I know Slater has a bit of a "grubbish" (to use the Aussie slang) reputation, but what exactly did he do wrong in this case? He pulled out of the challenge on Perrett then got pushed by Inu which started the whole incident. I'm guessing Graham thought Slater had gone in with the knees, but why he felt the need to pound across to go at Slater I don't know. It's not like he was having a go at one of their enforcers like he has done in the past (like Burgess and King).

Foolish to put himself in the situation, and it certainly looks like it could have been a bite, but I can't recall Graham having that in his character. He's certainly got fired up with backs in the past (see Lee Briers in 2009 I think), but don't think he's been one to go down that kind of route. Brain explosion of epic proportions if he's found guilty.

You mean a kangaroo court? Tee hee.

I tend to still believe Graham that he didn't bite him. But then how bad is Slater if he is standing by a lie.

I think Slater next season could be in the hands of the Rugby Gods.

Anyone that honestly believes James Graham is innocent should have a serious word with themselves. Never a more obvious case of biting will you ever see. I'm glad he was banned - shame it wasn't for longer. We don't need to see stuff like that in our game.

Where is there evidence of Graham in the act of biting Slater, go on show us? If a respected professional refutes the damage to Slaters ear being done by a bite yet the NRL big wigs in their (inexpert) opinion just say we don't beleive the expert how does that make anything 'obvious' then?
All that think the evidence is clear cut (which it is far and away not) need to have a serous word with yourselves.

He was found guilty by a Panel of ex-players, they did not ban him because they don't like him or because he is English, they banned him because the photo evidence and probability of his head near Slaters Ear and then Slater getting up with a bleeding Ear calling a bite charge had enough about it to convict him.