There's a downside to becoming an apologist for a serial miscreant who is cockily incapable of reigning himself in. You end up residing alongside them in the gutter.

A £1000 fine in this instance isn't even a slap on the wrist therefore it's unlikely any lessons have been learned. GH is usually a shrewd operator but this episode is not one of those occasions.

Every one of the points that were raised about the RFL's Hardaker investigation still need answering

Disagree, GH kicked up a very deliberate media sh[sizei[/sizet storm to highlight the fact that the RFL had nothing concrete and instil the perception that they were gunning for Hardaker.

This made it more difficult for the Red Hall giffers to pin anything on Zak as the harder they tried, the more it would look like the alleged 'witch hunt'. Very shrewd indeed if you ask me and well worth a grand to insure his number 1 will be playing at the start of next season and not serving what would have been a very lengthy ban.

Agreed if we had sat around and made no statement I could see the RFL handing out a guilty verdict and ban to hardaker. Grand well spent to me.

So what you're saying is that the RFL altered their investigation in order to respond to GH blowing off in the press?

What a crock of nonsense.

Once the RFL received a report (albeit submitted at the wrong time) they were duty bound to investigate it rather than just sweep it under the carpet to suit Hetherington. Unless you'd rather allegations of homophobia were swept under the carpet just to suit your own club?

I'd have been interested to see what the response on this board would have been if it had been Flanagan accused and McManus spouting off in the press. Baying for blood, no doubt.

What Hetherington said brought into question the impartiality and honesty of the RFL. He deserved to be punished for it, and frankly £1,000 is a derisory sum. It brings to an end a pretty awful few weeks for the CEO in the press, where he's increasingly taken on the demeanour of a man deluded by his own perceived success.

Who did the RFL receive a report of alleged homophobia from?

Lots of points from GH still need answering

Whilst I agree that he should have been punished I also think that sometimes s governing body should be challenged, especially when like ours is pretty much inept at most things it does

Mr Gilderdale said that the RFL had to act on a report of potential homophobic abuse which I completely agree with - my, as yet, unanswered question to him was who reported it.

I believe that GH asked the same question of the RFL which is, at present, still unanswered.

Did you ask the RFL or did you just post on a forum? Do you honestly think that you have the right to know who a complaint of homophobia is made by?

GH might have asked the RFL. I don't know. What I do know is that GH made statements to the press which clearly were inflammatory, detrimental to the game and called into question the integrity of at least a few of the games officials.

GH was completely and utterly out of order on this. Most of the Leeds fans who are backing him up are either dangerously biased or dangerously stupid. GH should be absolutely embarrassed by his actions. His fine is pathetically small and doesn't reflect either his offence or the position he holds.

And just to clarify, I'm a fan of GH. I have the utmost respect for him and his achievements and IMO he's one of the giants of RL. But no matter how much good he's done in RL it doesn't alter the fact that on this occasion he completely and utterly blew it.

I understand the suspicion that a homophobic term had been used was within the match officials report.

It should have been reported to the Match Commissioner by the referee on the night, but wasn't. That procedural point aside, what would you rather the RFL had done? Ignored it? Whitewashed over it?

Again. if it had been a Leeds player allegedly on the receiving end, how would that influence your opinion of how the incident had been handled? If it had been say an accusation of racist language being used against one of Leeds' ethnic minority players, should the RFL have just ignored that because it wasn't reported correctly?

My point is that there was seemingly no initial report of homophobic language, there then was a sh*t storm on social media which prompted the RFL to engineer a report post match. You kind of wash over this by saying it was a mere procedural error but I believe the RFL instigated the alleged 'witch hunt' not based on a report from the referee (or anyone connected with the game) but on the hysteria and faux outrage from other team's supporters on Twitter/Facebook.

I believe there is no place in our game for homophobia, I am very close to several gay people, including close family members and feel they get a really sh*t deal from time to time. The same applies for racism. I also believe that there is no place for which hunts which, from where I sit, is exactly what the RFL instigated and what GH got all irate about.

So... let me get this right, you believe that if a high profile Rugby League CEO (a giant of RL) suspects corruption from it's governing body, they have no right to air that opinion?

How should he have gone about it, he obviously couldn't confront the RFL directly so what should he have done in your opinion?

If GH believed that the RFL were involved deliberately and corruptly in trying to frame one of their players for a serious charge then the first point of contact should have been a meeting with the head of the RFL. IMO Leeds' stance would have been that anyone proved guilty of corruption would be banned from the game for a long time, and that the RFL having being involved in this would be in a position that it probably could not survive.

That's not what GH did though. He just went to the press and threw mud all over the RFL and all over a few RFL officials, including Silverwood.

GHs actions were not of a chief executive who suspects high level corruption in the game, they were the actions of a powerful man using force and media spin to probably get his man off.

So you believe the RFL made up the report from the match officiais? Based on what?

Other than rampant "everyone is against Leeds" paranoia.