From the quotes it seems pretty open and shut, doesn't it. A text I got from a Wigan pal today reads:

"The worst kept secret in Wigan is finally out. Hock is such an a4sehole."

As I've said before, he's a silly lad.

From the quotes it seems pretty open and shut, doesn't it. A text I got from a Wigan pal today reads:

"The worst kept secret in Wigan is finally out. Hock is such an a4sehole."

As I've said before, he's a silly lad.

[quote="Marsdengiant"]
In your first post you said :

[b]As for Wigan dealing with it properely i find it concerning and unfair it has been leaked before his b sample has been tested

Now you say:

I do not know whether it was leaked[/b]


That is right i do not know if it was leaked or just an oficial statement or an official statement after a leak. I will try to remember to be more careful with my choice of language next time i will write LEAKED or RELEASED. either way it seems unfair to me to publically name someone before all the evidence / judgement is available. ( similar position to naming men charged with rape before the trial).




The assertion about the 'notorious' nature of drug testing appears totally without evidence. Do you have any - other than anecdote - or is it another case of 'assuming something and drawing unfounded conclusions'?

http://www.passyourdrugtest.com/false-positives.htm is an example.
I also worked a case where a drug testing agency giving evidence in court, of a woman who had a positive drug test which was not confirmed by a subsequent test and then a hair strand test confirmed no drug use explained to the court that it was a false positive and that many false positives occur in testing. I cannot quote the figure as i cannot remember it exactly but it is a significant number.



.

[quote="Marsdengiant"]
In your first post you said :

[b]As for Wigan dealing with it properely i find it concerning and unfair it has been leaked before his b sample has been tested

Now you say:

I do not know whether it was leaked[/b]


That is right i do not know if it was leaked or just an oficial statement or an official statement after a leak. I will try to remember to be more careful with my choice of language next time i will write LEAKED or RELEASED. either way it seems unfair to me to publically name someone before all the evidence / judgement is available. ( similar position to naming men charged with rape before the trial).




The assertion about the 'notorious' nature of drug testing appears totally without evidence. Do you have any - other than anecdote - or is it another case of 'assuming something and drawing unfounded conclusions'?

http://www.passyourdrugtest.com/false-positives.htm is an example.
I also worked a case where a drug testing agency giving evidence in court, of a woman who had a positive drug test which was not confirmed by a subsequent test and then a hair strand test confirmed no drug use explained to the court that it was a false positive and that many false positives occur in testing. I cannot quote the figure as i cannot remember it exactly but it is a significant number.



.

Looks like the story was out for a while if they press have managed to speak to people and run a story so quickly.

Possibly Hock has admitted his guilt which explains why the story came out so quickly before his b sample is analysed.

Looks like the story was out for a while if they press have managed to speak to people and run a story so quickly.

Possibly Hock has admitted his guilt which explains why the story came out so quickly before his b sample is analysed.

So you don't know a thing re the leak / non leak. I do see that. It comes through loud and clear.

Other than rape cases people who are charged are named! there is often a huge time lag between a person being charged and a trial.

The well established procedures for sport are clear that a +ve 'a' sample that is challenged by the athete leads to a b sample and a 'tribunal'. The athlete is suspended pending the 'tribunal'. Naming the athlete while the b test is pending is standard practice and not a leak.

And I see you have no evidence that sports drugs tests are 'notoriously unreliable' .

There will be a 'b' test and a proper 'tribunal'. Hock will go through a legally robust process.

So you don't know a thing re the leak / non leak. I do see that. It comes through loud and clear.

Other than rape cases people who are charged are named! there is often a huge time lag between a person being charged and a trial.

The well established procedures for sport are clear that a +ve 'a' sample that is challenged by the athete leads to a b sample and a 'tribunal'. The athlete is suspended pending the 'tribunal'. Naming the athlete while the b test is pending is standard practice and not a leak.

And I see you have no evidence that sports drugs tests are 'notoriously unreliable' .

There will be a 'b' test and a proper 'tribunal'. Hock will go through a legally robust process.

IIRC Penkwyicz was banned pending a second test and hearing when he got done for the 'roids.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/gene ... 84756.html

This seems to confirm that so it certainly seems as if these kind of cases, involving drugs not associated with medical conditions and more of recreational or enhancing variety, are dealt with in this way normally. Whether that is the right thing to do is another matter but it seems Wigan haven't done anything unusual with their treatment of the player or reporting of the incident.

IIRC Penkwyicz was banned pending a second test and hearing when he got done for the 'roids.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/gene ... 84756.html

This seems to confirm that so it certainly seems as if these kind of cases, involving drugs not associated with medical conditions and more of recreational or enhancing variety, are dealt with in this way normally. Whether that is the right thing to do is another matter but it seems Wigan haven't done anything unusual with their treatment of the player or reporting of the incident.