myrrh ken
First Grade
- Messages
- 9,817
Thought this deseved a separate post - its a bit long. This Roberts' stuff had me interested in how Broncos managed the cubicle incident.
I stumbled across an extract fom Shane Webcke's book - nothing much has changed, not even with the NRL integrity board. Webcke almost pulped his book cos he had 2nd thoughts about this part.
I'll now turn to a matter of parallel concern: the Broncos' response to what took place on the night of September 13.
I want to put on the record my strong belief that, whether or not any criminal charges were to be pressed over the Alhambra incident, the three players involved should not have been allowed to play in that match against the Storm.
I believe that the majority of ordinary, decent people who make up our community would have supported such a stance and would have admired the Broncos for taking it.
In my view, the two key elements in the matter can be clearly separated: the specific criminal aspect, which was to be settled by other people, in other places; and the wider behavioural aspect, the question of players having breached the Broncos' code of conduct and bringing the club and the game into disrepute.
The fact that we had three players in a public toilet with a woman, and drunken players kicked out of hotels, should have been enough for us to say: "You're not going to play!"
That would have been the best and clearest way for the club to tackle it: to stand down the players.
It would have been a stance of real strength that would have been applauded, I'm sure, by all fair-minded people.
Yes, the players had been given the green light to go out drinking that day – but, as far as I'm concerned, their behaviour went far beyond the boundaries of what is acceptable.
At the time, I discussed the issue at length with (Broncos chief executive) Bruno Cullen and left him in no doubt about my views.
He said the police had asked the club not to do anything until they had completed their investigation.
But the police were talking about the legal issue being examined (the sexual assault claim), which was their sole and specific area of interest.
On the other hand, it seemed beyond doubt that the Broncos' code of conduct had been breached and I could see no problem with action being taken promptly on that completely separate basis.
I told Bruno of my belief that we could never go wrong doing the right thing. And from the Broncos' point of view, the right thing was to stand down the players.
"After all," I said, "we've stood down players this year for missing training sessions. You're well within the bounds of precedence to stand them down for this."
The Broncos had also, of course, sacked players over behavioural issues in the two previous seasons.
The board made their decision in line with advice given by the police – and Thaiday, Hunt and Boyd played.
...
Meanwhile, at the Broncos, something that really narked me was that even as a storm raged around the three players involved in the Alhambra Lounge incident, it simply didn't appear to be important to them.
They were seen laughing and carrying on as if nothing had happened.
Meanwhile, blokes like me and plenty of others who love the club and love the game were defending our arses off, trying to prop things up for the place as best we could.
For me, there was always a big moral question at the heart of it.
One bloke said to me: "Ah, well, what about the girl? What about what she did?" I replied: "For any young girl to be doing that, obviously you'd have to think she has some problems. But I'll tell you this for sure – we're not let off the hook in any way because we take advantage of that."
Throughout the whole episode, Bruno Cullen was a man under enormous pressure – stuck in the eye of a cyclone.
These days, if you're the CEO of a professional football club, and being paid good money, it's going to be that way sometimes. It comes with the territory.
Bruno's was no easy job, and he struggled as most people probably would have done.
The story dominated for days, and there were headlines written and opinions offered that were shattering for a proud club. These were just a few of them:
"Spit Claims Surface as Broncos Grilled ... Broncos say Toilet Sex was Consensual ... The Broncos have attracted shocking headlines to a sport that needed to be on the back page for the right reasons this week ... Three Drunk at Training ... The club should tear up their contract."
And so it went on ...
When the Darren Lockyer issue emerged to compound an already horrendous week, (then coach) Wayne Bennett lambasted journalists, calling their coverage "just a lot of muckraking and quite unnecessary".
But the club was on the back foot again almost immediately when Locky had to deliver his mea culpa on what was admittedly a fairly minor matter, but one that could have been handled so much better.
As a bloke who loves the Broncos, I was filthy on the whole thing.
I long to see the game of rugby league be what it can be. Yet here, once again – and on the eve of its showcase weeks of the year – it shoots itself in the foot with players acting like imbeciles.
I have no doubt that if the Broncos had taken a hard line with the three players as we had with others in 2006 and 2007, we would have come up smelling like roses.
My belief remains that they should have been stood down from the game against the Storm.
But it was such a bloody hard call for the club. In fact, we were pretty much corralled into a certain response by the police advice: they did not want us to take any action against the players until they had completed their investigations.
To have sat the players out would have sent out the powerful message that the club's code had been breached and we would not condone it.
....
At the heart of it is an issue that Wayne Bennett and I have always disagreed on, and which I have mentioned already: whether or not players are "role models".
I won't repeat what I've already said on this matter, except to say that the responsibility that comes with being a highly paid professional sportsperson representing a club, its fans, and all the traditions that the club stands for, demands that you conduct yourself in a manner that won't harm or discredit the club.
Whenever professional players cross a certain moral or legal line, clubs must be tough enough to make hard decisions.
Football clubs aren't the moral guiding lights of society, but I would argue that they must have a moral benchmark that matches common standards.
The question for the Broncos on this occasion was: do our standards as a club include the view that it's OK for three high-profile first graders to be drunk in a public toilet with a woman, committing sex acts?
As a professional in high-profile sport, you are "on show" most of the time. It's just a fact of life these days when sportspeople are so readily identifiable.
