David Gallop offers Brett Stewart a chance

[Jatz Crackers]

Glad to help

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2513554.htm

Thanks or your help :lol:.

When you get up in the morning, do you ask the paper what you would like to have for breakfast ?

 

[typicalfan]

LOL @ the bolded bit.

On what basis do you propose that an article in the paper is fact ?

By all means super intelligent one. Astonish us all.

BTW, I appear to have a handle on things very well in comparison. Thanks for the control test. :lol:

By the looks it seems that Brett Stewart being drunk at the function is stated as fact. I would say the burden of proof is on you to show us otherwise ;-)

If you have a problem with the 4 week suspension and what it was for why don't you show us why he wasn't drunk at Manly's season launch to the point of refusal of service.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

By the looks it seems that Brett Stewart being drunk at the function is stated as fact. I would say the burden of proof is on you to show us otherwise ;-)

If you have a problem with the 4 week suspension and what it was for why don't you show us why he wasn't drunk at Manly's season launch to the point of refusal of service.

:lol: @ bolded

Oh and yes. The burden must be on disproving smething that is alleged. That is sort of funny. Good work.

 

[typicalfan]

Where does it say it is only alleged. :sarcasm:

 

[Jatz Crackers]

Where does it say it is only alleged. :sarcasm:

In every tenet of law.

Bit beyond you im thinking.

 

[typicalfan]

If it is only alleged then media have to report it as only being alleged. Like Brett Stewart and his sexual assault court case.

So are the media reporting it wrongly?

 

[typicalfan]

Here is another quote a Fairfax one to be fair

"a failure by Manly to take sufficient measures to prevent the consumption of alcohol from getting out of hand for some players at its season launch last Friday and the fact Stewart was eventually refused the service of alcohol at the premises and asked to leave."

http://queanbeyan.yourguide.com.au/...t/nrl-angered-by-manly-arrogance/1456934.aspx

The media would not be allowed to call it fact if it wasn't so.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

Here is another quote a Fairfax one to be fair

"a failure by Manly to take sufficient measures to prevent the consumption of alcohol from getting out of hand for some players at its season launch last Friday and the fact Stewart was eventually refused the service of alcohol at the premises and asked to leave."

http://queanbeyan.yourguide.com.au/...t/nrl-angered-by-manly-arrogance/1456934.aspx

The media would not be allowed to call it fact if it wasn't so.

You believe that do you ?

What/who is to stop that sentence being printed in a newspaper or any other publication ?

 

[typicalfan]

Brett Stewart could easily sue for Defamation if the newspaper reports something as fact which isn't.

But again the burden of proof is on you. You are arguing against something which is common knowledge. You show us how the NRL didn't 100% know of Brett's drunken behaviour. I would love to see what you have apart from your pontification on the issue.

 

[Frailty]

Let's put this into perspective:

Nick D'Arcy has been refused to swim at BOTH the Olympics and World Championship for an assault.

And people are whinging here about the NRL becoming too tough?

 

[sneagle]

Here is another quote a Fairfax one to be fair

"a failure by Manly to take sufficient measures to prevent the consumption of alcohol from getting out of hand for some players at its season launch last Friday and the fact Stewart was eventually refused the service of alcohol at the premises and asked to leave."

http://queanbeyan.yourguide.com.au/...t/nrl-angered-by-manly-arrogance/1456934.aspx

The media would not be allowed to call it fact if it wasn't so.

And the fact Bellew in his letter to Gallop ( on behalf of Stewart) disputes his refusal of alcohol at The Wharf Hotel is what??

Guess we found Rothschild and Bec Wilson secret f*ckwitchild..

 

[sneagle]

A quote "Gallop justified Stewart's suspension on the basis of his drunken behaviour at Manly's March 6 season launch" This is straight out of a News Ltd article back in March

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/sport/nrl/story/0,27074,25216263-14823,00.html

He wasn't allegedly drunk, he WAS drunk. And it wasn't him being drunk, it was the behaviour exhibited while drunk which led to his 4 week suspension.

I guess perhaps you don't have as much of a handle on what happened as you appear you do.

