Zak Hardaker (Merged threads)

[DavidM]

Could a lot  of this could have been put into motion in the last year . What was happening then ? He had these obvious issues . 

[RidingPie]

7 minutes ago, Damien said:

Here we go, 10 posts in and the first mention of Terry Newton.

and if you read threads about other players in similar situations, who don't play for Wigan (and in fact this player when he didn't play for Wigan) I've said the same. Could you be clear on the point you're actually making as it sounds like a rather callous "dead players don't matter", which I'm sure it isn't meant to be.

[Allora]

1 minute ago, JohnM said:

Employers duty of care. Worth a read in its entirely, just like its worth reading the Wigan statement in its entirety.

Employers have a duty of care to their employees, which means that they should take all steps which are reasonably possible to ensure their health, safety and wellbeing

http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=3751

That says you should look after your workers in your workplace.

Not much about people that want to go on benders and put other people at risk as they drive drunk or Coked up.

 

[Dunbar]

8 minutes ago, JohnM said:

Employers duty of care. Worth a read in its entirely, just like its worth reading the Wigan statement in its entirety.

Employers have a duty of care to their employees, which means that they should take all steps which are reasonably possible to ensure their health, safety and wellbeing

http://www.acas.org.uk/index.aspx?articleid=3751

This is health, safety and wellbeing in the workplace where the employee is under the care of the employer.  Even ACAS wouldn't argue that substance abuse and drink driving falls under this definition.

[Allora]

15 minutes ago, RidingPie said:

and if you read threads about other players in similar situations, who don't play for Wigan (and in fact this player when he didn't play for Wigan) I've said the same. Could you be clear on the point you're actually making as it sounds like a rather callous "dead players don't matter", which I'm sure it isn't meant to be.

What should Mr Newtons employer have done if they even knew Mr Newtons mental state?

Some people are mentally unstable, why is that their employers problem?

Some by all accounts going to Pubs and frequently pick fights and take on the Doorman, that is not a thing most normal law abiding citizens do IMO

[MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield]

Ohh dear Ian Lenagan you have embarrassed yourself and your club today.

To suggest Hardaker should have already been rehabilitated is as good as blaming the Rhinos and the Tigers for his failings!

The magistrates fine suggests he is 'only' earning in the region of £60K a year and he obviously arrived at Wigan without a transfer fee.

Greedy little man.

[RidingPie]

4 minutes ago, Allora said:

What should Mr Newtons employer have done if they even knew Mr Newtons mental state?

I'm not a trained psychiatrist, so don't know, but I imagine a procedure should have been in place which consulted with experts in that field for psychiatric evaluation and followup sessions at least.

[Damien]

9 minutes ago, RidingPie said:

and if you read threads about other players in similar situations, who don't play for Wigan (and in fact this player when he didn't play for Wigan) I've said the same. Could you be clear on the point you're actually making as it sounds like a rather callous "dead players don't matter", which I'm sure it isn't meant to be.

No it's callous mentioning his name on every thread where someone has done something wrong without even knowing anything about the circumstances.

[RidingPie]

1 minute ago, Damien said:

No it's callous mentioning his name on every thread where someone has done something wrong without even knowing anything about the circumstances.

Many of the circumstances are known, at least enough for comparison, concern and the wish to exercise compassion on an individual who may be following a similar destructive path. 

[Dave T]

"Nonetheless, we have thought long and hard about what the correct thing to do is for Wigan."

interesting quote from IL

[Allora]

Just now, RidingPie said:

I'm not a trained psychiatrist, so don't know, but I imagine a procedure should have been in place which consulted with experts in that field for psychiatric evaluation and followup sessions at least.

If they even knew there was an issue

If they did know why is that the Clubs/Employers issue to resolve or pay for?

I have diabetes, never considered asking my employer to pay for my medication or health costs, it would be bizarre.

 

 

 

[Dunbar]

Where was Wigan's 'duty of care' line when Joel Tomkins was recorded abusing alcohol and acting unsociably. Why was he allowed to leave the club when they are determined to help Zak through his troubles?

Surely it couldn't have been that Joel Tomkins was coming to the end of his career and Hardaker is a 27 year with years of performance ahead of him.  Come of Wigan, bring Tomkins back and provide the care you are offering Zak, you know it's the right thing to do.

[RidingPie]

Just now, Allora said:

If they even knew there was an issue

If they did know why is that the Clubs/Employers issue to resolve or pay for?

I have diabetes, never considered asking my employer to pay for my medication or health costs, it would be bizarre.

Diabetes is a completely different case though. You're employer would not sack for having diabetes (in fact I'm fairly sure it would be illegal to sack you for suck). Newton was sacked for doping and was essentially dropped from the sport. An evaluation at that point would have helped identify if there was a risk and how to help him move on and build a new life.

[MyMrsWouldPreferSinfield]

Just now, Dunbar said:

Where was Wigan's 'duty of care' line when Joel Tomkins was recorded abusing alcohol and acting unsociably. Why was he allowed to leave the club when they are determined to help Zak through his troubles?

Surely it couldn't have been that Joel Tomkins was coming to the end of his career and Hardaker is a 27 year with years of performance ahead of him.  Come of Wigan, bring Tomkins back and provide the care you are offering Zak, you know it's the right thing to do.

