What you've said is ridiculous. Offering support to Hardaker doesn't mean you condone using homophobic language. I've seen the footage numerous times now and believe the word Zak used was "prick". Unless some evidence is produced proving that this is wrong I will continue to support him. If you have such evidence, by all means disclose it. If not, Zak should be considered innocent until someone else has proved him guilty.

Do people really go on about it.

I've made a couple of posts on it, but far less than on the likelihood of Wheeler ever wearing a Saints shirt again.
However the Wheeler conundrum only really interests us Saints fans, were as Hardaker appearing to say something similiar to what he got a ban for previously on TV will obviously attract interest from more than just Leeds fans.

Those posting the case for the defense have been far more frequent on this and other threads than any odd poster who may assume he said something else. So it's not people having a go, it's the odd post here or there, but some feel the need to respond to each and every one of those. If people just stated their opinion and did not feel the need to take on each and every poster whose view runs counter to their own the threads would have been half their size.

But to put it into perspective, look at the size of the Widnes thread. Far more interest from a far wider range of fans. And it was not everyone having a pop at Widnes.

[url=http://www.therhinos.co.uk/news/23751.php#.VAce6vldWOQRhinos backing Hardaker[/url and righty so if that info about the ref is true.

At least "incongruent" is a word, even if one previously only used by chemists



Having just looked at the Vine, from what little can be seen, it doesn't look like he says "puff" to me, for whatever that may be worth.

I am though wondering why, in the lengthy statement he made, Hetherington complains bitterly about the process, but doesn't actually deny that Hardaker used homophobic language.

What with all the talk of which-hunts & the RFL employing lip readers, it’s like the petty spats on here have crossed over into the real world

.

Normally Leeds do things correctly, but them calling this a witch hunt may not look great if he is found guilty. As it has been Silverwood that has put in the referees report he heard something, is he suggesting Silverwood has it in for Hardaker??

To be fair Leeds are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They have a duty of care towards Hardaker and should stand by him, but at the same time they're a community club and have to take a tough stance against homophobic/racist/sexist abuse.

Here's a question.....

IF the referee says he heard it.....why would you then need a lip reader?

Since when wasn't the refs report and claims not enough to see someone banned?

I can't recall the James Child case requiring a lip reader, his claim that he heard Hardaker was enough last time, why isn't it this time?

Using a lip reader is/has been 100% completely not needed IF the ref has said he's heard foul and abusive language.

Admittance that they're using a lip reader blows apart the claim that Silverwood heard it.

Or he said that he *thought* he might have heard it but can't be 100% sure?

Was Silverwood near enough to hear it?

First off, its only Leeds claiming a lip reader is being used, it may have been said in the same manner that this is a "witch hunt".

Secondly, it may of been the case that after the last time this happened the rfl deemed it a good investment for future cases in similar circumstances ... not thinking it would be the same player 3 months down the line.

Finally, as a player you can barely remember a match blow by blow and I'd imagine its even worse than as a ref. If he thinks he heard it, but didnt focus on it at the time (too busy stopping a fight breaking out between lms and hardaker), in the same way child did, thinking it was refering to him, it can easuily fall to the back of the mind, only to be brought back up when concentrating on the match report. If the supposed lip reader supports Silverwoods claim, it hardly "blows apart" Silverwoods claim.

Rightly or wrongly, it dont look good for Hardaker ...

dp