WiganWarriorsFans.com

highland convert wrote:The complacency with which drugs are accepted in society is the problem. Community service for those using where they have to help in rehab clinics and centres or work with and for the families of addicts might open their eyes a bit, I firmly believe drug using actors and entertainers should be banned from the beeb. Why should my license fee pay for their habit and help them promote the use of drugs?
Jim

Very valid pouint of view IMO Jim

cpwigan wrote: RL clubs have no choice, players are sacked automatically when they are found to have been tested positive for drugs. At all other times they have a choice and in that respect Dave O you are living in cloud cuckoo land. Every club ignores what is happening as long as it never becomes public knowledge so moral crusades are for gullible fans. The reality is clubs turn a blind eye in all sports towards players as long as they seem to be doing it on the pitch. Morality and sport is an oxymoron other than in the romantic notions of the paying spectators.

This is simply not true. Clubs know their players are randomly tested, as was Hock, so to suggest clubs turn a blind eye when they know players could get caught out and banned is ridiculous.

They may have ignored players getting lathered back when the game was semi-pro but I can't believe anyone thinks the clubs are complicit in drug taking which they would be if they knew about it and did nothing.

You can't argue as you do that alcohol abuse is no good and argue drug taking merits different treatment because everyone ignores it is a problem.

Gareth Hock has benefitted as a man / as a person from his ban. He has received help and is doing well at the present time. As Rich points out for a long time his antics were ignored as long as he did it on the pitch. Just as they were for Andy Greg, Joey Johns and umpteen others. Look at Gleeson a repeat offender but always a club willing to take him. Look at when Wigan knew a player was indulging. He was moved on discreetly despite most people knowiong in Wigan what was happening.

So Wigan moved a player on when they knew he was indulging? So they didn't turn a blind eye then!

Wire ditched Gleeson and the speculation is because Smith didn't want him around due to his off-field antics. How many other players have Wigan moved on because they blotted their copybook in some way?

The sport / fans don't care what happens to players. Players are packages of meat. Green Vigo? Andy Greg? what a legend Gary Connolly was? blah blah blah They are adults is the line brought out for such people / sad endings.

What has that got to do with my point that you can't sack a player for drinking and retain a player who takes drugs?

At every club in every sport there are alcoholics and drug users. Players know it / clubs know it BUT everybody pretends otherwise. Governing bodies attack those who dare say so and fans ignore it lest is spoils the romance of their chosen sport apart from the odd vindictive oddity.

Ditto my previous comment.

Gareth Hock was a separate entity and a former employee of Wigan RLFC nearly 2 years ago. Geoff was correct in his initial post.

That is a matter of opinion and not one shared by all.

Dave

DaveO wrote:
Clubs know their players are randomly tested, as was Hock, so to suggest clubs turn a blind eye when they know players could get caught out and banned is ridiculous.

Yes, but there's a big difference between acting to avoid getting caught and acting to take the moral high ground.

Gareth Hock was a separate entity and a former employee of Wigan RLFC nearly 2 years ago. Geoff was correct in his initial post.

That is a matter of opinion and not one shared by all.

Dave

Of course! Wouldn't it be boring if we all agreed about everything.

(I'm always right, though...)

Dave ALL clubs turn a blind eye. Occasionally they brush their trouble out the door but as every club it is not singular but plural players that indulge in drug / alcohol abuse and that goes for every sport. The player moved on had to be because it had been going on for so long school children were lol hey I have just seen Player X smashed/doped up. Even then the problem wasn't dealt with in terms of that players health. The public embarassment created for the club made Wigan act Not the welfare of the player. It has always been so, it probably always will be.

When Terry Newton was banned umpteen players spent the weekend in the toilet shitting themselves. Throughout the game people know who is doing what / who is using what.

It is the same in Aus. Players in the NRL have now moved onto the next level and become dealers.

If it was up to me I would ban alcohol / I would cut the hands off drug dealers. Both bring misery. I would do the same with cigarettes. I don't make excuses or differentiate on so called legal status. If the product harms people / costs the country a small fortune then I say ban / get shut. Nowhere will you see me supporting alcohol or drugs.

