Has anyone actually asked Flanagan if he is a puff? And if so, did Zaks words offend him. (if he said them.....)

the ones you know may not. They may even only be offended by it in some situations. for example they may be fine with some general ribbing between friends, they may not be cool with strangers shouting it at them in the street or colleagues using it when having a go at them at work.

Well, that seems to be a mute point to a lot of the accusers/judges/jury on RL.Fans & Twitter.
Despite whatever comment made being directed at him, his thoughts on the matter are irrelevant. It's how all the homosexuals watching felt about it that matters.

Well dome RFL, this is the fruits of employing someone with as impressive a CV as John Ledger as your communications director.

Although when Nigel "Blue Sox" Woods looked ta Ledger's CV he was probably impressed.

Is it now possible for Hardaker to be the subject of a fair investigation?

Flanagan has bedded Michelle Keegan on many occasions. It's safe to say he's hiding it well if he is, despite the male model role he also has.

The parallels with the Luis Suarez situation cannot be ignored here. Leeds have done the wrong thing, no matter if they believe the process hasn't been fair. There is a medium for that complaint, it's during the hearing Hardaker will no doubt have. Doing it beforehand just makes them guilty themselves if Hardaker is found guilty of the allegations. Liverpool did it with Suarez, blindly supporting him over the racism allegations, even though it was quite clear he had said what was alleged.

What external investigation are they after? The Court of Arbitration for Sport perhaps? Are they really going to overturn a punishment laid down by an official body because a case of repeated homophobia in this day and age, particularly one where there is highly likely evidence against him? The referee's word is enough and ref cam no doubt caught it.

How many times are various Saints fans going to compare this to the Liverpool/Suarez thing? They're already having a go at the Leeds team for wearing tshirts at Wigan supporting Hardaker even though it hasn't actually happened. LOL

Also with the Suarez/Evra thing. Suarez ADMITTED using the racist word but his defence was different context/meaning from his country........so no matter how many times you lot incorrectly claim "it's just like the Suarez thing" it really isn't.

We'll settle now on Hardaker joining Barcelona, because we're jealous of him

Is his word is enough (which I agree it should be) then try and explain why they've gone and gotten a lip reader in?

did Evra say that he didnt hear Suarez say anything, like Flanagan did with this?
did the match officials say they didnt hear anything then the match reports seemingly get changed to say otherwise?
did Hardaker admit that he used the word 'puff' but in a jocular way?

i dont watch much football but i dont get the comparison, so maybe you could help me out

Oh and you can't afford Haraker

Except his word is thrown into doubt by the lack of a complaint from a player, nobody else hearing it, his lack of action (penalising/sending Hardaker off) at the time and the lack of any mention of the incident in his report.

Yes sorry didn't write that previous post fully.

His word should be enough.....if consistent from the start, not one that's come around 72 hours later.

You are focusing too much on the detail. The reality here, stepping back from the emotion, is that an allegation has been made against a player. It doesn't matter who makes the allegation or how fraudulently it comes about, those are things for the hearing. Leeds should step back from the controvery and release a statement saying 'Leeds are aware of the allegation and will cooperate fully with the investigation. Leeds expect all it's players to represent the values of the club and the sport' or something along those lines, potentially not saying anything at all. Once Hardaker's case is thrown out because of the evidence presented in his defense and a complete lack of evidence against him, the open the barrells at the ref. You don't do it beforehand. Fight for him tooth and nail IN the hearing, but don't lay yourself open to the possibility of being seen as publically supporting a player who has used homophobic abuse.

it is crazy to say that Hardaker (and Leeds) should defend themselves in private and that the RFL should make the accusation in public.

Flanagan is an experienced player and I'm sure 99.99% of players in this situation would prefer to keep it in house. He was laughing with Hardaker in the immediate aftermath on Twitter, but dodging the calls for him to state what Hardaker actually said.

Could that be because Flanagan used similar language.....just off camera so it hasn't upset the easily scared amongst the RL community.

Protecting the reputation of the club comes first. Reacting the news the RFL are investigating it with such an emotive response isn't the best way to go.

Don't you think GH is smart enough to say Zak, did you say it? and act from there. GH is arguably the most clinical administrator in the game. Leeds have done what they have done with total forsight of how it would play out.

I'll let GH know that saddened has some advice for him on the running of the club.

Always a foolish error of course....you should be employed by the RFL.

Where Rule 1 is, don't focus on the detail.

And how likely do you think he is to say "Yeah boss, I did it"? When it would get him at least fined and potentially even sacked?

Tell you what, you've made it public now, so they should televise the hearing. I'd pay cinema prices to watch it, popcorn at the ready. It'd be a fantastic event, I don't really care which way it goes, both are quite appealing. A Leeds player being banned again, which is funny, or the RFL are proven to be corrupt, which is just as tantilising a prospect.

Do you think adding a lip reader to on field proceedings would add a new exciting dimension to games?

Sorry maybe you should jump on the phone to GH and put straight on how to run a club.