Houston busted for drugs

[roopy]

so are you saying it is unfair to suspend him for the good of the rest of the team until this is sorted out.... or to sack him if he's found guilty?

I'm saying we must treat him how anyone else would be treated - how you would be treated in the same circumstances.
All your talk of ruining his life because he annoys you is OTT.

 

[perverse]

Not reluctant to assume the worst.

Fact: He didnt confess when Wicks was charged

Fact: He will not be "sacked" until after the court appearance (this is hard to justify, but if he is innocent the club will be in big trouble)

Fact: He will be sacked if found guilty, and I will applaud the club for that.

Fact: If he is innocent he will have had his name, and ours dragged through the mud.

How can it take 10 weeks to be summoned to court, and then another 6 weeks until the case is even heard???

ok, you're going to take the politically sound road too, and just deal with the facts... whilst discarding the circumstance and probability.

good for you, i guess.

the fact that it has taken so long to be summoned to court is likely a bad thing. that's a lot of time to double check their own facts, and make sure t's are crossed and i's dotted.

i think another thing you blokes are struggling to grasp with (through lack of experience in the matter.. or something else entirely... i'm not going to make assumptions on that) is that it's bloody hard to be accidently or wrongly accused of supplying drugs, especially when the lead has come from an extremely organised and co-ordinated bust. it's a bloody serious charge, and they don't just hand them out willy-nilly.

my very strong suspicion is that the cops haven't mucked this one up.

 

[perverse]

I'm saying we must treat him how anyone else would be treated - how you would be treated in the same circumstances.
All your talk of ruining his life because he annoys you is OTT.

i'm sorry, but what on earth are you talking about? where have i said anything about ruining his life? suspending him until he has had his day in court is hardly ruining his life. you know these blokes don't die after they stop playing footy, right?

how i would be treated in the same circumstances... is that a joke? you keep answering my questions with riddles, roopy. how about some straight yes or no's?

is it immoral, illegal or otherwise untoward to suspend houston (with full pay) until he has had his day in court? if he is found guilty, are we not well within our rights to terminate his contract... based on any number of - what i'm sure are standard - clauses in an NRL players contract?

yes or no?

 

[Newynut]

This is all supposition, until the case is heard He is innocent . He should be allowed to play just like normal peeps would continue working .

 

[TooheysNew]

I will be considering my support of the Knights if this gets much worse. WHAT THE f**k is going on on with this club I am beyond devastated, what kind of a club is this!

Please.

 

[roopy]

i'm sorry, but what on earth are you talking about? where have i said anything about ruining his life? suspending him until he has had his day in court is hardly ruining his life. you know these blokes don't die after they stop playing footy, right?

how i would be treated in the same circumstances... is that a joke? you keep answering my questions with riddles, roopy. how about some straight yes or no's?

is it immoral, illegal or otherwise untoward to suspend houston (with full pay) until he has had his day in court? if he is found guilty, are we not well within our rights to terminate his contract... based on any number of - what i'm sure are standard - clauses in an NRL players contract?

yes or no?

It doesn't matter if his contract is 700 pages long and spells out every possible infringement known to man - the club still has to treat him fairly - and if it turns out he has done something very minor - they can't smash him for it - no matter how much you want them to.

 

[Newie is God's Country]

This is going to have dire consequences. It isn't like sponsors are climbing over themselves to back us. House has just thrown away a very promising career if this is all true. Innocent until proven guilty. Enough said. No room for speculation here as it is totally without basis until the fact emerge.

 

[perverse]

It doesn't matter if his contract is 700 pages long and spells out every possible infringement known to man - the club still has to treat him fairly - and if it turns out he has done something very minor - they can't smash him for it - no matter how much you want them to.

you still haven't answered my questions. do you believe, if he is found guilty of supplying any amount of illicit drugs, it is illegal or immoral for our club to tear up his contract?

do you believe he shouldn't be removed from the rest of our squad until the matter is cleared up either way? to me, this is the only contentious part of my opinion... and it is just that, my opinion. it's also a selfish opinion, as i don't want this to impact our season anymore than it already has.

i make no apologies for it, either.

 

[Big Tim]

ok, you're going to take the politically sound road too, and just deal with the facts... whilst discarding the circumstance and probability.

good for you, i guess.

the fact that it has taken so long to be summoned to court is likely a bad thing. that's a lot of time to double check their own facts, and make sure t's are crossed and i's dotted.

i think another thing you blokes are struggling to grasp with (through lack of experience in the matter.. or something else entirely... i'm not going to make assumptions on that) is that it's bloody hard to be accidently or wrongly accused of supplying drugs, especially when the lead has come from an extremely organised and co-ordinated bust. it's a bloody serious charge, and they don't just hand them out willy-nilly.

my very strong suspicion is that the cops haven't mucked this one up.