Exactly!

Zak arrived for free rather than the £250K player fee he would demand assuming no history. He is being paid circa £60K a year rather than £250K a year a player of his standing would command.

Greedy little man Ian Lenagan.

 

[dhw]

1 hour ago, Allora said:

Do other employers do this in the main?

You have an obligation to do the right thing by yourself, its personal accountability and responsibility.

I work for a great Company but they would draw the line with me if I went DUI or Drug tested positive and I would fully understand their position.

 

 

 

That depends on how important they are. Strong performers will always be treated differently to others. Any organisation that dismisses somebody for testing positive for illicit drugs is not a great company and deserves contempt,  the exception to that is if that act had put others safety at risk. Wigan should be commended for this, as for the other two clubs he has played for ........

[RidingPie]

2 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

Where was Wigan's 'duty of care' line when Joel Tomkins was recorded abusing alcohol and acting unsociably. Why was he allowed to leave the club when they are determined to help Zak through his troubles?

Surely it couldn't have been that Joel Tomkins was coming to the end of his career and Hardaker is a 27 year with years of performance ahead of him.  Come of Wigan, bring Tomkins back and provide the care you are offering Zak, you know it's the right thing to do.

Tomkins had another job to go to. A very different situation to Newton and wasn't sacked.

[Dunbar]

5 minutes ago, RidingPie said:

Tomkins had another job to go to. A very different situation to Newton and wasn't sacked.

I'm not making any reference to Terry Newton at all.

[RidingPie]

1 minute ago, Dunbar said:

I'm not making any reference to Terry Newton at all.

Wigan didn't sack Joel Tomkins as people are suggesting should happen here, so still a very different situation.

[Damien]

1 minute ago, dhw said:

That depends on how important they are. Strong performers will always be treated differently to others. Any organisation that dismisses somebody for testing positive for illicit drugs is not a great company and deserves contempt,  the exception to that is if that act had put others safety at risk. Wigan should be commended for this, as for the other two clubs he has played for ........

What nonsense. If my employer caught me doing something illegal they would sack me and would be well within their rights to. It shows bad character and a predisposition for doing something illegal no matter how trivial it may be to some. Beating people up, taking drugs, drunk driving etc all certainly fall in this category. Surely beating someone up and drink driving where you could kill somebody is putting others safety at risk too.

[Dunbar]

4 minutes ago, RidingPie said:

Wigan didn't sack Joel Tomkins as people are suggesting should happen here, so still a very different situation.

It is a simple enough equation.  Wigan are keeping Hardaker and they are justifying this as a duty of care because he is troubled.  So why did they not help Joel through his troubles?

[Dunbar]

11 minutes ago, dhw said:

That depends on how important they are. Strong performers will always be treated differently to others. Any organisation that dismisses somebody for testing positive for illicit drugs is not a great company and deserves contempt,  the exception to that is if that act had put others safety at risk. Wigan should be commended for this, as for the other two clubs he has played for ........

I can't agree with this.  I have a led a team of several hundred people and the easiest thing in the world to do is to keep your best people if they transgress because you know it would be hard to replace them.  The difficult (but correct) approach is to ensure that everybody is treated the same and you are a fair and equal boss.

As for this instance.  Drink driving does put others at risk.  You have to look at not just the action but the environment in which you employ people.  This 'may' be tolerated in some sectors but Wigan have a community approach to their customer base and they do things like school outreach and run academy programmes for under 16's.  The morally correct thing to do here would have been to say that these types of actions will not be tolerated by any member of the club.

Wigan have taken the path of least resistance here because they want to keep a good player.  They should not be commended. 

[Damien]

5 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

It is a simple enough equation.  Wigan are keeping Hardaker and they are justifying this as a duty of care because he is troubled.  So why did they not help Joel through his troubles?

This really is it in a nutshell. Joel Tomkins was awful since coming back from RU and it was a convenient way to get rid, particularly when he was on a big salary.

[RidingPie]

16 minutes ago, Dunbar said:

It is a simple enough equation.  Wigan are keeping Hardaker and they are justifying this as a duty of care because he is troubled.  So why did they not help Joel through his troubles?

Different situation, Wigan didn't sack Joel, he chose to move on.

https://www.theguardian.com/sport/2018/jun/11/joel-tomkins-resigns-wigan-joins-hull-kr-super-league

Joel's choice not Wigans

[Wollo Wollo Wayoo]

Suppose it's only a matter of time before Hardaker slips up in some way again.  Presume Leneghan hopes Wigan can get some on field benefit before that happens?

[Exiled Wiganer]

Wigan brought in Tony Adams recently to talk about how he conquered his own drink demons. The key parts of this statement to me are:

1) he is going to spending a lot of time in the Sporting Chance clinic; and 

2) in his statement he admits he has a problem and it needs to be addressed.

i don’t know whether he has been in this sort of programme before, but it looks to me like a reasonable approach. They have agreed on a structure and he at least in his statement that he has a problem. They were essential first steps for him to sort himself out. 

I am surprised that at the focus here on the throw away duty of care platitude when in fact we have a concrete plan, and seemingly someone acknowledging that he has to change. It is far more than a slap on the wrist or keeping our fingers crossed. I hope it works.