Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 8:25 pm  

Gotcha wrote:

Not thought about it before, but just seen mentioned elsewhere.

IF Silverwood really did see or hear anything then surely it would be on his ref cam recording. If not, then surely this shows him up for the liar it now appears he is.

It may depend on when somebody has had the bright idea to listen to the recording (if it is recorded). That's assuming that ref cam records audio.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 8:25 pm  

El Diablo wrote:

Isn't the ref cam just a camera? He was wearing a microphone, but one set up to hear him, not necessarily to pick up what happens in the background.

I think that might be a bit of a red herring.

It was ref cam that was used for the incident at Warrington. So no, it is more than a camera.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 8:43 pm  

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

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 8:44 pm  

Fat Boy wrote:

... oh and while I think on, Jonathan Ross' house band were called Four Puffs and a piano. Do you think ITV would air a show with the house band being called Four N*ggers and a piano?

Gay men really don't mind being called puffs, well the ones I know don't at least.

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.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 8:50 pm  

Nickcollier68 wrote:

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

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.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 8:55 pm  

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?

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 8:58 pm  

Nickcollier68 wrote:

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

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.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 9:04 pm  

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.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 9:14 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

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.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Wed Sep 03, 2014 9:19 pm  

ThePrinter wrote:

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