Read the 2nd to last paragraph.

GH will know far more of the details of said incidents than most.

Do you know why he was sent home? All of the England players were allowed home for a couple of days in the lead up to one of the games. The squad made an agreement that they wouldn't drink in match week, ZH did - he broke the rule. In his defence, he'd been told he wasn't playing that week. By this point in the tournament it had become obvious that McNamara wasn't going to rest Sam Tomkins and give Hardaker a run out.
He made a mistake and let his teammates down but I hardly think it's worth holding against him for the rest of his career.

No, you're misinterpreting what he's put on purpose. Read GH's statement referring to the Duty Of Care. They broke their own rules (or an individual did) by naming the individual who was being investigated.

Hardaker, despite his recent tedry, is an asset to the Leeds club. He's an outstanding talent, and Hetherington (if ZH is found guilty) will be under intense pressure to get rid of an extremely bad apple. So, he's not going to "throw the baby out with the bathwater". As a businessman, Hetherington is now firefighting, to either

a) gloss over the incident
b) be pigheaded, and not admitting to any crime (if one's been made) or
c) not going too "over the top" in case he has to sell, he'll still want a decent fee for him

If found guilty, ZH will be out before Christmas
3 fluff ups in less than a year, is unforgivable

As apposed to one of your players who got a dog to suck him off, and filmed it, Lovely fella. Glass houses

But that didn't happen. He did however pretend the feat for some strange joke!?

No mate I am not clutching at straws. Joel Moon was charged and therefore no reason to keep his identity secret, as far as Zak goes this is an investigation only to find out if he has a case to answer.

If they have a case then yes name him, until that point this should be dealt with in confidence.

The RFL comment just shoes they f**ked up in the first place by giving a name and the Press officer needs teaching their job.

I'm not sure you understand what stage at the process this is at...

The disciplinary could of found Moon guilty or not guilty. This investigation can find Hardaker guilty or not guilty. Said ruling led to an appropriate ban for Moon. Such ruling will lead to an appropriate ban for Hardaker, if found guilty. The only reason this isn't before the disciplinary is because it breaks other rfl rules (like the respect campaign) - the incident involved hardaker I don't know why naming him makes one Iotas difference...

It's not an investigation to find out whether it should be investigated ... What on earth would the point of that be?

And the difference was, Joel M wasn't harassing anyone else, the only damage he did was to himself.

But it's the same thing with Hardaker, even if he is guilty, you have to make the punishment fit the crime. Joel had to pay a high price for what was just intended as being a laugh with his mates but he hadn't thought it through. If Hardaker has said what he's accused of, I doubt he's a raging homophobe consumed with hate towards gay people, he's just heard people use those words as an insult as we all have at school, and he's used it as an insult. If we really wanted to get angry about homophobia then we'd be better tackling various religions. In fact there are plenty of MPs that voted against gay marriage, why are they still in their jobs? If an MP was campaigning for non-whites to not be allowed to be married they would soon be forced to resign. If Hardaker is guilty slap him with a fine and a short ban, highlight that it's something that we want to push out of the game like racism was, and then move on.

Do you know why he was sent home? No you don't but whatever it was it can't have been good.

To represent your country is the highest honour and he couldn't even show the discipline or respect to behave accordingly.

The player is obviously pretty unpleasant and doesn't seem intelligent enough to clean up his act.

PS we also seem to be forgetting the gouge on Hill that was swept under the carpet.

I concur. If he was an Academy or fringe player dare say the outcome would be different.

Double standards.

I understand fully the position of this and I am afraid you don't.........

The reason that Moon was named along with any other player before the disciplinary committee is at that stage the player has been charged and could be found guilty or innocent.

The RFL currently do not have any evidence and are therefore unable to bring any charges at this stage ( If Ever) against Zak. Under these circumstances a players name should not be made public as it could be considered as slander if no evidence is presented.

This is an investigation to find out if there is any evidence to be presented to the disciplinary committee in order to charge a player. Also please note, the comment from the RFL is inappropriate language used and nothing else.

This is a perfect example why it should be held in privacy as so far no evidence has been presented and idiots on social media are fabricating a story of their own to fulfill their own bent and twisted version of events.

No players, officials or members of the public reported what was said and to bring in a lip reader is a joke....

Wrong again. I see you've served your ban. You really are an angry little man.