It's possible that he is pleading not guilty because ... he's not guilty.

The man is scum and I hope he gets 12 weeks at the least.

I don't think it's particularly conclusive at this point. It doesn't look good, but the evidence is not exactly compelling that he did any damage. Tyson bit quite easily into Holyfield's ear, but to me it looked half like Graham had severely lost his temper and was roaring into his ear. I suspect if he wanted to bite his ear off he would have.

It doesn't look good, but let's wait for the investigation. I can't imagine Slater is entirely innocent either.

I believe him.

Nothing in his previous conduct to suggest he is capable of this. Plus if he had a brain fart and did it, I reckon he would own up.

The TV footage didn't look at all good IMO. I've never seen a player do what Graham did with his head in that close a proximity to somebody's ear. I'm pretty sure the NRL said they didn't need Slater to provide any evidence because of the TV footage.

I have never thought of Graham as a dirty player either BTW.

Slater's a fecking tart but to give him 12 weeks is a bit harsh... and I hope you end up eating your words, clearly you haven't got the faintest have you

If they did say any such outrageously ridiculous thing, then there can't be a "disciplinary hearing", as clearly anyone already having announced a pre-conceived decision cannot sit in judgment.

if bupa only gets 12 weeks i feel he will have done well, most of the fans and press over here see it as an open and shut case and believe 12 weeks is soft as he will use almost half of these by missing england games and trial matches.a lot of people want the 12 games to start on the first day of the season so it actually means 12 nrl games.what a bad way to end a great season for the lad

Eh? No one forced Graham to stick Slaters ear in his mouth.

Some of the comments I've read in favour of Graham's defence are desperate to say the least. What next, how about he shouted so hard it made his ear blead? I genuinly believe if it was the other way round 99.9% on here would have a different opinion.

What I and others are questioning is the damage to the ear does not look like an intentional bite from someone with a gumshield in. I have been bitten and it looked nothing like that, thats what I am going on.

Agreed. The double standards on here is laughable, imagine if it hadn't been Graham but had been either one of Gaz Hock / Ryan Bailey / Adrian Morley....etc. A Wigan player only has to fart and Saddo creates a thread on here quick as a flash.

What was you expecting, a dental impression with a perfect match to Graham's teeth? They were 'embraced' for about half a minute, both stood up and rolling around the floor. Maybe had Slater been a 'sport' and stood perfectly still we may have had more conclusive evidence?

I know Slater has a bit of a "grubbish" (to use the Aussie slang) reputation, but what exactly did he do wrong in this case? He pulled out of the challenge on Perrett then got pushed by Inu which started the whole incident. I'm guessing Graham thought Slater had gone in with the knees, but why he felt the need to pound across to go at Slater I don't know. It's not like he was having a go at one of their enforcers like he has done in the past (like Burgess and King).

Foolish to put himself in the situation, and it certainly looks like it could have been a bite, but I can't recall Graham having that in his character. He's certainly got fired up with backs in the past (see Lee Briers in 2009 I think), but don't think he's been one to go down that kind of route. Brain explosion of epic proportions if he's found guilty.

I've never thought of him as dirty either. But I think he is prone to flashes of anger where he can get carried away when he gets wound up.

Greenberg has said the evidence is damning so i dont know who at Canterbury Bankstown is actually backing him in his fight against it but i cant imagine its many.

Only the two players know i it happened, lets see what happens!