You point re sacking players etc was incorrect and meaningless. A player is sacked when he tests positive for drugs. It is a mandatory process. The RFL / Clubs have no choice. If a player has served 2 years he is given another chance which is no different to any other member of society. If a player thereafter is sacked (none have been) it has nothing to do with that past offender. Why should it. Hence you jumping on the back of a vindictive post was silly and irrelevant which is why Geoff was correct. You often support players BTW whose lives are darkened by issues you attack here which means unintentionally you are being hypocritical.

As I have said previously. Players are pieces of meat and provided fans / clubs / organising bodies don't have to acknowledge their midemeanours and they do the business on the pitch NOBODY CARES.

I made this thread because I was annoyed that a player was being stupid off the field and then on the field he was making uncharacteristic errors. It cost the club / fans hugely but nobody said anything which I found contradictory. Alas fans / human beings are just that.

Am i not correct in saying there was a huge sigh of relief
when Gleeson left Wire for 1) the financial saving ans 2)
his off-field antics?

Let's face it most will occasionally have a few beers.
It's not that long ago that winning players were pictured in Wigan kit, celebrating with a fag in their hands.

GeoffN wrote:

DaveO wrote:
Clubs know their players are randomly tested, as was Hock, so to suggest clubs turn a blind eye when they know players could get caught out and banned is ridiculous.

Yes, but there's a big difference between acting to avoid getting caught and acting to take the moral high ground.

If clubs want to take the moral high ground over alcohol they can't then not do the same over drugs.

Dave

cpwigan wrote:Dave ALL clubs turn a blind eye. Occasionally they brush their trouble out the door but as every club it is not singular but plural players that indulge in drug / alcohol abuse and that goes for every sport. The player moved on had to be because it had been going on for so long school children were lol hey I have just seen Player X smashed/doped up. Even then the problem wasn't dealt with in terms of that players health. The public embarassment created for the club made Wigan act Not the welfare of the player. It has always been so, it probably always will be.

The suggestion that with random testing in place that clubs turn a blind eye to players they know use drugs is, I reiterate, ridiculous.

You point re sacking players etc was incorrect and meaningless. A player is sacked when he tests positive for drugs. It is a mandatory process. The RFL / Clubs have no choice.

You know very well what I mean over this and that is if a player tests positive not only is he sacked in the legal sense but the club the washes their hands of the player. Bradford made a point of doing this with the last player (name escapes me) who tested positive for them.

If a player has served 2 years he is given another chance which is no different to any other member of society. If a player thereafter is sacked (none have been) it has nothing to do with that past offender. Why should it. Hence you jumping on the back of a vindictive post was silly and irrelevant which is why Geoff was correct. You often support players BTW whose lives are darkened by issues you attack here which means unintentionally you are being hypocritical.

I am not being hypocritical at all. I see the clubs stance as hypocritical if as has been suggested a player would be dismissed for alcohol abuse but at the same time it would as is rumoured in the News of the World, offer a five year contract to a player still banned for drug abuse.

As I have said previously. Players are pieces of meat and provided fans / clubs / organising bodies don't have to acknowledge their midemeanours and they do the business on the pitch NOBODY CARES.

But they do care. Fans care about the lives of former players (such as G West being a taxi driver) and they have no time for drugs cheats. If they were just bits of meat lets feed them all steroids.

I made this thread because I was annoyed that a player was being stupid off the field and then on the field he was making uncharacteristic errors. It cost the club / fans hugely but nobody said anything which I found contradictory. Alas fans / human beings are just that.

The actions taken against Gleeson by the club were IMO appropriate and if this is a new way at the club then that is fine by me. What you don't seem to understand is if this kind of discipline had been applied to Hock when he allegedly got away with murder under Noble then he would have been long gone before he got caught out by random testing.

