Gee the media are milking this a bit.
Your sports media needs a bloody good crash course in some of your legal fundamentals.
I've heard some absolute shockers this year.
First: Innocent till proven guilty.
Does not matter what the charges are for. That is irrelevant.
Its innocent till proven guilty. Because if sports teams take a knee jerk reaction on charges, and punish a player by terminating his contract, or he/she is banned from the sport, when he/she is still innocent in the eyes of the law, and he/she is later found 'not guilty' - you have further wrecked and made more difficult the life on an innocent.
This is inexcusable. Time off with pay is one thing while they deal with the off field drama. But not suspension that they do not want and termination of contract. There maybe a grey area where facts are admitted that bring game or club into disrepute that may warrrant grounds of unwanted suspension or termination (pretty tough on a player going through an ordeal) but not entirely based on allegations that a player wholly denies. That is outside the player's control.
Now I have heard this year, Australian reporters calling for suspension until resolved (not Gayle) based on the serious charge of the offence, the facts of which the player denied. I was appalled. And here it raises its head again, although Craddock says he has no sympathy and is not calling for the ban, but this time its an alleged incident from an unidentified woman with NO charges being laid.
“There’s a feeling that he will be banned. He will not return next year,” Craddock said. “Cricket Australia will not sanction it and they will take a very strong stance on it, for two reasons: One, because they don’t like his behaviour. And two, because there’s also a feeling that the competition is outgrowing some of its international stars. That it can stand on its own two feet.
“Some may consider that extreme punishment for one singular offence. But the story is growing, even today there was a story on the front page alleging that Chris Gayle exposed himself to a woman during last year’s World Cup. Not good enough. Terrible behaviour.”
“Now, I stress these charges aren’t proven but Chris’ behaviour has been sleazy. He’s got a stripper’s room in his house. He’s got a mirror on the ceiling. He flaunts it. And if you flaunt it you’ve got to be judged by it when things go wrong. I just can’t have any sympathy for him, I’m sorry.
Second:
Now in my opinion, the above contains further irresponsible journalism.
1 - as I understand it there are no charges laid. What there is is an unidentified woman who has told someone on the press this story. No police are involved. Gayle has not only denied this (not reported by Craddock) he is threatening legal suit should it be published further.
2 - the activities of someone's lifestyle are often completely irrelevant outside a propensity for an the alleged conduct or misconduct and even then it can be too prejudicial to have even probative value. That is why there are rape shield laws in many jurisdictions, how many men a woman has had sex with is irrelevant to whether on a particular situation she gave consent. Its prejudicial.
In my opinion, the fact that Gayle has a stripper pole and mirror on the ceiling has nothing to do with whether he exposed himself to a person in a team dressing room. All it does it serve to prejudice, now the media should inform the public of logic and the law, not reemphasize lay persons error of thought in 'judging' people with no sympathy. It would be more relevant if it was being suggested that Chris dances on the stripper pole. Ha.
“Let’s not underestimate the market we’re pitching to here,” Craddock said. “It’s the same market as the Wiggles. Kids between 5-7-9 years old. A lot of those kids would have woken up this morning saying: ‘Dad, what’s this mean about Chris Gayle exposing himself to a woman?’
Well maybe the media should know better than to publish "unidentified woman" allegations that have not even resulted in a police complaint.
The media knows that mud sticks. This is, I believe, irresponsible journalism. Wait until the charges, if any, are laid. Then there is a sufficient allegation of a crime in the public interest to report. Gayle does not need mere unidentified sources of rumour destroying his livelihood and personal life.
The problem here is the media love stories to sell papers and get people watching the news. So the stories are built up, published and made big before necessary facts are established. Its irresponsible journalism in my view. For this story from an "unidenitfied person" and with no charges to be laid, is just mind boggling to me. Because in the eyes of thaw law, unless bloody good reason why, the accused should have the right to face their accuser.
