If the RFL have to prove it and if their previous 'evidence' is all they have then I don't think they can.



The question that needs answering is does Mick have to prove his innocence or do the RFL have to prove his guilt?

This is the RFL we are talking about. What do you think will happen?



My money is on an increase to 3 matches, and he has to be locked in a room with Michael Gove for 4 months.

If he gets off, it will be like OJ Simpson all over again

Why will it?

The RFL can't prove it and they have unintentionally admitted as much themselves. (He apparently said it in the referees personal space according to the disciplinary panel yet the working mic didn't pick it up which surely disproves he said it where they said he did). It would be an open and shut 'not guilty' case anywhere but in red hall.



This is why I asked the question does the player have to prove innocence or do the RFL have to prove guilt?

It does not matter a jot if the RFL want to ban him they will, come on you know any team from hull cop for it don't they

Or this:

[urlhttp://www.therfl.co.uk/the-rfl/disciplinary/item?1442[/url

Not if they can't and that is the point.

Appeal successful, ban overturned

O J Weyman!

Some good news at last!!!

Hahaha..stick that up yer nose RFL, glad he got off, it also sets a precedence for having to PROVE guilt rather than making a stupid assumption of such on one person's say so.

Still, there's a long way to go to get the disciplinary fit for purpose.

WELL the RFL has got balls after all maybe just maybe they might start to get their act together but I doubt it