You just had to put that in didn’t you?
What a tool of a comment.

Plus the ref never confirmed he heard McGuire the first time, he ‘thought’ he heard it.

Careful, or you might get a two week ban duckie and we wouldn't want that.

It's true isn't it? You'd think there would have been a thorough discussion and plan going in. It seems the approach was ill advised at best and that does reflect on the club as well as the individual.

Actually agree with this. Call me cynical, but it's almost like Wire want McGuire gone the way they appear to have failed to support the player's defence, because if they had prepared a good defence, with a good legal team, then that charge against him wouldn't have lasted 5 minutes.

No it’s not true
The club was not in cahoots being dirigible for McGuire to have freedom to be derogatory to any player.
That’s 2 pathetic comments.
If I’m boarding on a 2 week mod holiday as you imply….you’re closer to a 12 week McGuire vacation!!

I never resort to name calling, not sure why my posts get such a reaction. The club must have been in cahoots as it was their representatives defending him and cross-examining Charnley. If the club feels he's innocent, they could have done better, put it that way. If they don't, there's better ways to deal with that too. There's nothing sensational in saying that.

Interesting that the Tribunal accepted the word of Charnley over Maguire for a number of reasons given there was no supportive evidence. 1) Although not the criminal burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt now more often stated as “must be satisfied so that you are sure�) that is the test the tribunal said it used. While it is possible to find someone guilty on the word of 1 witness the witness has to be truly compelling.
2)The Tribunal said that Charnley was convincing given his reaction at the time and could therefore not have mis heard. In fact if Charnley had genuinely mis heard his reaction would have been the same.
3) I wonder to what extent Maguires’ previous influenced the decision. The Tribunal will have known of his last offence even if it was not “officially� before them. In criminal proceedings eg jury trial the jury can only be told of “previous� in specific circumstances. one of those is where the Defendant asserts his good character, which seemingly Maguire did “I would never use those words�. That leads me to
4) Charnley’s “character�. This is a man who has for years cheated/attempted to cheat with that ridiculous “trapping� manoeuvre.
Having said all that and picking up on a point made by Saddened. The evidence that is given at the hearing is not something that is in the hands of the club. In fact witnesses are not allowed to be coached but they can be “rehearsed a fine but significant distinction. The bottom line is however that Maguire seems to be thicker than a doorstep sandwich.
In fact trying to compare Saints appeal success against Maguires’ appearance is a false equivalence. Their appeals have been where there is video evidence which is able to be studied and analysed. This obviously was not the case, had there been I have no doubt that lip readers would have been utilised. So on this occasion, surprisingly, Saddend’s dig at the club is unwarranted.
Finally WHETHER he appeals will tell us a lot about how strongly he feels and what assessment was made by the lawyers involved as to what happened at the Tribunal and the likelihood of success.

From the disciplinary tribunal minutes ...

The referee’s report states the following:

In the 71st minute of the game, Warrington Wolves number 11 Ben Currie scored a try. After the try was awarded numerous players from both sides came together exchanging insults. At this point I witnessed Warrington Wolves number 13 Josh McGuire use unacceptable language relating to disability. He was then dismissed from the field.

• The Match Review Panel see no reason to disbelieve the referee.

• Mr Griffiths is clear that he says he witnesses Mr McGuire say the words

Wanderer, wasn't this the first offence?

Yes, it's a response to the comment quoted about 'the first time' which I read to be the previous incident (especially in view of the quoted post it followed).