How do you know he was telling lies when he claimed it was aimed at Monaghan? Child THOUGHT it was aimed at him (obviously why he took no action at the time

) it still isn't conclusive that it was, it was just opined that it was.

That may be. Workplace disciplinary panels for that sort of offence are usually more complicated than people on the internet would have you believe, and I didn't really follow that one closely enough to comment. I might ponder (as I did at the time) whether a more productive punishment for that offence would indeed have been an education/awareness raising thing (I think there's a lot of judgment involved in that kind of decision that I wasn't party to the discussions I'd need to be party to in order to make it). I am not convinced that having gone down that route, enough was done with it. I still have a sense that an opportunity may have been missed to chip away at a fairly pernicious social problem. Which I usually feel is more helpful than heavy-handed punitive measures against the only person you manage to catch for it. My experience is, admittedly, in anti-racism rather than anti-homophobia, but I find the parallels are many.

None of which alters in any way my view that, in the current case, guilt has to be established before it's sensible to talk about punishment.

Say no to drugs, folks.

Are you registered as Intellectually Challenged?

Careful! I'm sure someone will be offended, somewhere.

No. I'm not from hull

Of course we should follow the process in determining guilt or innocence and my view that he should be dismissed, of course, follows from my suspicion as I stated that he once again did use this sort of language. The process of weighing the evidence and allowing Hardaker to defend himself is important. It may be found that the charges are not proven or not even brought forward.

But Leeds's complaint is not about that part of the process, which has not yet or barely begun. Leeds seem to be complaining about the way that evidence is being assembled. Save for what Silverwood and Flanagan and anyone else on the pitch have to say the only primary evidence of import is the footage. Silverwood is a dick and not a reliable witness, but the footage is key. Who cares how the issue was first raised officially? It was being commented on before the game had even finished - I got a text at 9.31pm about it, seconds after it happened.

But back to Hardaker's future. We know that, last November, he was given a written warning and a £2,500 fine by the club. Then in May he made his remarks at Warrington and was found guilty by the RFL. I have to assume that there was a parallel internal disciplinary process for comments made during the course of his job that would be considered outrageous in any normal work environment. If he was already on a written warning from November then, at best, he should now be on a final warning unless Leeds for whatever reason decided that he was innocent or that the external punishment meant no internal action was required.

If the latter was the case it would, in my judgement, have been unwise. A Rugby League pitch is not a normal work environment. But it is still a work environment and not a social one. Leeds have already made their minds up, it seems, on this most recent incident. So Hardaker will stay, regardless of what happens next from the RFL. I wonder if office staff or Academy players would get the same kind of leeway.

Yep. Sack him and every single super league and most Aussie clubs would sign him for free, but at least Leeds could take the moral high ground

Is this post serious or a joke?

I think it is just trolling but signed in under wrong alias. The posts from him and William are exactly why the RFL made a huge mistake in what they did. Internet trolling goes too far.

Well said - these guys are in a war every week and as the saying goes all's fair in love and war. If Hardaker had called Flannagan a Cuckold would that created the same uproar or is just homosexuals who are afforded special treatment due to their lifestyle choice?

If we go on like this the government will be making it compulsory

If he was he would be on the same register as you!!

Sal,

When did you make your lifestyle choice to become straight?

Which brand choice of straight did you choose? Cro-Magnon? Neanderthal? A mixture of both perhaps?

And what special treatment do you believe you are missing out on as a consequence of your aforementioned lifestyle choice?

I find it strange that a guy is trying to take a moral high ground on others, where over the years he has posted many controversial things, including his anti Semitism stance a few years back, just under a different alias. Were there calls for his sacking also?

There are, at best, half a dozen pieces of evidence in this case: first and foremost the video; the referees report; and the testimonies of Zak and those around him. That's all there is, and if after nearly two weeks of looking at evidence that could have been compiled in two hours and reviewed in twenty minutes they are still unable to reach a decision then for me the RFL are only proving their own incompetence.

I'm of the opinion that this delay is actually prejudicing the Rhinos chances. We're having to plan for play offs not knowing what our squad will be. If he's found guilty, however they come to that conclusion, and they were to hit him with the same five game ban he would now miss the Grand Final (should we make it) whereas had they come to that conclusion in a timely fashion he would have been available. If I were GH, then unless Zak himself admitted it or the RFL provided irrefutable proof (which seems highly unlikely as no one on this thread has been able to provide anything of the sort) then any guilty verdict would be challenged to the furthest degree possible.


One more thing, you can't go foguilty on balance of probability because if you did you'd have to say he didn't do it -I've seen Zak swear dozens of times on TV and only once was it followed by anything homophobic.

The people who are insisting this isn't a witch hunt do keep upping the ante. Banning isn't enough, sack him. What next? Burning at the stake?

If Hardaker denies the charge then it should be dismissed. Unless there is some secret recording somewhere (which would make you question such a delay) then there clearly isnt anywhere near enough evidence to find him guilty.

Lip reading is notoriously difficult, especially outside of context. It is clear that Silverwoods evidence is at best tainted (even if not by him) and the only other witness has taken Hardakers side.

I think the RFL need to reexamine their procedures here too because this long delay since confirming the investigation has left a cloud hanging over a (possibly) innocent player for weeks before we even hear of a charge. Why? what benefit is there to the time they are taking? What evidence do they have no that they wouldnt have had immediately after the game?

as we have seen on this thread (and others) as an exercise in making the game more welcoming the RFL have fsked it up so much as to be entirely counterproductive.

Oh, the irony. A poster so full of his outraged indignation at the alleged use of the word "puff" describes an official as "a dick"

A tad homophobic perhaps?

How so?

What was Reg Gasnier's nickname?

Wasn't he a player whose playing career spanned an era when homosexuality was deemed a criminal offence subject to imprisonment and medical experimentation as the cure?

Society has moved on since then.

Jeff - so if Zac had called Flannagan an ugly/ginger b@stard would that also constitute an hereditary slur? - that is if you believe homosexuality is genetic.

Here we enter some grey areas don't we?

If he called him an ugly b*****d then we have two bits to look at. The ugliness is inherently subjective, so I guess you could make a case that it is different from racial or homophobic slurring. For me, I would be happy for this just to be normal abuse of the kind that happens on sports pitches. The idea is simply to insult your target, and it is unlikely that anyone else would feel terribly offended by it. Room for debate. You could also have an exciting philosophical debate about use of the word "b*stard" as a pejorative, but I think most language scholars would tell you that the original meaning has been lost long ago, and indeed much of the stigma removed form such circumstances anyway. So this again would go down as generic insult. Which of course is not very nice, but I don't think you'd find many advocates for players being punished for being a bit mean to each other. At least I hope you wouldn't.

Ginger is different again. It is something people are born with, and as such its use as a pejorative term might well offend some people. There is, however, room (in my opinion) for a difference in how severe we perceive that offence to be. I don't know of any instance where people have suffered genuine social exclusion, or been denied access to basic rights, because of their ginger hair.

I would still think that it's one well worth steering clear of in public though.

I think the "nature vs nurture" debate might be a bit much for me this morning.

This is one of the issues of dealing with the PC brigade - everything is black and white - no 50 shades of grey!!

I've never read 50 Shades of Grey.

I hear it's a bit, you know, rude.

What's that New York rap music executive called?

Or that well know breakfast cereal?