The NRL has allegedly received an official complaint following an embarrassing error during Monday night’s Spencer Leniu hearing, where the judiciary counsel referred to the Roosters prop as ‘Spencer Luai’ and mistakenly stated he played for Tonga instead of Samoa. According to reports from The Sydney Morning Herald, the Roosters have conveyed their disappointment regarding the incident to the NRL. Lachlan Gyles SC, who made these errors during his opening statement at the high-profile racism hearing, has apologized for the mistakes, as per the report. Gyles repeatedly referred to the 23-year-old front-rower as ‘Spencer Luai,’ likely confusing him with Leniu’s former Panthers teammate, Jarome Luai. Gyles’ errors were identified and corrected during the hearing by NRL judiciary chairman Geoff Bellew SC. News.com.au has sought comment from the NRL regarding the incident.
Despite these initial errors, extensive evidence was presented before Leniu was handed an eight-week suspension for directing a racially insensitive remark towards Brisbane’s Ezra Mam. However, the Roosters maintain that Spencer Leniu is not a racist. Leniu reiterated during the hearing that he did not perceive the comment as racially motivated, though the NRL imposed a substantial ban, marking the most significant hearing since Billy Slater’s case six years ago during grand final week.
Roosters CEO Joe Kelly stated, “We accept the eight-week suspension, but we firmly believe that Spencer is not racist.” The club asserts that Leniu did not use the word in question in a racially derogatory manner. The incident has sparked widespread discussion within the rugby league community, with current players rallying behind Mam and advocating for a significant suspension, as the incident left him distraught and unable to concentrate on the game’s final minutes.
Leniu acknowledged making the comment but insisted it was not racially motivated, citing past experiences of being called derogatory names without taking offense. He expressed remorse, acknowledging the impact of his words and stating that he was unaware of their significance. Leniu learned the offensiveness of the term the following day and expressed a desire to apologize to Mam in person.
During the hearing, NRL counsel Lachlan Gyles referenced previous incidents of racial abuse and accused Leniu of being dishonest about his awareness of the term’s offensiveness. Gyles argued for an eight-match suspension, citing the significant impact on Mam and his family. Leniu’s defense counsel, James McLeod, argued for a lesser suspension, emphasizing his client’s remorse and lack of racial intent. After deliberation, the panel decided on an eight-match suspension, categorizing the conduct as medium-level contrary behavior, acknowledging Leniu’s mistake but concluding it was not racially motivated.
