How do you know he was telling lies when he claimed it was aimed at Monaghan? Child THOUGHT it was aimed at him (obviously why he took no action at the time ) it still isn't conclusive that it was, it was just opined that it was.

That may be. Workplace disciplinary panels for that sort of offence are usually more complicated than people on the internet would have you believe, and I didn't really follow that one closely enough to comment. I might ponder (as I did at the time) whether a more productive punishment for that offence would indeed have been an education/awareness raising thing (I think there's a lot of judgment involved in that kind of decision that I wasn't party to the discussions I'd need to be party to in order to make it). I am not convinced that having gone down that route, enough was done with it. I still have a sense that an opportunity may have been missed to chip away at a fairly pernicious social problem. Which I usually feel is more helpful than heavy-handed punitive measures against the only person you manage to catch for it. My experience is, admittedly, in anti-racism rather than anti-homophobia, but I find the parallels are many.

None of which alters in any way my view that, in the current case, guilt has to be established before it's sensible to talk about punishment.

Say no to drugs, folks.

Are you registered as Intellectually Challenged?

Careful! I'm sure someone will be offended, somewhere.

No. I'm not from hull

Of course we should follow the process in determining guilt or innocence and my view that he should be dismissed, of course, follows from my suspicion as I stated that he once again did use this sort of language. The process of weighing the evidence and allowing Hardaker to defend himself is important. It may be found that the charges are not proven or not even brought forward.

But Leeds's complaint is not about that part of the process, which has not yet or barely begun. Leeds seem to be complaining about the way that evidence is being assembled. Save for what Silverwood and Flanagan and anyone else on the pitch have to say the only primary evidence of import is the footage. Silverwood is a dick and not a reliable witness, but the footage is key. Who cares how the issue was first raised officially? It was being commented on before the game had even finished - I got a text at 9.31pm about it, seconds after it happened.

But back to Hardaker's future. We know that, last November, he was given a written warning and a £2,500 fine by the club. Then in May he made his remarks at Warrington and was found guilty by the RFL. I have to assume that there was a parallel internal disciplinary process for comments made during the course of his job that would be considered outrageous in any normal work environment. If he was already on a written warning from November then, at best, he should now be on a final warning unless Leeds for whatever reason decided that he was innocent or that the external punishment meant no internal action was required.

If the latter was the case it would, in my judgement, have been unwise. A Rugby League pitch is not a normal work environment. But it is still a work environment and not a social one. Leeds have already made their minds up, it seems, on this most recent incident. So Hardaker will stay, regardless of what happens next from the RFL. I wonder if office staff or Academy players would get the same kind of leeway.

Yep. Sack him and every single super league and most Aussie clubs would sign him for free, but at least Leeds could take the moral high ground

Is this post serious or a joke?

I think it is just trolling but signed in under wrong alias. The posts from him and William are exactly why the RFL made a huge mistake in what they did. Internet trolling goes too far.

Well said - these guys are in a war every week and as the saying goes all's fair in love and war. If Hardaker had called Flannagan a Cuckold would that created the same uproar or is just homosexuals who are afforded special treatment due to their lifestyle choice?

If we go on like this the government will be making it compulsory

If he was he would be on the same register as you!!

I find it strange that a guy is trying to take a moral high ground on others, where over the years he has posted many controversial things, including his anti Semitism stance a few years back, just under a different alias. Were there calls for his sacking also?

There are, at best, half a dozen pieces of evidence in this case: first and foremost the video; the referees report; and the testimonies of Zak and those around him. That's all there is, and if after nearly two weeks of looking at evidence that could have been compiled in two hours and reviewed in twenty minutes they are still unable to reach a decision then for me the RFL are only proving their own incompetence.

I'm of the opinion that this delay is actually prejudicing the Rhinos chances. We're having to plan for play offs not knowing what our squad will be. If he's found guilty, however they come to that conclusion, and they were to hit him with the same five game ban he would now miss the Grand Final (should we make it) whereas had they come to that conclusion in a timely fashion he would have been available. If I were GH, then unless Zak himself admitted it or the RFL provided irrefutable proof (which seems highly unlikely as no one on this thread has been able to provide anything of the sort) then any guilty verdict would be challenged to the furthest degree possible.


One more thing, you can't go foguilty on balance of probability because if you did you'd have to say he didn't do it -I've seen Zak swear dozens of times on TV and only once was it followed by anything homophobic.

The people who are insisting this isn't a witch hunt do keep upping the ante. Banning isn't enough, sack him. What next? Burning at the stake?