You can’t be wrong for having an opinion, that’s called disagreeing

Whilst you may not agree with my thought process you can’t label it as wrong. Unless you are the person making the decision on his future , and I’m guessing you’re not .

I disagree then.

Why is it hypocritical? What did Ben Barba do at saints that required them to “support him” ?

I’m really glad you condone the behaviour of that absolute wrong un you have playing for you. You are just as classless as tin pot club you support

This is how Rugby League works. Joe Burgess breaks disciplinary rules at Salford. Salford sack him. Hull KR sign him with a clean sheet.
What is the point of that? Already Ben Barba has been discussed and his sins were washed away by Saints, and nobody cared as long as he was the star on the field.
Zak fell out with Wigan because they wanted him to move to the Wigan area it was not about the distance to travel to work, which is why it was ok when he signed for Leigh. He needs educating not punishing, and besides Leigh would be worse off without him.

The last line of your comment was exactly what I was alluding to in my post .
If we had cover , and by cover quality cover would we have run the risk of the negative response to undo all the good work we have done in removing the stigma of a poorly run club.

No it wasn't.

i think Hardaker's problem is Pontefract and his close circle of friends
At Wigan we took him following his drug ban, and before he'd kicked a ball in anger he'd been done for drink driving. we stood by him (rehab) etc and he moved to Wigan initially. He moved back once his girlfriend / wife had a child as she wanted to be closer to family, and then that's when the problems started again

I dont think Leigh have a cat in hells chance of sorting this guy out (and that's no dig at Leigh) if he stays in Ponte. He's in the wrong place and most likely with the wrong people to be able to get him to clean up his act

He must have almost blown his 9 lives now too. He's been given chances at 2 of the biggest clubs in the game, and then Cas and Leigh have also thrown him big lifelines before he threw them back in your faces

So, Zak thought he was being carjacked only to find out it was the police in an unmarked car who only decided to turn their flashing lights on when it got to high speeds. I'm not condoning Zaks behaviour but, the police could've done better, and this was a mitigating factor in his sentencing.

I mean, whichever way you want to paint it, Zak is the only one truly at fault here.

Zak must have been driving dangerously or giving indications of him being over the limit for the police to follow him at all. Then he decided to speed off at speeds of at least 70mph (police claiming they had to drive at 88mph to keep up, so take from that what you will) through a residential area, putting innocent people at risk of losing their life, in an attempt to flee a scenario that he had created in his own head all this while over the legal limit.

His defence claimed that he had "miscalculated" his alcohol consumption over the course of the evening. If you was somebody who already had a previous offense of drink driving (and had already attended a rehab course previously that Wigan sent him on), would you even attempt to calculate how much drink you could have and still be able to drive? I would expect that person be like any other normal, rational thinking individual and not attempt to drive at all when they have even took a sip.

A quote also from the St Helens Star "His solicitor conceded Hardaker may be unable to continue his career at the Challenge Cup holders due to losing his licence, and his position as a role model has been destroyed."

Sounds like he may now use this as a way to wriggle out of his Leigh contract, and to be fair i imagine it is now going to be difficult for him to travel for training etc. from Ponte to Leigh.

AFAIK - The club are supporting him. Settle down owd lad.

Which is an appalling decision.

He's got zero respect for anyone.

After his history he make the conscious decision to drink drive. He still went out and had a skinful and drove. After his previous offences. He still didn't book a taxi or be the designated driver. He put his own, his mate who he allegedly dropped off, the Police and the general public at danger. All because of his actions.

The man has a history of making pathetic choices that effect so many more people than himself. Unfortunately the only way he's going to learn is to lose everything. However, yet another arm around poor Zac and Bob's your uncle he'll be done for Coke next.

How he continues to take everything for granted after ALL of things he's done astounds me.

I'm looking forward to another "im more mature now" statement to make everything better...

No one is condoning what Zak has done. Folk should be reminded that an awful lot of more serious incidents are vindicated these days, and it seems to give a licence to certain folk to act with impunity. Just back off.

Apparently he 'miscalculated his drinks that night'. Counting beyond one can be challenging for some, give him a break.

Cokey, if Zak was doing all this at another club you'd let rip and be saying they should tear up his contract, his carjacking claim is the equivalent of the dog eating his homework. How many more chances does he get? Plenty of mitigation when the players talented and plays for your club right. Oh no driving at 80 in a residential area never killed anyone.

[uNo i wouldn't, and i never did before either.[/u I will repeat myself once more for those who aren't listening; No one is condoning what he's done, and he's been a very silly naughty boy. Whether his claim of carjacking is true or not, that's what was said in court. Also why did the unmarked police car not flash it's lights before setting off on a speed chase first? Folk can make their own minds up, but it seems his previous clubs fans are all over this like a rash.

So, weve tales of 'miscalculated drinks' and fear of carjacking as well as his long line of previous discretions. You want to believe him because of the shirt he wears, anyone with a functional frontal lobe isn't buying any of it.

Are you thick? Show me where i have said i believe, or condone any part what he has done? I am only reporting what has happened, and what's been been said in court, and the club are supporting him going forward. If you're not happy with this situation........Tough $hit.

Ok cokey, putting the unnecessary personal insults aside, your messages seemed to do a good job of portraying someone who; thinks the club are right to support him/keep him in the squad and thinks his tales are believable. I'm sorry if I misinterpreted.

For clarity then, do you believe his 'excuses'?

Most rational people can't put themselves into the minds of addicts and their grossly irresponsible behaviour.

You'd hope Zak might have chilled out for the sake of his youngest if nothing else but this appears not to be the case.

Leigh have always done well with the previous members that had "history" given the statement it would appear the intent is not to fail anyone.

If he can't bunk up at Josh's house then he's going to have to get the train or national express.

In fact his life seems to mirror the service you get from transpennine

So cokey is basically saying it’s the fault of the police lol

You are asking me whether i believe (what you call excuses) that what has been sworn upon,and then what determined the outcome in court. I haven't seen where the judge has deemed Zak's statement on the incident to be an excuse.

So..........

For clarity, are they excuses? If so, could you please provide proof of this?

Once again i don't condone any part of what he's done but, I don't, unlike some who would want him sine die.

Ill take that as you do believe him then, which kind of renders your previous rant as pointless. He miscalculated his drinks and thought he was going to be carjacked, hardly things you can disprove as theyre going on entirely between his ears but if youre not 'thick', sound like an addict (for which i am empathetic) grasping for some sort of fictional rationale, i dont care where he said it, its BS.

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?