Having spent twenty plus years working for WDH it would have made more sense leading with that surely.
I wonder why they didn't?
Is anything to do with the rugby club a chance of sensationalising the story, something in this instance i think is unnecessary and quite unpalatable.
The story is provocative and emotive enough.

Of course it is. Standard journalistic policy. Sadly the story wouldn't be as attention grabbing had WDH replaced Wakefield Trinity in the headline.

Am i being naive then to say this story is about a man who has done a horrible disgusting thing and it should make no difference who or what he is, just what he has done and that he has been punished?

It should be, the story is disgusting enough, but there will always be a sensationalist angle the press will make of any story.

I remember a headline from a few years back when a dead body was found in the garden of a convicted pedophile. He had nothing to do with the body, but the headline read 'Dead body found in Pedo's garden'.

Just the headline ''Wakefield man...'' would have been sufficient. There was no need to bring Trinity or Cas into it until the small print considering the time passed since he played and the possibility he might not have been into that sort of thing when he did play. But hey, sensationalisation sells papers, unfortunately.