St Helens certainly dont

Regards

King James

if that's the case then it just proves what a despicable morally bankrupt club Wigan are, hope he his knee pops out on his debut and he never plays again. despicable turds like him alwsy end up smelling of roses.

Do you have proof of this?

Can't wait to see this!!!

Well that's not very nice is it.

i cant believe some of the things I'm reading on here. "why is everyone throwing out the mental illness line for being an idiot?" - read the case. his mental health problems are well documented going back years, its not just been suddenly decided he has them now hes been caught with cocaine in his system. and I dont see it being used as an excuse anywhere either.

"why did he get 14 months and chase got 2 years?" if you look on the UKAD website theres a few violations with different time periods, even in rugby league. 2 years, 3 years, 7 years, 8 years. its all based on evidence and circumstance. and you can read the chase judgement, specifically where it says "Mr Chase has not sought to reduce the period of Ineligibility further on the basis of ADR Article 10.4 (No Fault or Negligence) or 10.5.2 (No Significant Fault or Negligence)" He literally said nothing in his defence. That's on him.

"Boo wigan booooooo" Chris Brookes is the most senior medical professional rugby league has to offer. makes sense his legal team would talk to him if he was wiling. as has been stated many times, it was in his capacity as england Dr too. Nothing to do with Wigan. Call me naive but i really dont think Wigan can influence an independent UKAD tribunal. If they have the power to do that then they should start winning a lot more trophies because apparently they are the illuminati and control major organisations

Honestly it annoys me that people think referees are biased towards certain players but to think the UKAD is biased towards Wigan is pretty stupid.

TL;DR - Read the case notes and all is explained. Stop looking for conspiracies that aren't there.

that would be chris brooks who in the early/mid 90's who declared about 6 Wigan players injured and not fit for a test match in France on a Saturday, then declared then miraculously fit to Play the next day for Wigan. got form for this type of thing.

If indeed Hardaker signs for Wigan then Brooks position as a witness was a conflict of interests show he should have declared this and stepped aside and let another independent Dr bare witness.

so its nothing to do with i claimed that Wigan have influence over UKAD but they failed to declare a conflict of interest there for the Witness (Brooks) should not have been used.

There was a vey strong rumour about 4-5 weeks ago that Zak was employed as a part time employee at Wigan obviously in a non playing capacity and as a result the Wigan Directors (Brookes and Bitcon) became part of the legal team in providing evidence, so I should imagine there would be funding and a contract on the result of the outcome.

Once they officially confirm Sam Tomkins has a contract with the Catalans then Zak Hardaker logically will follow as signed, sealed and delivered. We will just have to wait and see I suppose.

If Morgan Escare can cement his place at Wigan why would Wigan want Zachary Hardaker?

Apologies, it wasn't all aimed at just you. i just started and couldn't stop. i do agree with what you say regarding Brooks (the second part, not the first part) i can only assume they needed someone who knew his history, and he had burned some bridges with Cas/Leeds?

Its interesting to read into, properly, from a case point of view. There's obviously reasons for the 14 month ban rather than the 24 month ban. but i dont think we will ever really know the full story as its obvious some very personal things are involved.

It's obvious he screwed up, but its also obvious he was not in the right mind when he did (you dont drink the amount he did on a night out, you do it if something is seriously, seriously wrong). hence the 14 month ban i think.

They want John Bateman back in the pack so Zak will be looked at as a centre.

So Chris Brookes is the England RL Doctor. Why was Mark Bitcon giving evidence in the hearing as well ?

To slip the jury a tenner?

or because hes part of the england setup too.

The entire 14 page document is online so I'm going to read it over properly later before i comment further. Theres evidence supplied by people other than those two as well. its not like its just wigan/england involved.

Hardaker is different class. Escare at best is a decent full back. Zak is a cut above him. Like it or not.

I think Mark Bitcon is the performance manager for the England RL, so it was in the capacity of the RL those 2 wigan blokes in providing substantial evidence to effect the potential 2 yr UKAD ban.

Zak also had his mummy in providing evidence as well.

Good luck to him. Never a chance he'd pull on a Leeds shirt again but if wigan sign him I'm fine with that. He'll have served his time and hopefully he'll prove a draw over at the DW. I hope Leeds respond with a quality signing, perhaps with less baggage. Game needs players that get folk talking IMO.