To blokes who don't or can't accept that, I'd simply say: "Well, don't play high-level rugby league, then, because in the 21st century that happens to be the way it is."
I stumbled across an extract fom Shane Webcke's book - nothing much has changed, not even with the NRL integrity board. Webcke almost pulped his book cos he had 2nd thoughts about this part.
I'll now turn to a matter of parallel concern: the Broncos' response to what took place on the night of September 13.
I want to put on the record my strong belief that, whether or not any criminal charges were to be pressed over the Alhambra incident, the three players involved should not have been allowed to play in that match against the Storm.
I believe that the majority of ordinary, decent people who make up our community would have supported such a stance and would have admired the Broncos for taking it.
In my view, the two key elements in the matter can be clearly separated: the specific criminal aspect, which was to be settled by other people, in other places; and the wider behavioural aspect, the question of players having breached the Broncos' code of conduct and bringing the club and the game into disrepute.
The fact that we had three players in a public toilet with a woman, and drunken players kicked out of hotels, should have been enough for us to say: "You're not going to play!"
That would have been the best and clearest way for the club to tackle it: to stand down the players.
It would have been a stance of real strength that would have been applauded, I'm sure, by all fair-minded people.
Yes, the players had been given the green light to go out drinking that day – but, as far as I'm concerned, their behaviour went far beyond the boundaries of what is acceptable.
At the time, I discussed the issue at length with (Broncos chief executive) Bruno Cullen and left him in no doubt about my views.
He said the police had asked the club not to do anything until they had completed their investigation.
But the police were talking about the legal issue being examined (the sexual assault claim), which was their sole and specific area of interest.
On the other hand, it seemed beyond doubt that the Broncos' code of conduct had been breached and I could see no problem with action being taken promptly on that completely separate basis.
I told Bruno of my belief that we could never go wrong doing the right thing. And from the Broncos' point of view, the right thing was to stand down the players.
"After all," I said, "we've stood down players this year for missing training sessions. You're well within the bounds of precedence to stand them down for this."
The Broncos had also, of course, sacked players over behavioural issues in the two previous seasons.
The board made their decision in line with advice given by the police – and Thaiday, Hunt and Boyd played.
...
Meanwhile, at the Broncos, something that really narked me was that even as a storm raged around the three players involved in the Alhambra Lounge incident, it simply didn't appear to be important to them.
They were seen laughing and carrying on as if nothing had happened.
Meanwhile, blokes like me and plenty of others who love the club and love the game were defending our arses off, trying to prop things up for the place as best we could.
For me, there was always a big moral question at the heart of it.
One bloke said to me: "Ah, well, what about the girl? What about what she did?" I replied: "For any young girl to be doing that, obviously you'd have to think she has some problems. But I'll tell you this for sure – we're not let off the hook in any way because we take advantage of that."
Throughout the whole episode, Bruno Cullen was a man under enormous pressure – stuck in the eye of a cyclone.
These days, if you're the CEO of a professional football club, and being paid good money, it's going to be that way sometimes. It comes with the territory.
Bruno's was no easy job, and he struggled as most people probably would have done.
The story dominated for days, and there were headlines written and opinions offered that were shattering for a proud club. These were just a few of them:
"Spit Claims Surface as Broncos Grilled ... Broncos say Toilet Sex was Consensual ... The Broncos have attracted shocking headlines to a sport that needed to be on the back page for the right reasons this week ... Three Drunk at Training ... The club should tear up their contract."
And so it went on ...
When the Darren Lockyer issue emerged to compound an already horrendous week, (then coach) Wayne Bennett lambasted journalists, calling their coverage "just a lot of muckraking and quite unnecessary".
But the club was on the back foot again almost immediately when Locky had to deliver his mea culpa on what was admittedly a fairly minor matter, but one that could have been handled so much better.
As a bloke who loves the Broncos, I was filthy on the whole thing.
I long to see the game of rugby league be what it can be. Yet here, once again – and on the eve of its showcase weeks of the year – it shoots itself in the foot with players acting like imbeciles.
I have no doubt that if the Broncos had taken a hard line with the three players as we had with others in 2006 and 2007, we would have come up smelling like roses.
My belief remains that they should have been stood down from the game against the Storm.
But it was such a bloody hard call for the club. In fact, we were pretty much corralled into a certain response by the police advice: they did not want us to take any action against the players until they had completed their investigations.
To have sat the players out would have sent out the powerful message that the club's code had been breached and we would not condone it.
....
At the heart of it is an issue that Wayne Bennett and I have always disagreed on, and which I have mentioned already: whether or not players are "role models".
I won't repeat what I've already said on this matter, except to say that the responsibility that comes with being a highly paid professional sportsperson representing a club, its fans, and all the traditions that the club stands for, demands that you conduct yourself in a manner that won't harm or discredit the club.
Whenever professional players cross a certain moral or legal line, clubs must be tough enough to make hard decisions.
Football clubs aren't the moral guiding lights of society, but I would argue that they must have a moral benchmark that matches common standards.
The question for the Broncos on this occasion was: do our standards as a club include the view that it's OK for three high-profile first graders to be drunk in a public toilet with a woman, committing sex acts?
As a professional in high-profile sport, you are "on show" most of the time. It's just a fact of life these days when sportspeople are so readily identifiable.
To blokes who don't or can't accept that, I'd simply say: "Well, don't play high-level rugby league, then, because in the 21st century that happens to be the way it is."
