KEY POINTS:
Warriors chief executive Wayne Scurrah said last night that justice had not been served by the NRL in its handling of a contrary-conduct charge against fullback Wade McKinnon.
McKinnon, suspended for three matches by the judiciary on a charge of spitting at an official, was last night denied
leave to appeal by judiciary chairman Judge Greg Woods.
In his judgment, the judge said the verdict was not unreasonable and not insupportable on the evidence.
Said Scurrah: "We find it very difficult to accept that.
"There were a number of inconsistencies presented in the evidence against Wade and certainly no clear evidence he intentionally spat at the touch judge.
"It's our belief that Wade has been poorly treated throughout this process, ever since Brett Suttor accused Wade of spitting at him.
"However, we realise the NRL's judicial process has now played out and we have no choice but to accept the suspension and move on."
McKinnon said he was devastated but would turn his attention to giving his total support to his teammates in their efforts to win their final regular-season match against Parramatta tomorrow night.
"I'm shattered about this. I didn't spit at or even near the touch judge. I wouldn't do that," he said.
"But I have to get past it. I have no choice. All I want now is for the boys to get the job done against the Eels."
Scurrah said that while tomorrow night's match was the critical focus, the club couldn't move on from the outcome of the McKinnon case without comment.
"While we believe in the sanctity of match officials and fully endorse efforts to protect them, in this case we absolutely support Wade in his contention that he did not spit at the touch judge. That position has not changed and it won't change.
"In our opinion and that of our legal representative Geoff Bellew, the decision to find Wade guilty was reached on inconclusive evidence and that's why we expected to be granted an appeal.
"We note that last night the NRL's counsel Peter Kite urged the judiciary to impose a suspension of between nine and 11 weeks, describing the offence as reprehensible.
"If that's the case, why then did the panel suspend Wade for only three matches? It's our opinion that, in light of that sentence, the judiciary members were anything but convinced.
"This case has been given extraordinary coverage in the media since Sunday, to the point Wade had been tried and found guilty before we even had a chance to present our case at the hearing."
- NZ HERALD STAFF