Hock faces two years out

No surprise today when Gareth Hock's B-sample tested positive for Benzoylecgonine, a metabolite of cocaine. There will be no surprise either when the 25-year-old Wigan and England forward appears before an anti-doping panel in between four and eight weeks' time. The RFL is signed up to the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) regulations and that will mean a two-year suspension for Hock, who is signed at Wigan until 2011. Wigan won't be commenting officially until after the panel hearing, but the club is not expected to simply abandon Hock. But should the Warriors retain or get rid of a player unfortunately now labelled rugby league's most high profile drugs offender ? Let us know your thoughts.

Comments

[Pie Woman]

A disgrace.Get rid.

[KensalgreenRL]

Tsk, come on, 2 years for a wee bit of recreational drug use? (I don't see how coke can be performance enhancing, grinning and acting like a game show host won't help you on the Rugby League field). Alchohol does a hell of alot more damage than soft drugs. Stoned rugby players are preferable to p*ssed up ones.

[Adam]

An absolute disgrace, i would not let him play the game again for a long time. There are plenty of other talented youngsters who can step up and fill his position and it certainly is not a loss for England as there is plenty of other second rowers who are better and have the potential to be better.
There is no room in Rugby League for players like this who have no respect for the game and do not stick to the rules and regulations!!

[Paul Holloway]

His future at a mediocre team is assured.

[Adam Birtwistle]

Depends if they want to make an example out of him but shouldn't the RFL be helping people with narcotic and social problems rather than exiling them? Doesn't exactly say responsible does it. You can't say Hock should know better becuase after all he is just a 25 year old lad who is bound to make mistakes. Why don't they make him an ambassador and have him tour the schools of Lanc and Yorks preaching against drug use.

[terrybee]

(I don't see how coke can be performance enhancing, grinning and acting like a game show host won't help you on the Rugby League field)

I used to know a fella who used to use a lot of this stuff, he only needed to go to bed every three days, it enhanced his performance, personally I'd prefer a player to be finishing strong at the end of a game on adrenaline rather than 'Colombian marching powder'.

[St.Di]

I think this issue is a toughie. Apparently the metabolite concerned is believed to have potential performance-enhancing qualities and it makes the user believe they are more capable while under its influence. I am 100% in favour of banning cheats - and using performance-enhancers is cheating. However, I was under the impression that these bans are handed out not only to conquer cheating but also in the name of player welfare. All drugs affect performance and mind altering drugs (as opposed to nicotine, for instance) also create risk: to the user and to their team mates, in the case of rugby league. I am also 100% in favour of not increasing the risk to players any further than it is already bearing in mind the danger inherent in playing rugby league. So from the POV of both performance and welfare I am convinced that Hock serving a two-year ban is absolutely the right way for him to go. No-one should be excluded from this, regardless of what level of the sport they play.

However, having said all that, what does concern me is the fallout for Hock himself. Does the RFL or Wigan club itself have in place some kind of cessation/rehab policy for users which Hock can exploit if he wishes to return to the game at the end of his ban? Are there plans to support him in finding alternative work, maintaining his skills and enabling him to provide for his family? If such things do not exist then perhaps they should because I am not sure that simply casting him out is the best thing either for him or for rugby league.

At the end of the day, though, he knew that if he was caught then he would face this consequence. It's a shame he has messed up his life in this way but my own sympathy has a limit given the clear message which has been communicated in sports of all kinds for years now about using drugs. He has been very stupid. I just hope he gets wiser for the future.

[mike Hunt]

Coke is probably not performance enhansing, but you are all missing the wider picture, he is a role model to young people and fans alike. A poor example to them all. Cocaine use is a destructive path and can lead to wider use of drugs like Heroin I feel 2 years is enough but he will have to submit to monthly tests at random intervals if he wants to play the game after the ban.

If he doesn't he is no big loss!

[andrew]

i am not defending hock with this comment mearly food for thought

on friday night Wigan play Catalans, Hock will be banned by the RFL probably for two years and unable to play, Greg Bird will be playing on friday.

[St.Di]

Andrew, you're comparing apples and oranges.

[IanLaw]

I dont see how it is Rugby Leagues interests to test and ban players for recreational drug use. In case the RFL had nt noticed, we dont have enough good players in this country. Banning the few that we do have is not a good idea. Hock should be dealt with by the law just like anyone else and that should be the end of it.

[Malcolm]

Lets cast our minds back some ten yrs, When english rugby UNION decided to drop all charges against
Lawrence Dallagio.
I feel two yrs to be too harsh a sentence for a drug that is NOT performance enhancing.
In a sport with such a limitted carreer span, I feel Mr Hock should be punished, but two yrs is OTT.
Mr Hock was foolish beyond belife but thats young people the world over

[LeoDiMandici]

If Hock is to recieve a 2 year ban it's in Wigan's best interests to release him now. He takes up almost a quarter of the teams salary cap. The team would be STARTING behind the 8 ball for the next 2 seasons. Recreational drug use should not be swept under the carpet.

[Rev H Stools]

The man admits he's been foolish, but to let him off is a poor example to impressionable young people, again something he'd not considered. To not realise the comfortable position he's in, and the chance of having a sedate lifestyle, shows to me that he's been taking this stuff for much longer than is being stated. Look at the appalling effect he's had on his own son and family, totally selfish. As for not being a performance enhancing drug, apparently if it gets you in a certain frame of mind you would go out and play differently. He's a disgrace, and I for one would feel very uncomfortable paying good money to watch someone of this calibre. People of his intellect never learn, they only try harder not to be caught...