So despite the evidence presented against him biting (whilst the only evidence for him biting, was the inconclusive video clip) they've found him guilty.

And given him a longer ban than a player who definately had a chomp.

What a joke.

Looks like they have retained the same systems we used in the 18th century on them.

Yep. They had their minds made up before Graham even turned up.

Unbelievable stuff. So there is no evidence that there was a bite, medical evidence against it being a bite mark and supporting my theory that it was a nail injury. Yet they still find him guilty in less than 10 minutes and decide to go beyond the regulations and ban him for longer than the maximum ban.

I hope Slater gets what is owed to him next season. I should imagine there will be 17 Canterbury players out to hurt him properly next season. He's scum, this for me is a false allegation designed to get a player sent off in a Grand Final.

Clearly yet another trolling post from this contributor.

Why would there be '17 Canterbury players out to hurt him properly next season'?

The video evidence was as clear as day. Even the most blinkered Canterbury Bankstown Bulldogs supporter knows that Graham is guilty of a despicable act upon a fellow professional.

Quite a clever move by the Bulldogs staff to get Graham to go not out on this one though. In the highly unlikely event he was found innocent (which upon looking at the evidence was virtually nil) its a victory for the Bulldogs. Now they can claim an 'innocent' man has been convicted of this act they can use it to reinforce the 'no one likes us' mentality that the side and their predominantly Lebanese supporter base try and promote.

As an interchange player Graham was ultimately worth sacrificing.

You make it sound like he raped someone.

Nobody other than Jammer and Slater knows whether he is guilty of anything. However, people the world over like to join in with lynch mobs.

Personally, I believe he's innocent of the charge. I think he had been convicted even before he got there. Stinks rotten.

Oh dear...

Whatever, just because a concocted sham of a hearing that determined his guilt before any evidence had being presented means jack. Anyone with a couple of brain cells can see Slater was never bitten but go knock one out on your immoral victory. Your original comments are still distasteful..scum, not nice is it??

This could get a whole lot worse for Graham. With big Tony 'T Rex' Williams joining the Bulldogs Graham will probably find it hard to even make it back onto the interchange bench next year when he gets back after his suspension.

Really? The bloke comes from the bench and plays at least 50 minutes each week because Kasiano is buggered after 10. T-Rex isn't an out and out prop either so you're asking Sam to do more minutes or Tolman to do a bucketload.

Big loss for the doggies. When available, I think he'll come straight back in to the bench spot.

The video doesn't look good although not 100% conclusive. I didn't think Graham had this in his locker but I think he may be guilty on this one IMO.

Serve the ban, get on with it, come back a bigger and better player next year. 12 games for biting seems fair to me as they found him guilty. If you compare it to Gaz Hock who got 4 for gouging Harrison which is equally as thuggish as biting (and it was as clear cut as can be on Sky!), it seems extremely harsh. Now that was a farce. He should have also sat down for 3 months.

It was national poetry day yesterday, so I [url=http://littlegrubbers.blogspot.com/2012/10/james-graham-and-national-poetry-day.htmlpenned an ode to Mr Graham[/url