GH is a very shrewd man. Do you really think he would make throw away comments to the press without any evidence and legal advice, I mean he's not the RFL!

Taken on it's own that could apply to the RFL's decision to tell the press they were investigating Zak and why, they set the tone for what was acceptable and ill advisedly or not GH followed suit.

I'll say it again. I think GHs achievements in RL are truly awesome and he is a person who I have the utmost respect for. But even though I admire and respect him I still don't think he's infallible. IMO in this case he's fallen on his face and let himself, Leeds and RL down.

I could be wrong though. The information I have is very limited and I may have got it completely wrong. I strongly doubt it though.

Leaving twitter aside for the moment, the reason I think Gotcha's take is plausible is that I'd expect the RFL to check with Silverwood with regard to what he'd heard. A response along the lines of "one of the players may have said something" is about what I'd expect, given that had plainly happened. I wouldn't care to speculate whether or not Silverwood actually heard what was said or not. Under that circumstance, I don't think it unreasonable that the RFL should ask him to include a statement to that effect to his match report.
As for GH, had he known that there was no evidence against Hardaker, I doubt he'd have gone public. But I think for a while he was a worried man.

On the one hand Leeds had a mighty bitchfest about their "duty of care" over poor little Zak being named in the week after, but on the other hand they are questioning why the match commissioner wasn't blabbing about it after the game.

Personally I don't know what the process is regarding the media speaking to the refs and match commissioners after a game. My guess about the Saints game would be that the red card would have been the main talking point. I don't know whether they'd have instantly been asking about Zak's possible comment, but if they were asking I'd expect most of the officials to keep their mouths shut.

My reading of it was that GH blew a load of smoke about there being no post match comments made by Silverwood and the match commissioner and used that to scream witch hunt.

IMO if the things that GH was alluding to in his press statement were true then he should have been speaking with the RFL chief and making heads roll. He didn't do that though. He just threw mud over the RFL, Silverwood and the game and it seems to have worked. And for that he's got a measly fine of a grand.

My view of the alleged offence by Zak was that the punishment wouldn't have matched the crime, if he was guilty. So in many ways I could accept GH resorting to dodgy tactics if he needed to. But IMO he shouldn't have been stamping on the faces of Silverwood and RFL officials, which is pretty much what he did.

I don't think GH was worried about any RFL punishment, I think he was trying to avoid being put into a position where the club might have to sack Hardaker. But like you, I wouldn't condone the way he went about that.