"I think the process is fundamentally flawed," said Hughes.
"If the game was reviewed by the people who were actually there on the day, immediately after the game, then any decision after that in terms of possible incidents missed in the game you would accept there was maybe something to investigate. The people involved knew the context of the game rather than allowing trial by media.
"By the time the decision (to ban Adam) was made on the Wednesday I think the agenda was set.
"We went through the process because we felt so strongly about it but we felt there was so little chance of it being successful because of the process.
"It has to be preferable to asking three referees, who are probably doing something else, to come together and review something out of context and make a decision based on what they see.
"As soon as the referee says he has not seen the incident - which we have a view on - then it goes to the panel but I just think when the game is taken out of context and it is slowed down to the 'nth' degree it can look worse than it is.
"The annoying thing is we can never question a referee's integrity - and we wouldn't - but when we get the written report back it questioned the integrity of my player. They can't have it two ways."
For breaking stories and all the great banter like us on Facebook: facebook.com/tribalfootball