Confessions of a Bulldog: inside football's darkest scandal

[Green Machine]

Well, der.... I'd say her and 50% of the general population probably are of that belief, regardless of how often bulldogs CEOs or fans tell us that "not guilty" proves "nothing actually happened" rather than "not enough evidence for a guilty verdict"?

If you want to put your chin out and have it hit, that’s fine, but did you actually read the interview from Gary McEvoy? Did you read why the Bulldog player weren’t charged?

 

[dice]

Five years on we still cop it when it is MORE THAN LIKELY nothing illegal occured.

So you believe the girl's testimony and injuries to her privates were all fabricated? and all the Hotel patrons who heard screaming for help was fabricated?


It is such a pity that with all the technology we have we still haven't been able to make the liar detector 100% accurate. It would have been an interesting scenario to see whether the bulldogs would have been locked up for rape, or whether the young girl would have been locked up for fabrication.

 

[Timmah]

So you believe the girl's testimony and injuries to her privates were all fabricated? and all the Hotel patrons who heard screaming for help was fabricated?


It is such a pity that with all the technology we have we still haven't been able to make the liar detector 100% accurate. It would have been an interesting scenario to see whether the bulldogs would have been locked up for rape, or whether the young girl would have been locked up for fabrication.

One of the leading investigators in the case - the only one with the balls to speak out - said the Bulldogs had a strong case to charge the woman with public nuisance. Your first few questions in that post are hardly established fact BTW.

 

[bartman]

In other words, you also believe the media tripe that has the Bulldogs so victimised to this day by the general public?

Five years on we still cop it when it is MORE THAN LIKELY nothing illegal occured.

It's actually about the meaning of the term "not guilty". It simply means not guilty (for whatever reason) of a charge that was laid - it doesn't mean (as Noad would have had us believe) that "nothing happened".

When there is two sides to a story you can never prove (or disprove) that conclusively - you can only arrive at a verdict in relation to a charge under the requirements of a court.

 

[Timmah]

If you only take into account the verdict...

Are you dismissing completely what has been said in interviews with Gary McEvoy?

 

[bartman]

If you want to put your chin out and have it hit, that’s fine, but did you actually read the interview from Gary McEvoy? Did you read why the Bulldog player weren’t charged?

Which one was that? The one by MattO on lolRleague.com?

No, I didn't read it and don't trust it. But I read Magnay's lead article about the unnamed (as is her right) woman who was a victim of sexual assault ten years ago, and trust that incidents like that go unreported, and - given the reactions of people in this thread can fully understand why.

Further, if the Bulldogs had advice that they should have pursued a public nuisance charge - why didn't they? Getting a verdict on that would have actually gone a long way to proving that nothing (untoward) happened in Coffs - something that Bulldogs CEOs and fans seem to want everyone to now believe.

 

[dice]

One of the leading investigators in the case - the only one with the balls to speak out - said the Bulldogs had a strong case to charge the woman with public nuisance. Your first few questions in that post are hardly established fact BTW.

It didn't go to court so none of it was established as fact including your comments about public nuisance.

OOI, do you believe Watmough being "cleared of wrongdoing" means he did nothing wrong?

 

[bartman]

Are you dismissing completely what has been said in interviews with Gary McEvoy?

Has there been one published, other than on lolRleague.com?

 

[Timmah]

Which one was that? The one by MattO on lolRleague.com?

No, I didn't read it and don't trust it. But I read Magnay's lead article about the unnamed (as is her right) woman who was a victim of sexual assault ten years ago, and trust that incidents go unreported.

Further, if the Bulldogs had advice that they should have pursued a public nuisance charge - why didn't they? Getting a verdict on that would have actually gone a long way to proving that nothing (untoward) happened in Coffs - something that Bulldogs CEOs and fans seem to want everyone to now believe.

:lol: You don't believe an interview with a chief investigating officer, but you do believe a smarmy, sexist journo with a known chip on her shoulder when it comes to the Bulldogs club?

The fact you want to believe something illegal occured sickens me. Opinions like yours make a mockery of innocent til proven guilty, even after proven not guilty.

I dare say the Bulldogs decided it was best not to make the public nuisance charge so as to not drag the game further through mud? Seems pretty obvious to me after all the scrutiny.

 

[Timmah]

By the way, the interview with McEvoy wasn't at "lolRleague.com" as you so delicately put it, but was an edition of ABC Stateline:

http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/nsw/content/2006/s1737619.htm

 

[bartman]

:lol: You don't believe an interview with a chief investigating officer, but you do believe a smarmy, sexist journo with a known chip on her shoulder when it comes to the Bulldogs club?

Link to interview, other than through lolRleague.com please. Then I'll get back to you...

The fact you want to believe something illegal occured sickens me. Opinions like yours make a mockery of innocent til proven guilty, even after proven not guilty.

I don't want to believe something illegal happened - and the court has ruled that it hasn't. I'm talking about something untoward happening, not necessarily illegal or legal.

Innocent until guilty is purely in relation to court cases. Rigidly sticking to such a doctrine when guiding personal opinion about matters that aren't subject to courtcases is very short-sighted in my opinion.

