NO! Take it as that you can't answer the question.

errm, you didnt answer mine about whether you believed him.

on your 'proof' question ive answered above.

ill rephrase then. Regardless of where hes said it, do you believe him that he a) thought he was going to be carjacked and b) miscalculated his drinks? or do both sound like a desperate addict with previous grasping for credibility?

I can only believe what the outcome of the verdict was in court. There should've been no sort of miscalculation of drinks, he simply shouldn't have even had a sip of alcohol before getting behind the wheel, hence why i keep saying i don't condone any part of what he's done. Whether anyone believes the carjacking, i'm only reporting that it was used as mitigation in court. I can't comment whether it's true or not, and can't believe it either way. You did say it was an excuse, so can you please provide that evidence?

Good to hear your stance on the alcohol issue, addiction or not drink driving cannot be taken lightly.

As ive said, you cant provide evidence either way for someones thoughts (that he was being carjacked) but for reasons already stated I know how it sounds, maybe the drink was responsible for is overactive imagination.

What Are Unmarked Police Cars Used For? Unmarked cars can be used for anything from cruising an area of interest without drawing the focus onto themselves to, more commonly, enforcing traffic laws and making sure people aren't putting other driver's lives in danger with illegal actions.

Your argument for the police's actions are really grasping at straws Cokey. Zac has been caught for this not once, twice but thrice. He wont ever learn, nor change.

Roy, I know what unmarked police cars are used for, and I'm not grasping at straws for any argument. I've NOT condoned anything that happened. I'm not defending Zak in any way, and only been reporting what was said in court. Yes the police should've flashed their lights immediately in my view to defuse the situation, they didn't, hence the speed chase. If folk don't agree with me, fine, I won't lose any sleep over that.

Here's what was said in court. another report passed on from me if you understand.



Leeds Magistrates’ Court was told Hardaker, of Pontefract, had dropped a friend off after going socialising when an unmarked police car began following him.

In his mitigation, it was heard the car was following close behind leading to him fearing he may be carjacked or that the car wanted to race, leading to him increasing his speed to at least 70mph in a residential area.

The prosecutor told the court police had to drive at 88mph to keep up with Hardaker.

When police turned the lights on, it was heard Hardaker put his brakes on but due to his speed lost control of the vehicle, leading to it flipping into a roadside embankment.

Seriously how can a club support a player after that.

Give Degsey a ring and ask him.

I suggested that , should we of had the option of a top class player , that being Sailor , we may of been more inclined to serve a more harsher punishment instead of saying we would support him, coming across like he is the victim in all of this .

You don’t agree ,which is fine but the comment saying we would be worse off with out Zak is 100% true in the current climate

So if Sailor came in, Zak gets' harsher punishment?

The penny has finally dropped.