Dave

I think people are going to deep into looking down the route of 'lack of professionalism' 'fair' 'unfair' treatment etc. We can throw moral opinions back and forth for months, the bottom line is 'right and wrong' does not fair in this decision it is merely a talent orientated business decision. If Sam Tomkins had gone out drinking all week he would have got the same treatment, a ticking off and dropped for a week but not one person on this site would be saying we should get rid of him as a result. Same as Jason Robinson who use to be a right tear away in the early years.

The bottom line is Gleeson should go because he is not good enough as a player regardless of his attitude. He is an aging, slow centre who we could do without.

Hock will have served his ban, done his time so how people can moan about us not taking him back is beyond me, it baffles me in fact. If Hock was Gleeson and Gleeson had just done a 2 year ban then I would say lets not sign him back, he isn't good enough. You cannot say the same about Hock. Shall we not resign one of the best back rowers in the world because of his past? Ridiculous, of course we should or he will come back and bite us in the arse. Swallow your morals and look at it logically.

The closed season should be very exciting this time around with Madge really putting his own stamp on the team. I expect a clear out of the following players

Phelps
Feka
Carmont
Gleeson
Fielden

Leaves a lot of scope for new signings

DaveO wrote:

cpwigan wrote:Dave ALL clubs turn a blind eye. Occasionally they brush their trouble out the door but as every club it is not singular but plural players that indulge in drug / alcohol abuse and that goes for every sport. The player moved on had to be because it had been going on for so long school children were lol hey I have just seen Player X smashed/doped up. Even then the problem wasn't dealt with in terms of that players health. The public embarassment created for the club made Wigan act Not the welfare of the player. It has always been so, it probably always will be.

The suggestion that with random testing in place that clubs turn a blind eye to players they know use drugs is, I reiterate, ridiculous.

You point re sacking players etc was incorrect and meaningless. A player is sacked when he tests positive for drugs. It is a mandatory process. The RFL / Clubs have no choice.

You know very well what I mean over this and that is if a player tests positive not only is he sacked in the legal sense but the club the washes their hands of the player. Bradford made a point of doing this with the last player (name escapes me) who tested positive for them.

If a player has served 2 years he is given another chance which is no different to any other member of society. If a player thereafter is sacked (none have been) it has nothing to do with that past offender. Why should it. Hence you jumping on the back of a vindictive post was silly and irrelevant which is why Geoff was correct. You often support players BTW whose lives are darkened by issues you attack here which means unintentionally you are being hypocritical.

I am not being hypocritical at all. I see the clubs stance as hypocritical if as has been suggested a player would be dismissed for alcohol abuse but at the same time it would as is rumoured in the News of the World, offer a five year contract to a player still banned for drug abuse.

As I have said previously. Players are pieces of meat and provided fans / clubs / organising bodies don't have to acknowledge their midemeanours and they do the business on the pitch NOBODY CARES.

But they do care. Fans care about the lives of former players (such as G West being a taxi driver) and they have no time for drugs cheats. If they were just bits of meat lets feed them all steroids.

I made this thread because I was annoyed that a player was being stupid off the field and then on the field he was making uncharacteristic errors. It cost the club / fans hugely but nobody said anything which I found contradictory. Alas fans / human beings are just that.

The actions taken against Gleeson by the club were IMO appropriate and if this is a new way at the club then that is fine by me. What you don't seem to understand is if this kind of discipline had been applied to Hock when he allegedly got away with murder under Noble then he would have been long gone before he got caught out by random testing.

Dave

Dave you are very naive.

The suggestion that with random testing in place that clubs turn a blind eye to players they know use drugs is, I reiterate, ridiculous.

Every club know who is using at their club. Wigan sent a player on his way only when half of Wigan knew he was using. Did the club turn him in NO they turned a blind eye.

At National League Amateur Level there is a player playing for a Wigan Amateur Club whose heart has stopped 3 times because he is pumping garbage into his body. He still plays even though it is common knowledge.

Terry Newton said as others have YES I know who is taking what but he will not name them publicly. I could give you names but I don't want a law suit for myself or Mike.

If you want to cheat you can because those cheating stay one step ahead of the Authorities. They always have. The East German Athletics team is the classic example. Those caught are a drop in the ocean. Boxing, Cycling I could go on. All sports have had questions raised.