Because the woman concerned has not been found guilty of public nuisance charges, did that stop you mentioning it and/or making an inference to suit your own beliefs/feelings/opinions? No... So pull your head in :lol:

 

[bartman]

By the way, the interview with McEvoy wasn't at "lolRleague.com" as you so delicately put it, but was an edition of ABC Stateline:

http://www.abc.net.au/stateline/nsw/content/2006/s1737619.htm

Thanks, I'll have a read and get back to you ;-)

 

[Timmah]

Link to interview, other than through lolRleague.com please. Then I'll get back to you...


I don't want to believe something illegal happened - and the court has ruled that it hasn't. I'm talking about something untoward happening, not necessarily illegal or legal.

Innocent until guilty is purely in relation to court cases. Rigidly sticking to such a doctrine when guiding personal opinion about matters that aren't subject to courtcases is very short-sighted in my opinion.

Because the woman concerned has not been found guilty of public nuisance charges, did that stop you mentioning it and/or making an inference to suit your own beliefs/feelings/opinions? No... So pull your head in :lol:

I made mention of the public nuisance because it's been reported:

He wishes the woman was charged with being a public nuisance.
"I hate it [the allegations]," he says. "I don't understand how someone can do that. Be nice if she could have got a bit of justice her way. We were told pretty much that we could have had her charged with being a public nuisance. They said you're as close as that to having her charged, to pretty much have it proved, she had to admit she was lying. Which I doubt she was going to admit she was lying."

(from the article in the opening post of this thread)

I'm not just randomly making sh*t up to exonerate the 'Dogs, but you're giving the benefit of the doubt to an alleged victim when it has been confirmed that there was no evidence supporting her story. You will read that in the ABC Stateline transcript.

 

[bartman]

I made mention of the public nuisance because it's been reported:



(from the article in the opening post of this thread)

But does the point you made about assuming innocent until guilty also apply to you, or only to me? In case you've forgotten, I'm making mention of the Dogs behaviour in Coffs as it has been reported to...

I'm not just randomly making sh*t up to exonerate the 'Dogs, but you're giving the benefit of the doubt to an alleged victim when it has been confirmed that there was no evidence supporting her story. You will read that in the ABC Stateline transcript.

I'll read it after lunch when I can concentrate fully, but all I'm doing is saying that "not guilty" doesn't mean that nothing untoward (not necessarily illegal) happened. Just to be clear, are you disputing that the Dog's behaviour in Coffs (legal or not) didn't bring the game into disrepute?

 

[Timmah]

I don't dispute that at all - they shouldn't have been in that sort of position.

What I'm debating is the ongoing thought of the general public that the Bulldogs are guilty.

 

[bartman]

I don't dispute that at all - they shouldn't have been in that sort of position.

What I'm debating is the ongoing thought of the general public that the Bulldogs are guilty.

Thank you.

We might be debating at cross purposes, as all I started off saying was that Magnay - and I'd suspect 50% (but we can never measure it) of the general public (ie not league fans) still believe that "something happened" at Coffs. And that has actually nothing to do with whether the players are "guilty" (which they weren't) or not.

 

[Green Machine]

Which one was that?

The one Ibeme attached on the last page. It is from an interview with the ABC’s Stateline program. I actually watched the program when it was screened

The one by MattO on lolRleague.com?

The article was not from MattO but was a copy of the interview conducted by Graeme Hughes with Gary McEvoy

No, I didn't read it and don't trust it.

But, you didn’t read the one from the ABC’s Stateline program, did you?

But I read Magnay's lead article about the unnamed (as is her right) woman who was a victim of sexual assault ten years ago, and trust that incidents like that go unreported, and - given the reactions of people in this thread can fully understand why.

I’m sure things like this did go on in the past. I thought is quiet interesting that Magnay would bring it up now 10 years later, after Brett Stewart was charged. I wonder why Magnay didn't interview Gary McEvoy in the last 5 years?

Further, if the Bulldogs had advice that they should have pursued a public nuisance charge - why didn't they? Getting a verdict on that would have actually gone a long way to proving that nothing (untoward) happened in Coffs - something that Bulldogs CEOs and fans seem to want everyone to now believe.

I would believe Gary McEvoy before I would believe a radio shockjock or certain newspaper journalists. Seems a long week since the Daily Telegraph published photos of a so called Pauline Hanson. So, getting back to your original comment that 50% of the population thought the Bulldogs were guilty, I wonder what percentage of the population thought they were seeing nude photos of Pauline last Sunday?

 

[Timmah]

The editorial column of today's Sunday Telegraph is basically an apology and reversion of last weeks story.

 

[bartman]

So, getting back to your original comment that 50% of the population thought the Bulldogs were guilty, I wonder what percentage of the population thought they were seeing nude photos of Pauline last Sunday?

My original comment in reply to your questions was that Magnay obviously believes that something (untoward) happened in Coffs. And I believe about 50% of the general public (still) believe the same. Survey your (non-RL fan) friends and test it out...

Like it or not, the Gary McEvoy interview didn't command headlines and make 50% of the population aware of his point of view, let alone change their mind based on one report. As stated above, I'm just getting around to reading it myself now.

My debate with Timmah (and Malcolm Noad) is about whether "not guilty" of a charge equals "nothing happened"... clearly there is a murky in-between area where the Bulldogs incident in Coffs will forever lie. Whatever McEvoy has to say is unlikely to change that for many people - I'll get back to you after I've read it.

 

[Cloud9]

The editorial column of today's Sunday Telegraph is basically an apology and reversion of last weeks story.

links please