And I guess you believe that his "family and friends" gave the quote to the media he was too drunk to remember and that the bystanders to his supposed crash tackle over heard him say he could not remember .......
Hang on no mention of the crash btackle now - guess they just witnessed the supposed assault and waited to over hear him.....
That's right - his solicitor says he wasn't too drunk but it's quoted by the media in amongst all their other outright "truths" of the events of that night so it must be soooo factual.....:lol:
Please provide something from an actual quoted (not unnamed, or source close to) that supports your claims of the level of intoxication..

 

[Meth]

Why is Gallop offering an olive branch?

Stewart should be apologising to all of the fans for dragging the game through the mud in the week leading up to the season because he can't control how much piss he drinks.

Hilarious.

I think they have used the term slightly erroneously here- it doesn't appear that Gallop is apologizing to Stewart- he seems to be just offering to meet with him to clear things up.

Lockyer was drunk and crash tackled a pub manager. For that he was guilty, where was his 4 weeks?

Last season mate.

This season they are going over the top (Seymour, Mason + Myles) to police alcohol related incidents- although there is no doubt in my mind that the sexual assault allegations had an immediate bearing on Stewart's suspension

 

[Rockin Ronny]

Glad to help

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2513554.htm

Why would i appear as a witness? what is there to be cleared up? he's just served his suspension you dipsh*t, he's not going to court about him being refused alcohol.

btw. Manly Wharf Hotel is the name of the place he was asked to leave after being refused alcohol, because he was too sh*tface.

You need to remember the Manly pysche. They have been carried by the game's administrators (including referees) for decades - including their very survival.

Manly expect to be treated differently no matter what they do.

That's why everyone hates this arrogant pissant club.

 

[squiddy]

And
That's right - his solicitor says he wasn't too drunk but it's quoted by the media in amongst all their other outright "truths" of the events of that night so it must be soooo factual.....:lol:
.

Sorry Sneagle but his solicitor is going to use the "too drunk" to remember plus "alcohol and diabetes don't mix" as the defence .

 

[Evenflow]

Case closed. According to Jatz Crackers Stewart wasn't drunk, wasn't refused service for being too drunk and i'm sure he'll say next he never even crossed paths with his alleged victim. All because people on an internet forum couldn't provide to his satisfaction direct quotes and names from people who actually witnessed these things.

I'm sure all that will come out in the court case and you'll receive all the info you asked for. But until then you just keep telling yourself these things didn't happen which i'm sure will help you sleep much better at night ;-)

 

[herbert henry1908]

He was suspended for being drunk at the season launch, and being so drunk he was received service and kicked out of several nightclubs.

thanks scoop.

All im suggesting is any suspension for anything in our game should be transperant. Players should have the right to defend themselves against accusations.

that said , i still feel 4 weeks was over the top for what he was suspended for.

 

[herbert henry1908]

You actually said it all yourself here, "he was suspended for being drunk, nothing more, nothing less". So what would "his side of the story" matter? he cant defend the proven fact that he was sh*tfaced to the point of being refused alcohol at a season launch. Thats all there is to it and thats what he was suspended for.

ah no, try again.

the level of his intoxication is still unkown. You say its a proven fact that he was sh*tfaced. How the hell do you know this? plenty of people are asked to leave licensed premises every day , they arent all sh*tfaced. Many are just showing signs of intoxication. There is a massive difference between the two. NSW law states that anyone showing signs of intox in a licensed venue must be asked to leave, this can be a simple as someone slurring their speach or falling asleep.

there are no proven facts here at all. Unless you count media reports as 'facts'.

 

[Didgi]

that said , i still feel 4 weeks was over the top for what he was suspended for.

Taking into account that Jake Friend was suspended 2 weeks and fined 20% of his salary for DUI? There is being a real crack down this year, and it's because of this crackdown that I support the lenghthy suspensiuon. If he had gotten this suspension but then nobody else was suspended by the NRL I would not have supported it, as long as their is a fair consistency happening.

 

[herbert henry1908]

Glad to help

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2008/s2513554.htm

Why would i appear as a witness? what is there to be cleared up? he's just served his suspension you dipsh*t, he's not going to court about him being refused alcohol.

btw. Manly Wharf Hotel is the name of the place he was asked to leave after being refused alcohol, because he was too sh*tface.

:lol:

again , your wrong.

he was asked to leave becuase he was showing signs of intoxication. The level of intoxication is completely unknown , so stop claiming he was sh*tfaced when you clearly have no f*cking idea.