Read the article again.



The 3 quotes are the only quotes from Smith and nowhere does he mention Gareth Thomas.

I think people need to calm down a little.

As someone as already said, good humoured chants/songs etc are all perfectly fine and JM will be expecting them. But people spitting bile from the touchline should be punished as they should if they were being foul and abusive to any player.

Wouldnt be a successful week without a big over reaction about something on here

I have read the article. It says that Smith believes that there is a precedent for the Monaghan case and then it goes on to refer to Thomas' case. A precedent is a legal case which forms the basis for future decisions in similar cases. Thomas' case is similar in certain aspects - it concerns abuse - but [u very, very different [/uin others.

In any event, the point here is that RL needs to err on the side of caution, it needs to be a lot more sensitive to issues around sexual orientation. The article can be read in a way that appears to suggest Smith made the comparison, because it uses the word "precedent". I'm sure that if he did refer to Thomas' case it was merely to point out that the RL had a disciplinary procedure in the case of abusive chanting. Whether or not he even mentioned the Thomas case is one issue, but the fact remains that the article suggests the cases were similar without making it clear that the subject matter of the abuse is very different.

I make no apology for the fact that I find homophobia deeply offensive. Given the Thomas episode I would expect senior people within RL to be going out of their way to show that there is no place for bigots in our game. I don't think it unreasonable to ask Wire and Smith to make it clear that the cases of Thomas and Monaghan are very different. It would be very easy for them to issue a short press release.

I have read the article properly.

Your post speaks for itself.

The journalist used the Thomas case as an example of a player recieving abuse. Tony Smith doesn't even mention Gareth Thomas, it's the journo you have an issue with not Tony Smith.

The journalist is saying Smith believes something. That something is that the Thomas case is a precedent. The journalist isn't quoting Smith directly but he is saying what Smith's views are. I can only conclude that you and the others who don't seem to follow this are being deliberately difficult.

Here is the relevant part of the article:

"Smith acknowledges that opposition fans are eagerly awaiting their first glimpse of Monaghan. He is also aware that the Origin star will be subjected to a verbal barrage over his simulated sex act with a dog, but has backed the player and believes there is a precedent he can use to silence abusive fans.

Last June, Castleford Tigers were fined £40,000 ($64,000) after their supporters aimed homophobic abuse at Celtic Crusaders winger Gareth Thomas, who had revealed he was gay. And Smith is more than ready to demand that the league bosses do the same when Super League returns in February."

poor effort.

You should really face up to the fact that you are on the same level as people seeing Jesus in bits of toast. You have had a lot of friendly suggestions to drop it cause you are way off base. But yet you persist in making a tit of yourself.

No clarification is needed from anyone at the Warrington camp. You are trying to make something out of nothing. It is an embarrassing effort.

I think deep down you never thought he was comparing it to Thomas chants. Just leave it.

The precedent is that the RFL have fined a club for their fans making offensive chants. In the GT case it was homophobic chants, but that doesn't mean that is all the RFL will fine clubs for, or that Smith is comparing this to homophobic chants at all. I'm baffled as to how you have come to that conclusion yourself.

Have you really written to the RFL?



FWIW, I can't see that there would be too many offensive chants, as the majority I have seen and heard so far are humorous rather than offensive.

But it is not a precedent.



The cases are not comparable. If Monaghan were black and he was being subjected to racial abuse then the Thomas case might well be a precedent since it also concerns discriminatory abuse.

The only relevance Thomas case can have to Monaghan is to show that the RL has taken action under its procedures against abuse. The circumstances are very different, it simply isn't a precedent.

He has a pair, ask Lassie

No its not, within reason. What exactly is he expecting?

And now the thread on the Wire board has taken a nasty turn. But will the Wire mods take any action?

It hasn't taken a nasty turn at all you utter dullard.... I hinted that maybe due to your interest in this topic you could well be a homosexual.

What's wrong with that?

Nothing. Unless he sees homosexuality as a bad thing and is offended. In which case he is a hypocrite

I'm offended by irrelevant references to sexual orientation (especially when put in the way they were). Why should whether or not I'm gay be an issue?

Strange how this panned out.... He goes activley looking for this subject matter on other forums... And then he thinks things have turned nasty when gently quizzed on his own sexuality...

Deano - it's not an issue if you're gay or not... So kindly stop making it into one.

So only gay people take an interest in these issues? Is that what your saying? Or are you saying I'm over sensitive so I must be gay? Why bring my sexuality into this at all?

I didn't. You did. And it wasn't a gentle quizzing, though even that would have been offensive.

Ban him.

Its possible to be offended by something like that without seeing homosexuality as wrong you know.

He could be offended because he sees it as offensive to use something like that as deragatory. Obviously noone from Wire has the intelligence to understand this.

It's like if someone calls you a "girl" you may be offended but its not because you think that girls are wrong is it?

Just heard on the grapevine that Rolls Royce is going to play St Bernard in the centres against Wire, I'm going to contact the RSPCA

Sounds like slander to me