Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 10:56 am  

More importantly, if Silverwood heard it and thought it serious enough to warrant inclusion in his report why didn't he act upon it?

Either he didn't hear it or he heard what Hardaker said and didn't think it serious enough to punish, like most foul language that's used on the pitch.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 11:13 am  

I do not believe the Leeds response was emotive. It bears the language of a carefully worded legal statement and I feel sure GH took time with legal experts (maybe even a Barrister) before it was made public.

As the RFL had already chosen to make this a public affair with no sense of responsibility for the player who could well be innocent of the allegations the RFL not only scored an embarrassing own goal because they themselves have brought SL into disrepute by raising the media profile of the affair. So it was only fair that Leeds too made a public statement especially as it appears the RFL have been negligent with regard to exposing, a so far uncharged player, to public character assassination by their actions.

In going public before the conclusions of an investigation and without hearing the player's defense of the allegations, they have shown a Politically Correct-like regard for justice and very poor judgement which they have compounded by not following the correct procedure with regard to the referee's report. If the referee has stated he heard what was said (belatedly or not) why did they feel it necessary to publicly call for a lip reader? This would suggest that Silverwood either stated it was not a homophobic comment or that he was not sure but it could have been. Either way he did not regard it important enough to record it in his after match report. So what pressure was put on him to change his report and by whom?

I cannot believe a court would convict just on the word of a lip reader but do the RFL plan to do so? If they do then they leave themselves open to an appeal with other lip readers as expert witnesses and calling the players who were nearby as witnesses in his defense. If they do not charge him they leave themselves open to legal action from Hardaker for compensation.

" Well, here's another nice mess you've gotten me into!"

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 11:22 am  

Gotcha wrote:

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.

If that is true Mr Gotcha that is unbelievable!

I can see this getting VERY nasty.
How can anybody trust the RFL (IF) this is the case ever again.........

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 11:55 am  

THE LAW OF LIBEL.
Broadly speaking the law of libel is broken if somebody or organization makes a statement or remark about somebody that is untrue. This is more serious if that person is in the public eye ,especially so if that persons reputation suffers greatly from the said remarks.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 12:07 pm  

Saddened! wrote:

You are focusing too much on the detail. The reality here, stepping back from the emotion, is that an allegation has been made against a player. It doesn't matter who makes the allegation or how fraudulently it comes about, those are things for the hearing. Leeds should step back from the controvery and release a statement saying 'Leeds are aware of the allegation and will cooperate fully with the investigation. Leeds expect all it's players to represent the values of the club and the sport' or something along those lines, potentially not saying anything at all. Once Hardaker's case is thrown out because of the evidence presented in his defense and a complete lack of evidence against him, the open the barrells at the ref. You don't do it beforehand. Fight for him tooth and nail IN the hearing, but don't lay yourself open to the possibility of being seen as publically supporting a player who has used homophobic abuse.

that would be fine if the RFL had charged hardaker but they havent. Instead the RFL took the conscious decision to release his name to the media as under investigation for homophobic abuse. Thats akin to the police naming a criminal before he has been charged. even then anything should be sub judice. The RFL suggest their panel has a quasi legal function and it should behave as such. They must be worried now about a defamation claim. In fact theres every reason for them to want him to be guilty because if not heads will have to roll. I would be amazed if Leeds and/or Zak didnt escalate this to the Court of arbitration for sport as this has been amateur hour from start to finish and he and the club have a reputation to protect.

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

Superted wrote:

Love how the 'mock outraged' are so worried that the poor homosexual viewers could be offended by what Zak said. However, the only people who could be offended are those that have paused, rewind, played, pause, rewind, played the incident over and over to try any work out what he said - even after replaying the incident several times it's not 100% clear what he said, so why would anybody feel the need to pause, rewind, play (repeat x10) and then be outraged or offended - unless they had an agenda.

In fact you would have to be a gay lip reader to be offended. Im sure there may be some out there but not many

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 12:31 pm  

Where was Silverwood stood when Hardaker said whatever he said?, I don't have the game on sky+ and cant find the tackle and drop out on line.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 12:51 pm  

Zak's reputation has been damaged? Really?

I honestly don't know much about Zak. I haven't seen enough of his play to rate him and I don't really care about what happens off field so I don't know what his indiscretions have been. I saw the fall out from his last "homophobic" insult but as I didn't actually see it I never followed it closely.

But my impression of him from the LEEDS FANS ON HERE is that Zak is pretty much a stupid ****. He's rated as an excellent player but an excellent player who's pretty much the polar opposite of "Sir Kev".

So stop talking about his reputation being in tatters because of what the RFL have done because his reputation is pretty much the same as it was before the Saints game.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 12:59 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Zak's reputation has been damaged? Really?

I honestly don't know much about Zak. I haven't seen enough of his play to rate him and I don't really care about what happens off field so I don't know what his indiscretions have been. I saw the fall out from his last "homophobic" insult but as I didn't actually see it I never followed it closely.

But my impression of him from the LEEDS FANS ON HERE is that Zak is pretty much a stupid ****. He's rated as an excellent player but an excellent player who's pretty much the polar opposite of "Sir Kev".

So stop talking about his reputation being in tatters because of what the RFL have done because his reputation is pretty much the same as it was before the Saints game.

What a ridiculous post. Don't know much about it him, don't see him much, but yet you come out with rubbish like that. Of course his reputation has been questioned, if the press are making him out to be homophobic without proof of it. Once is honest mistakes, twice is always taken more literally by others.

Re: Zak Hardaker - Statement : Thu Sep 04, 2014 1:05 pm  

Lord God Jose Mourinho wrote:

Zak's reputation has been damaged? Really?

I honestly don't know much about Zak. I haven't seen enough of his play to rate him and I don't really care about what happens off field so I don't know what his indiscretions have been. I saw the fall out from his last "homophobic" insult but as I didn't actually see it I never followed it closely.

But my impression of him from the LEEDS FANS ON HERE is that Zak is pretty much a stupid ****. He's rated as an excellent player but an excellent player who's pretty much the polar opposite of "Sir Kev".

So stop talking about his reputation being in tatters because of what the RFL have done because his reputation is pretty much the same as it was before the Saints game.

Good heavens go away and think about your post