Either a liar or misheard, who can tell for certainty.

He's not on trial in a criminal court. The burden of proof in civil law - on the balance of probabilities - would apply instead. They have considered testimony of everyone involved and concluded on balance that he said what he's accused of saying.

Hence why I said the case is as water tight as a colander and went onto say it would be thrown out of a court. The decision has been decided on who they believe the most rather than on evidence of which there is none. I will repeat once again I'm not saying Maguire is innocent, I'm saying there is no evidence to say he's guilty and we work on the principle that we are innocent until proven guilty. As I want Maguire gone as I am far from impressed by his performance on the field and the fact he takes up a quota spot and lots of dosh in suits me that we have a reason to get rid but the case against him is bollox.

Rugby league has gone woke

12 games for hurty words.

Get a grip.

Not true. The tribunal uses a burden higher than “balance of probabilities” but below the criminal burden “beyond a reasonable doubt” however thy specifically refer to using the higher burden in this particular case.

It wasn't a trial, it was a hearing under RFL Operational Rules. The crux of the matter being that Charnley was more of an "impressive and credible witness" than McGuire was. We can only speculate as to how they arrived at this conclusion, that tipped the balance of probabilities towards Charnley's claim. What we do know is that McGuire has already been charged with the same offence, after the preseason match with Leigh that was, IIRC, witnessed by match officials Marcus Griffiths. Amone of Leigh was cleared of a similar charge made against him, as only McGuire made an official allegation. Matt Dufty witnessed the comments made by Amone, but didn't want to make an official allegation after the match had finished.

I'm not defending McGuire, but he seems to have been treated unfairly in comparison to Amone. The club have now little option but to terminate McGuire's contract.

You're being willfully ignorant of the situational use of the word (not that using it any context is good). For what possible reason would McGuire have to say the word to Charnley during a rugby game other than to be mean spirited and get a reaction. Which if he wants to wind Charnley up then go for it. But don't use someones child to do so. Under any circumstances.

Firing McGuire might be easier said than done, because it would leave them open to legal action from him IF he decided to fight the disciplinary verdict in a higher court (and let's face it, that evidence wouldn't stand up to much scrutiny in court).

Interesting thought, and in a court of law, the evidence would be viewed very differently.

He wont take it to court

He's been found guilty

He's not really been great since he joined

Bin him if we can, let him train with the reserves if we can't.

Peanut to 2nd Row, King recalled and back at 3.............

The only way we can fire him is through a mutual termination. Do it without and he has every right to sue, if he (or, more importantly, a lawyer) truly believes he can win a case in a higher court.

Probably would have a double whammy of suing the RFL for restraint of trade and Wire for unfair dismissal.

This forum has a surprising amount of lawyers on it
Not only lawyers, but lawyers with detailed knowledge of individual players contracts.