The Leeds fans are reminding me very much of the majority of Liverpool fans during the Suarez/Evra episode (although hopefully the Leeds club has more class than to have the players wear special shirts in support of him in advance of any outcome!)

There's even a thread on their board with a load of them talking about giving up on RL if he's found guilty. Think about that - if one of their players is twice found guilty of homophobic abuse in live tv, they will give up watching RL rather than say "perhaps he should know better after the first ban". Incredible.

Thanks for your worthwhile contribution to this thread which just consist of a homophobic stereotype.

I agree some Leeds fans have gone too far with Thierry I give up on the sport line. If he's found guilty based on something more than lip reading an unclear word then fair do's.

But let's not pretend for every Leeds fan their has been more opposition fans who have already determined guilt and had him hung drawn and quartered already in their minds.

Leeds fans shouldn't back him to the hill until we have a decision.
But neither should others be so nailed on with his guilt already.

No idea what definition of "race" the RFL works to, but the legal definition of race definitely covers national origin. If you sack someone for being Australian, call them a "pommie idiot" at work, refuse service because they are Irish etc you could sued for race discrimination and you would lose. Consistency would seem to me to require an insult based on nationality to be treated in the same way as any other, but as I say, no idea what the RFL rules say on this. You're right about different counties though.

I can read fine. It is you who is too arrogant to provide cohesive words that seem to hint at unsavoury principles.

Anyone who offers a crumb of support to Hardaker really doesn't deserve a right to reply.

I can read fine. It is you who is too arrogant to provide cohesive words that seem to hint at unsavoury principles.

Anyone who offers a crumb of support to Hardaker really doesn't deserve a right to reply.

how's the view up there on your high horse?

This idiot was claiming Hardaker couldn't tackle last season, despite his defence being excellent.

Just ignore him. He was happy to support the likes of Jon Clarke and Chris Bridge, who've both previously been charged with assault, with at least one of them doing a stretch in prison.

Absolutely no club bias shown whatsoever.

You are doing a very good job of convincing me otherwise.

Why would i want to do that in the first place?

What you've said is ridiculous. Offering support to Hardaker doesn't mean you condone using homophobic language. I've seen the footage numerous times now and believe the word Zak used was "prick". Unless some evidence is produced proving that this is wrong I will continue to support him. If you have such evidence, by all means disclose it. If not, Zak should be considered innocent until someone else has proved him guilty.

Do people really go on about it.

I've made a couple of posts on it, but far less than on the likelihood of Wheeler ever wearing a Saints shirt again.
However the Wheeler conundrum only really interests us Saints fans, were as Hardaker appearing to say something similiar to what he got a ban for previously on TV will obviously attract interest from more than just Leeds fans.

Those posting the case for the defense have been far more frequent on this and other threads than any odd poster who may assume he said something else. So it's not people having a go, it's the odd post here or there, but some feel the need to respond to each and every one of those. If people just stated their opinion and did not feel the need to take on each and every poster whose view runs counter to their own the threads would have been half their size.

But to put it into perspective, look at the size of the Widnes thread. Far more interest from a far wider range of fans. And it was not everyone having a pop at Widnes.

[url=http://www.therhinos.co.uk/news/23751.php#.VAce6vldWOQRhinos backing Hardaker[/url and righty so if that info about the ref is true.

At least "incongruent" is a word, even if one previously only used by chemists



Having just looked at the Vine, from what little can be seen, it doesn't look like he says "puff" to me, for whatever that may be worth.

I am though wondering why, in the lengthy statement he made, Hetherington complains bitterly about the process, but doesn't actually deny that Hardaker used homophobic language.

What with all the talk of which-hunts & the RFL employing lip readers, it’s like the petty spats on here have crossed over into the real world

.

Normally Leeds do things correctly, but them calling this a witch hunt may not look great if he is found guilty. As it has been Silverwood that has put in the referees report he heard something, is he suggesting Silverwood has it in for Hardaker??

To be fair Leeds are stuck between a rock and a hard place. They have a duty of care towards Hardaker and should stand by him, but at the same time they're a community club and have to take a tough stance against homophobic/racist/sexist abuse.

Here's a question.....

IF the referee says he heard it.....why would you then need a lip reader?

Since when wasn't the refs report and claims not enough to see someone banned?

I can't recall the James Child case requiring a lip reader, his claim that he heard Hardaker was enough last time, why isn't it this time?

Using a lip reader is/has been 100% completely not needed IF the ref has said he's heard foul and abusive language.

Admittance that they're using a lip reader blows apart the claim that Silverwood heard it.

Or he said that he *thought* he might have heard it but can't be 100% sure?

Was Silverwood near enough to hear it?

First off, its only Leeds claiming a lip reader is being used, it may have been said in the same manner that this is a "witch hunt".

Secondly, it may of been the case that after the last time this happened the rfl deemed it a good investment for future cases in similar circumstances ... not thinking it would be the same player 3 months down the line.

Finally, as a player you can barely remember a match blow by blow and I'd imagine its even worse than as a ref. If he thinks he heard it, but didnt focus on it at the time (too busy stopping a fight breaking out between lms and hardaker), in the same way child did, thinking it was refering to him, it can easuily fall to the back of the mind, only to be brought back up when concentrating on the match report. If the supposed lip reader supports Silverwoods claim, it hardly "blows apart" Silverwoods claim.

Rightly or wrongly, it dont look good for Hardaker ...

dp

Trial by lip reader, maybe someone could get a full time gig at Red Hall

.

After watching the game last week, the most excruciating part for me was the chanting regarding Silverwood’s masturbatory habits.

Maybe he went home & watched his stellar performance but on hearing the South Stand Harpies decided to stick the knife in on poor old Zac.

No I don't buy the "it falls to the back of their mind" reason, that's extremely weak.

The same weekend as the first Hardaker incident, Mick Weyman of HKR was sent off for using foul language towards the referee. He was charged on Monday as usual and banned on Tuesday, the game took place on Sunday so only 48 hours turnaround.

The Leeds game was the Thursday night game and even though Child 'heard it' it took 13 more days until Hardaker was banned? Why the holdup if the ref said he used that language then that's it.

Again Silverwood is saying Hardaker said it.....fine ban him.....what's stopping them, since when wasn't the report and word of a referee not enough?

which would indicate nobody actually heard it. Because nobody heard it on TV, Flanagan didnt hear it, Silverwood didnt hear it clearly enough to be sure, and Hardaker denies he said it.

Considering lip readers will tell you only about 30% of sounds in the english language are distinguishable by sight we now have an investigation into a player possibly saying something he denies saying, something that nobody heard, and that nobody can be sure they saw.

If what Leeds have said is true, the RFL have made a huge error in publicly accusing a player of something with only tenuous evidence to start with. Not only because it makes them look incompetent and sets people against them, but such accusations are often entirely counter-productive to what is actually intended to be achieved.

Seriously? You think they'd make a public statement over something so serious and make things up?




So he thinks he heard something but can't remember? Sounds about right

Yes I have never heard that chant on live telly before other than at Leeds. It's never happened anywhere else before.