Brett Stewart found not guilty of sexual assault

[Kiki]

wait...i dont think any bulldogs players were ever actually charged were they?

 

[PJ]

I also hope that everyone remembers that this charge does not automatically make Stewart "guilty".

The same as Bird received?

Would Manly be at a disadvantage by playing Stewart,considering what his mental state may be at this stage..not as an admission of guilt.
Plus the flak he will undoubtly receive from the crowd.

Didn't seem to affect Lanfranchi and Crocket? last year.

 

[fish eel]

Then stand Stewart down for matches - allow him to train maybe?

Bottom line here is that regardless of the outcome of the sexual assault charge - it is conceded that he did drink too much. On that alone he should be stood down, other players have missed weeks more for lesser offences.

Yeah, look, I'd probably stand the guy down - if only for PR reasons - but I can understand the arguments against.

Part of the problem is it always seems to be up to the clubs.

While I also understand each case is different, you do need some consistancy which is why I think matters like this should be dealt with by the NRL, not clubs.

 

[Timmah]

so Timmah those bulldogs players who played after being charged is ok by you is it?

What Bulldogs players charged? A number were questioned, no charges were ever laid IIRC.

Perhaps you should think before posting?

 

[WhiteWesWelker]

The title of this thread should be changed.

 

[~knights~]

wait...i dont think any bulldogs players were ever actually charged were they?

they were never charged

 

[perverse]

in my mind he should be stood down now that he's been charged.

this really isn't looking good for stewart. he really could be in the sh*t big time. the police dont charge with sexual assault for no reason.

 

[PJ]

Part of the problem is it always seems to be up to the clubs.

While I also understand each case is different, you do need some consistancy which is why I think matters like this should be dealt with by the NRL, not clubs.

Here, here. And that way it would also be a decision made irrespective of how important that player was to that team.

 

[Timmah]

Didn't seem to affect Lanfranchi and Crockett? last year.

Much less was known and reported about their cases, and there seems to be much more scrutiny about this particular one.

Additionally, this one was against a 17yr old... a bit different to the other two IIRC.

 

[Lungfish]

I think he should'nt be stood down.As has already been mentioned, two players have been in the same situation and were'nt stood down.

That said he'll probably stand himself down until the court date.

 

[bartman]

While I also understand each case is different, you do need some consistancy which is why I think matters like this should be dealt with by the NRL, not clubs.

Exactly. Automatic stand down from matches upon charge, player keeps full pay until verdict of guilty received.

Club is the one who loses out by having a player on the sidelines - watch the clubs make more effort in education/supervision/mentoring of off-field behaviour is they're the ones being penalised!

Everyone's a winner - the players who can't handle themselves benefit from the stauncher club attention to these details, through learning something the y current don't seem to take on board. Society as a whole benefits, and the game's image in the community will improve in leaps and bounds. No nonsense, stamp this sh*t out.

 

[Kiki]

the whole thing is so bloody depressing. ARGH.

 

[Raider_69]

he's been charged, stand him down for the intrim until his hearing, if he pleads not guilty he should be free to play until the law finds him guilty of a crime, same a joel thompson

 

[bartman]

I think he should'nt be stood down.As has already been mentioned that two players have been in the same situation and were'nt stood down.

That was then, this is now - 2009.

Don't look for precedents or escape routes. Let's take a fresh start and fix this aspect that has been dragging our game down.

That said he'll probably stand himself down until the court date.

Should be his club's call. After last year especially the League now needs to look strong in the face of player misbehaviour, not just leave it up to each player individually to decide whether or not to stand themselves down.

 

[herbert henry1908]

I'll put my hand up and say he shouldnt be stood down.

The april 7 date i presume is just a prelim hearing , these things take ages to play out fully.

If Stewart is mentally fit he should be allowed to play.

I would ask a couple of questions of those that he think he should be stood down,

at what point do you think he should be able to play again?

and did you hold the same opinion for Crockett and Laffranchi?

 

[Special K]

Kick him out of the country!

 

[Harold Bishop]

Were Crockett and Lafranchi both charged? Regardless i dont think Brett will be thinking about football too much over the next month. Innocent or Guilty im sure his game will be affected by what is going on around him.

 

[gong_eagle]

Manly have scheduled an emergency board meeting at 7:30pm to discuss the developments. Number one on the agenda is whether Stewart will play in the season opening game against the Bulldogs on Saturday.

http://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/league/2249783/Brett-Stewart-charged-by-police

 

[bartman]

I'll put my hand up and say he shouldnt be stood down.

Surprise surprise.

I would ask a couple of questions of those that he think he should be stood down,

at what point do you think he should be able to play again?

and did you hold the same opinion for Crockett and Laffranchi?

1. When he receives a not guilty verdict, or the charges are dropped. *Or he completes his custodial sentence*
2. Yes. It will be good to see the NRL & it's clubs harden up, missing game time while waiting for a not guilty verdict might teach dumb f**ks like Lafranchi not to cheat on his missus and put themselves at risk of an allegation...

 

[Ice Ice Brady]

Perhaps the title of this thread should be changed.