head in the sand.

As to the drug itself it is not without it's side effects either.

If the club wants to sack players for breaking a drinking code that is fine by me but I do not see how it can do so while retaining players who have been banned for drugs whatever the drugs are.

Dave