Where does it it say he was disciplined for being a drunk?

I heard his unprofessionalism extended to something completely different to the drink, which peeved off McNamara. And if true most on here would be giving him the big pat on the back for, rather than condeming him.

McNamara's problem is, once again, that his media handling skills are non-existant.

The Leeds statement has made McNamara look like a complete fool. His "you're making this up, there's nothing wrong" response to any question makes him look pathetic, weak and makes the whole England media strategy look disingenuous.

There are lots of reasons why RL doesn't get media coverage, but the way in which England have conducted themselves throughout this World Cup has hardly been helpful.

Let's hope the BBC have long memories and once the sulk gets the boot after the world cup they don't offer him a guest summariser spot for how he spat his dummy at Tanya Arnold.

Did McNamara really do anything wrong? Did the Leeds statement make any difference to what McNamara did?

The England management dealt with a situation has they saw fit. Hardaker was in there responsibility, and was to follow their rules. Any going against those rules he is handled under their terms.

Seperately Leeds have their own code of conduct, which extends to away from the club. Whatever Hardaker did, went against that code of conduct that Leeds expecte, and subsequently Leeds dealt with it.

Salford obviously have a different code of conduct. Just like Castleford have a different code of conduct. Saints, Wigan, Widnes will also have their own code of conducts. Why should Englands necessarily follow the Leeds one?

I like the way McNamara's handled the media and players. I've never seen an England/GB coach so single-minded and focussed on winning.

I agree with much of what you say. In fairness to MacNamara, when even supposedly league-friendly elements in the media insist upon placing greater significance on squad misdemeanours than they do on any other aspect of the team's preparation, I can see why a coach who's probably sweated blood for the cause might get a tad hacked off.

That's not really the issue for me.

McNamara looks pretty foolish when, two days after he spat his dummy at Tanya Arnold with his "you're making up reports of disciplinary issues, move along, nothing to see here", rant, England RL releases an ambiguous statement that reveals that there is an issue with the player in question.

He then looks even more foolish when, two days after that, Leeds release a statement which says that there was an issue with the player's conduct. Whether his conduct is in breach of Leeds' or England's seperate expectations of player behaviour is irrelevant. The way McNamara deals with it is hamfisted and does nothing but increase speculation, makes him look unprofessional and gets the media's backs up. Tanya Arnold was perfectly right to ask the question, yet McNamara looked like he was about to swing a right hook.

Compare and contrast to Leeds, with their controlled and balanced response to the issue. They didn't get drawn into speculation, they kept the media informed on their position and they dealt with the matter calmly, swiftly and professionally.

He said they were making up reports that Hardaker had been disciplined and was dropped. Obviously as far as England are concerned that was the case. Hardaker pulled out. What he did in view of the England management wasn't a disiciplinary offence.

Leeds on the other hand with their own specific code of conduct, viewed differentely, so therefore dealt with it differently.

Leeds didn't keep the media informed at all, infact IMO they made a complete mess of it until yesterday evening. They made out they knew nothing of what had happened, and left it all up in the open for 48 hours before they released their version. I am also not so sure you can compare Leeds position as far as media and speculation goes, with that of England. Leeds season is over until next year, England are in a World cup tournament, so by definition there is more media reporting and questions with regards England.

You don't seriously believe he pulled out of his own accord do you?

He accused the media of making things up, which they clearly was not doing. How do you know they only "made out" they didn't know what was going on? Isn't it entirely possible Leeds were unaware of the situation, as they stated?

Ugh I'm defending Leeds. Unclean, unclean!

My take on the matter is McNamara lied, got caught out, and now looks a bit stupid. It does make me chuckle how he didn't want to talk about Hardaker anymore. What's the first question he will get asked this week?

It doesn't really matter what I believe, or you believe, the fact is that England and Zak made a statement that he had pulled out for personal reasons. Other than the first incident he wasn't disciplined by England, as he didn't do anything after that, that was against the England rules.

As far as England are concerned the media did make things up. Or put more correctly, the media followed that Joker Mick Gledhill in making things up. Didn't the media ask him if Hardaker had been dropped as a disciplinary last week? they made that up then.

I am sure Leeds were aware of the situation considering the barrage of rumours ever since Saturday afternoon, and then following the England statement Monday afternoon.

My view is, McNamara has worked withing his own rules, and handled them accordingley. Leeds have worked within their own rules and handled it. McNamara looks none the worse because of either.

Leeds aren't even in the middle of a regular league season, never mind a world cup! You cant compare the two!!!

Team Steve!!

Fair points, I can't really argue with any of that. I do wonder why some people cant seem to go 5 minutes without having a drink (if that is indeed what happened), that certainly isn't the coaches fault. If he was booted out of the squad for disciplinary reasons I hope he doesn't get back into it for a while either

Who cares.

McNamara handled it how he saw fit, BMc and GH how they saw fit.

Are we supposed to be pretending that the RL media deserve some kind of respect? Are we pretending that they serve a useful purpose? Its not like they are out there risking life and limb to bring us a hard-hitting expose. Tanya Arnold isn’t Glenn Greenwald.

If Tanya Arnold wants to publish a story she goes out and gets the evidence for it. It isn’t incumbent on Steve McNamara to make it easier for her however much the self-serving clique that is RL journalists bleat about it.

Maybe Steve McNamara would have been a bit more open with them had they not spent the last two years trying to undermine him. I saw the response from certain journalists to Ian Lenegans criticisms of them earlier in the year with them insisting they weren’t supposed to be cheerleaders for the game. That being the case Chris Irvine should really put his pom-poms and Danny Brough outfit away.

I honestly struggle to remember the last worthwhile piece of RL journalism I saw. Outside of a few Martyn Sadler pieces I struggle to remember an RL piece that wasn’t simply a match report or a reprinting a John Ledger press release.

If the RL press want Steve McNamara to treat them with respect, then they should treat him with respect. If they want to criticise and undermine him, don’t bitch and whine when you aren’t handed stories on plate. Go out and bloody get them.

It makes me laugh how people think that only the 'right' sort of media exposure is good for the game and that they know what that is.

I don't care if the story that hits the mainstream press is about Sinfield's favourite flavour of crisps, or that Jennifer Aniston has started dating Ben Westwood's parrot - I just generally assume that journalists have a reasonable idea of what they can sell to their editors, and if that's just tittle-tattle, then so be it - as long as it gets League in the news, and nobody is getting hurt, I couldn't care less. If I want to read serious technical analysis I'll look outside the mainstream news. In today's environment, it's no doubt unfortunate that its easier to sell to the editor a story about a player getting kicked out than it is a technical analysis of defensive structures, but we are where we are, and I'll take whatever press we can get.

Not that I don't want to see good journalism, but before you can sell those pieces to editors we have to get to a place where editors think enough readers are interested in RL.

Quite coincidentally, Irvine's piece in today's Times is both fairly readable and positive. Beyond that, I pretty much agree with the rest of what you posted. Had Arnold opened her interview by asking questions related to other matters it would probably have progressed more smoothly. Quite reasonable that she should ask about squad discipline but I suspect a more experienced journo would have engaged MacNamara about issues he was more comfortable with first.