Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 4:28 am  

frepneyboy wrote:

So cos Suarez didnt mean it as in a bad way cos in his language its ok, thats ok?

No, I was stating the facts of the case. He admitted saying it thus isn't comparable to the Hardaker incident even though quite a few a Saints fans think it is.

...........................

Has anybody gotten round to designing the "Zak is Innocent" tshirts for Friday yet for us to all wear lol

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 5:00 am  

Saddened! wrote:

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.

Well he came out and said what he had said against Warrington before the hearing. Unlike the ref, the kid isn't a liar. If he said it he will say it.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 5:51 am  

http://www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... c-comments There you go Saddened. Hardaker last time admitted pre verdict to using the language so not just a case of he'll never admit it.

http://www1.skysports.com/rugby-league/ ... c-comments There you go Saddened. Hardaker last time admitted pre verdict to using the language so not just a case of he'll never admit it.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 6:19 am  

I think the employment of the lip reader points to the fact there is little evidence other than the video. If no one heard it on the pitch, then I don't see how someone can be offended by what they think they see someone saying when lip reading on tv.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 6:57 am  

One scenario not put out there, could Flanagan have called Haraker a puff for complaining about the leg twist and Haraker repeated the taunt i.e don't call me that

That is, indeed if that word was said in the first place

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 7:07 am  

I do find it amusing how many fans are coming on here telling GH how he should run the Club in response to this = GH by Plenty!

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 7:12 am  

Haven't seen anyone mention that the Canal siders Gay RL Club where Zak worked during his ban have been very vocal on twitter in their support for him!

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 8:04 am  

Lip reading would seem shaky evidence, of anything http://badlipreading.tumblr.com/

Lip reading would seem shaky evidence, of anything http://badlipreading.tumblr.com/

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 8:26 am  

None of you can separate the swearing from the homophobic language.

We all know people swear, F's & B's & C's aren’t nice or clever, we have a wonderful English language and people should be able to articulate themselves in a better way.

However, insults directed using homophobic language is not on, its on a par with racism, which is illegal.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 8:38 am  

frepneyboy wrote:

None of you can separate the swearing from the homophobic language.

We all know people swear, F's & B's & C's aren’t nice or clever, we have a wonderful English language and people should be able to articulate themselves in a better way.

However, insults directed using homophobic language is not on, its on a par with racism, which is illegal.

And you don't seem to be able to separate between someone not using such language, and someone using it.

The word on the street now is that Silverwood is extremely pished at the RFL. Apparently he did see no need for further comment on Friday night, as he did not hear anything homophobic. When pressed by the RFL over the weekend he then agreed he had heard something, but still nothing homophobic, to which he was instructed to put it in the report. Hence why Silverwood said yesterday there is two sides to every story and don't believe everything said, and why Leeds have concentrated their criticism on the RFL and the procedures.

Would appear the RFL were indeed looking for something not there, due to the uproar on social media.