*BREAKING NEWS* Bulldogs questioned over assault allegation

[JK]

Further Media Statement

from www.bulldogs.com.au

Wednesday, February 25, 2004 2:58:44 PM
STATEMENT FROM BULLDOGS
There are two areas that I want to address. Firstly, I want to reiterate my comments from yesterday that it would be inappropriate to provide a running commentary on the police investigation.

However, I wish to make absolutely clear that the Bulldogs are fully cooperating with the Police. I also make this appeal to the public to keep an open mind on this matter and ask them not to prejudge the outcome of the police investigation. In that context, I am pleased to see that there is to be a police inquiry into the leaking of a confidential statement made to police.

Let the police do their work.

The seriousness of the allegations means that the presumption of innocence needs to be taken into account at all times. The very fact that the issue has been raised means that we need to do more to make sure that the Club, and the League have the best possible systems in place to maintain its integrity.

Therefore, the second matter that I want to talk about today is a separate issue about what constitutes appropriate behaviour by players off the field. As you know, the Bulldogs Club has its own Code of Conduct, which addresses unacceptable behaviour. In the last year we have worked with the NRL to build on our programs to assist the players in dealing with their roles and responsibilities.

However, I believe that more has to be done to ensure that players are beyond reproach, and that the Club does everything within reason to ensure the welfare of its players. Accordingly, the Club will be reviewing its Code of Conduct and its practices with the assistance of external experts. We will be examining practices in other sports, and other clubs to see what protocols they have installed to strive for the highest possible standards.

Without limiting our work, just a few of the initiatives we will be examining include;

• The effectiveness of player curfews
• Security personnel accompanying players while travelling.
• Early return from away matches.
• Review our support to players off the field including mentoring and leadership training.

I will be working with other Clubs and the NRL to ensure that players meet the highest standards as we recognise that appropriate off-field behaviour must be an ongoing priority.


Dr. George Peponis and Steve Mortimer OAM
Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
Bulldogs Rugby League Football Club

 

[Jimbo]

That's what I mean. When so many girls throw themselves at you, you're judgement or perception of women may alter to see them as sex objects, hence you treat them as sex objects. That includes buying drinks, chatting up etc. with the view that this is what these women want, and that it will end in sex. Even though those girls may not have thrown themselves at them, the players may still think that that's what they're their for, based on past experience. I'm not condoning it, just trying to understand how their judgement in these situations can be so warped.

Its a good point you make, and if it was a one-on-one situatuion I would totally agree. But the chances that this girl would want to be tag-teamed by six blokes are pretty remote...

 

[ibeme]

Well put letter.

 

[Catatonic_Omnivore]

Well put letter.

Yep, I agree.

I may not agree with the dribble Turvey dishes out as a commentator at Foxsports but I good to hear that the club does take some responsibility over the incident. Which goes back to my point that it's not just the player directly involved with the incident that should carry the blame.

 

[ibeme]

I think blame should fairly and squarely be aimed at the player directly involved. I also think that the club owe it to themselves to introduce more procedures to protect their own interests and their players interests. I don't think clubs deserve to be blamed for individual players breaching rules that are already in place though. This lies fairly on squarely on the players' shoulders. Clubs don't own them, they merely employ them

 

[Raider_69]

ill go with ibeme here
i mean for instance if Joe Bloggs works for Telstra and kills someone, its hardly telstras fault is it?

 

[Catatonic_Omnivore]

I think blame should fairly and squarely be aimed at the player directly involved. I also think that the club owe it to themselves to introduce more procedures to protect their own interests and their players interests. I don't think clubs deserve to be blamed for individual players breaching rules that are already in place though. This lies fairly on squarely on the players' shoulders. Clubs don't own them, they merely employ them

I think you should take a broader view on this.

For sure punish the person/s directly involved. But, this is purely hypothetical OK, what about the person/s involved in encourging such acts.

As for the club, look at it this way. The club do own them and they represent the club as long as they are together for the specific purposes of the club, e.g. away matches. All I'm saying is that the club should bear some responsibility over the matter and I beleive that the statment from the Bulldogs does reflect this and I respect that.

 

[Catatonic_Omnivore]

ill go with ibeme here
i mean for instance if Joe Bloggs works for Telstra and kills someone, its hardly telstras fault is it?

What if he was only following instructions from Telstra? Look, it's too generic of an example.

It really depends on what really happened and whether it could have been avoided. Which I don't know whether we will know the full story. Not from the papers anyway.

 

[ibeme]

I think blame should fairly and squarely be aimed at the player directly involved. I also think that the club owe it to themselves to introduce more procedures to protect their own interests and their players interests. I don't think clubs deserve to be blamed for individual players breaching rules that are already in place though. This lies fairly on squarely on the players' shoulders. Clubs don't own them, they merely employ them

I think you should take a broader view on this.

For sure punish the person/s directly involved. But, this is purely hypothetical OK, what about the person/s involved in encourging such acts.

