Funnily enough though Notts I seem to remember you saying that the game should be looking after the likes of Hardaker and Chase after their off field indiscretions. Hardaker in particular with his drunk driving had potential to cause serious harm.

‘Looking after’ means offering appropriate support, not ignoring their actions. I’m not suggesting we ban players for life for every wrongdoing, but having some kind of system that shows the game doesn’t tolerate criminal behaviour is pretty reasonable, I think.

Chase of course committed no criminal offence whilst playing in SL.

Hardaker was in need of some serious intervention for mental health difficulties.

Gelling, if found guilty, just seems to be a woman-beater.

Warrington suspended Gelling when arrested, but then lifted the suspension a few weeks later, why ?

It’s a tricky situation for clubs, in a couple of different ways.

Firstly, sport is about on-field competition. By suspending their own player, a club is compromising its own competitiveness. Clubs will almost always act in their own best interests on the field.

Secondly, there’s always the concept of ‘innocent until proven guilty’. Why should someone who has not been convicted of anything be prevented from undertaking their job (unless that is incompatible with the offence they are charged with)?



This is why we need some form of regulation in terms of off-field behaviour. Clubs will almost never suspend their own players when they bring the game into disrepute.

If innocent until proven guilty, and the courts are to decide that, then the club should give way to the courts.



But of course if the player concedes wrong doing to the club and consequent sanctions from the club then fair enough.



I can't see an RFL regulation working where the player does not concede wrong doing in the period before the alleged misdemeanour is tried in Court.



Would you rush to suspend a player who denies a charge who could then turn out to be wholly innocent. That suspension would be read by fans as guilty......



Then that Mud sticks....

His case is listed for that date but at the moment he is still a free man, as you put it in another post that he may well get a custodial sentence, but atm I emphasise the word free man because until he is convicted he is just that, he's not locked up on remand which if his crime is that serious that's where he would/should be, it's okay you taproom barristers coming on here with the all this indignation and claiming the moral high ground, wouldn't it be simpler to wait until after the trial and all the facts come to light, just because the CPS have charged him doesn't make him guilty, he wouldn't be the first to walk free from court, so unless you already know the facts which I doubt I not sure you should be discussing it on here, surely it's sensible to wait then if he's found guilty then hopefully he'll get what's coming to him.

An arrest is not a conviction. A suspension may be fair enough pending an in house enquiry by the club where a player may put his hands up. If the enquiry sees Gelling deny the charges then where would you go from there?



Can a club really unilaterally suspend anyone pending a court case, who denies a charge, on the club Directors "opinion" that said player is guilty? To the majority of fans there's no smoke without fire, and in domestic disputes it's often assumed the man is the guilty party.

Good post spoiled by the last sentence mate. What if the other party was lying through her teeth? That OK? Really best to leave this to the courts.

Which is what I said, as for your underlined sentence on my post, If he's innocent he'll walk away a free man, if he's found guilty he'll get the sentence appropriate to the crime or should do, nothing left to say on the matter till the middle of next month then everybody and their dog can have they're 2 penneth.

And nothing at all to balance your opinion in terms of what if the other party were maliciously not telling the truth??.



Again it's best to stick to Rugby matters on here, although given your last post demanding "proof" and "evidence" of all I say then I hold very little hope of that happening......

I don't have an opinion one way or the other,, and I don't do what if's, that's why I said it's best to wait till the trial and all the relevant facts from both sides come out.



I'm not sure what your getting at here, just explain to me where I've demanded proof and evidence and just what is it you hold very little hope of it happening?

Again, what I’ve written is just factual.

I’ve not expressed an opinion on whether he is guilty or not.

I’ve made two points about Gelling:

1. He’s due to stand trial for GBH.

2. If convicted (notice the IF) of the offence he is accused of, he might get a custodial sentence.

Both of these points are facts, not opinions..