As for the club, look at it this way. The club do own them and they represent the club as long as they are together for the specific purposes of the club, e.g. away matches. All I'm saying is that the club should bear some responsibility over the matter and I beleive that the statment from the Bulldogs does reflect this and I respect that.

The club owns them as much as your employer owns you. You agree to work with them under set conditions, and there's a good chance that your employer would frown upon sexual assault. That's why they have workplace rules to prevent sexual harrassment in the workplace and the like. If you were to go away on a business trip, and went out after the conference to a nightclub, and decided to assault someone, should any blame be directed to your employer?

 

[Catatonic_Omnivore]

[quote="ibeme
If you were to go away on a business trip, and went out after the conference to a nightclub, and decided to assault someone, should any blame be directed to your employer?[/quote]
Actually, a few years back I attended a "Team Building Exercise" with the company I was working for. This meant we all had to spend a weekend away. The bar was open after dinner and there were some idividuals who were fairly intoxicated at the time.

To cut a long story short. When we got back to work a sexual assult charge was filed against both the individual and the company. Why the company? Because the arguement was that the company was responsible for providing the alcohol and was unable to monitor its staff consuming it.

Look, I'm not saying that the club is directly responsible. I never did. But lets not look at the person/s directly involved. Broaden the net of responsibility in attempt to ensure it doesn't happen again. I think the Bulldogs Statement reflects that notion and I agree with it.

 

[PB]

Could be too little to late for the dogs though.

Seems their post match procedure for this game was a bit unprofessional and lazy.

All it would have taken would have been for the club to have held a morning pool/recovery session at 8 or 9am (like they do after every NRL match), before flying home, and you wouldnt have had players out at 6am smashed!

Players are definately responsible for their actions, no question. But Folks and other management should be asked why they weren't stricter in their organisation.

 

[ibeme]

In that case, the resort should be charged because they supplied the alcohol and were responsible for supervision.

I also agree with the Bulldogs statement and applaud their actions.

 

[PB]

the hotel has some role to play, i agree. Although if the bar was being run by a uni student and a group of guys 6 ft plus, 110kg blokes are telling you were to go, there isnt much you can do.

Also i am sure that the bar closes around 2 or 3 at the latest, and the alledged incident occured around 6 or 7am. So the boys have found something to fuel themselves for a few hours....

 

[Catatonic_Omnivore]

I can't see why the hotel is liable. Sure they are liable for they of property or if you slip on a wet floor but they were'nt running an AA meeting were they.

I just hope they just dont pick on some poor schmuck and and make him a scapegoat to hide others who are equaly as guilty.

 

[Rexxy]

RSA= Responsible Serving of Alcohol. No More Its The Law.

 

[ibeme]

I can't see why the hotel is liable. Sure they are liable for they of property or if you slip on a wet floor but they were'nt running an AA meeting were they.

I just hope they just dont pick on some poor schmuck and and make him a scapegoat to hide others who are equaly as guilty.

I don't think the hotel should be liable, but I was going by your example below:

Actually, a few years back I attended a "Team Building Exercise" with the company I was working for. This meant we all had to spend a weekend away. The bar was open after dinner and there were some idividuals who were fairly intoxicated at the time.

To cut a long story short. When we got back to work a sexual assult charge was filed against both the individual and the company. Why the company? Because the arguement was that the company was responsible for providing the alcohol and was unable to monitor its staff consuming it.

In the situation of the Bulldogs, it was the hotel that was supplying the drinks, not the Bulldogs club. I doubt that it could be classed as an official function as they were in a public bar, and their official club duties would have ended earlier that day.

 

[El Diablo]

Interesting to see that Centrebet seem to of stopped betting on the NRL as the 2004 season odds aren't up on their website. Dunno if they're updating the market or what.

 

[antonius]

Interesting to see that Centrebet seem to of stopped betting on the NRL as the 2004 season odds aren't up on their website. Dunno if they're updating the market or what.

This may explain why

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,8781826%5E2,00.html

 

[Sheros los Deros]

Well if it was rape and the woman in question was taken to hospital as reported a rape kit would have been done and swabs would have been taken and in a few days when the DNA from any semen found will quickly identify who is responsible.

So we'll wait and see.

Personally I think nothing will come of it.

Thats the problem Sretsoor, We know nothing might come of it, weather it be true of not.
I have 3 Daughters. Personally, I would not send them to jail, i would in fact, take them prisoner myself, and deal with them over years in my Cellar.

If true, Punish to the full extent. If false, Punish the woman. You just can not make claims of this seriousness, and then let it lie. It shits me to death, when Lawyers convince women to drop these cases. I Will say it to im Red.

If true, Punish, If not, Punish.

I find the assumption that a woman must be lieing if sexual abuse allegation are not proven is offensive. A woman who makes sexual abuse allegations, but the defendant is found not guilty, should be dealt with by other family members in a cellar over a number of years? Sounds criminal in my opinion.

 

[Houdini]

I guess if the players are proven innocent, they can always take the women to court for slander or defamation if they wished to do so.
I guess we can only wait to see what the police decide.

Either way, the incident will tarnish the name of the bulldogs