Facts are all we have to go on.

What if its just a few phonecalls where he says "I know a guy where you can get them from?"

Thats not supply to the degree that should see his football career ended. If it is "OK, so 3 pills, that will be $xx" then he is in a world of trouble.

Has he even been arrested, or even had a bail hearing?. Wicks was arrested. There seems to be alot of differences with the two cases.

FTR I never laid into Wicks either, so this has nothing to do with my man-crush on House. I am treating him the same way I would treat any of them.

 

[Newie is God's Country]

you still haven't answered my questions. do you believe, if he is found guilty of supplying any amount of illicit drugs, it is illegal or immoral for our club to tear up his contract?

do you believe he shouldn't be removed from the rest of our squad until the matter is cleared up either way? to me, this is the only contentious part of my opinion... and it is just that, my opinion. it's also a selfish opinion, as i don't want this to impact our season anymore than it already has.

i make no apologies for it, either.

Well put mate. We all want is best for our club and that is what unites us if nothing else in this forum. I respect all the views here and of course reserve the right, same as anyone here, to disagree with them if I wish. Roops I believe is simply saying that because House has a relatively high profile he should not be handicapped by that. If I am wrong roops then I apologise. THis is an extremely emotional and grey issue and one which I absolutely hate with a passion having to revisit.

 

[macavity]

Ok lets get some facts into the matter.

he has been charged with supply. the fact that he has been issued a CAN, rather than arrested, would indicate that the charges will be dealt with summarily.

When dealt with summarily, the charges carry a maximum penalty of $5,500 fine, or 2 years prison, or both.

First offence, apparently cooperating with police, small quantities.

He isn't going to prison. He may not even get a conviction recorded.

So, the law doesn't see fit to lock him up, but we want to throw him away?

Now for the emotion.

I understand that we want to be all hard-arse about this, but I cant help but look at other clubs that have had players on much more serious charges, and have stood by them - hell, continued to let them play and supported them to the hilt.

Why do we have to be the NRL's fall guys here? Houso isn't a Todd Carney. Looks like he may have fcucked up, but he didn't do it again and again and again.

We can either keep him here and help him be the player, and the man, that he can be. We can punish him for, and help him make amends for, his stupidity. In house.

Or we can throw him away.

I personally don't give a shyt what fans of other clubs say. I will hold my head high, and be proud of my club, no matter what.

 

[macavity]

Please.

yeah I second that. I have seen half eaten burritos that would make better fans than baron.

 

[cram]

Ok lets get some facts into the matter.

he has been charged with supply. the fact that he has been issued a CAN, rather than arrested, would indicate that the charges will be dealt with summarily.

When dealt with summarily, the charges carry a maximum penalty of $5,500 fine, or 2 years prison, or both.

First offence, apparently cooperating with police, small quantities.

He isn't going to prison. He may not even get a conviction recorded.

This was my point earlier...

 

[macavity]

This was my point earlier...

yeah mate, we should stop letting the facts get in the way of a good pitchforkin'

 

[perverse]

Facts are all we have to go on.

What if its just a few phonecalls where he says "I know a guy where you can get them from?"

Thats not supply to the degree that should see his football career ended. If it is "OK, so 3 pills, that will be $xx" then he is in a world of trouble.

Has he even been arrested, or even had a bail hearing?. Wicks was arrested. There seems to be alot of differences with the two cases.

FTR I never laid into Wicks either, so this has nothing to do with my man-crush on House. I am treating him the same way I would treat any of them.

so you think hooking someone up with drugs is cool, as long as you're not the one taking the cash for it? interesting line to draw in the sand...

i'm not going to speculate on the differences between the cases too much, because it's going to lead me to some extremely thin ice as far as forum regulations go...

one thing i do know is that circumstantial evidence isn't enough for a case against houston... and that something has obviously changed in the last week or so. that's probably the limit of what we can comfortably speculate on that matter...

 

[roopy]

you still haven't answered my questions. do you believe, if he is found guilty of supplying any amount of illicit drugs, it is illegal or immoral for our club to tear up his contract?

I'm not speculating on what he may or may not have done, but even if he is found guilty of something, the club has to have a proportional responce.
In victoria a guy is facing rape charges and his barristor seems confident he can sue the club for the full value of his contract - which seems optimistic - but if House ends up with no conviction recorded, and i know people who have been charged with far worse who have had no conviction recorded, then he could well be entitled to a full payout.

 

[Newie is God's Country]

so you think hooking someone up with drugs is cool, as long as you're not the one taking the cash for it? interesting line to draw in the sand...

i'm not going to speculate on the differences between the cases too much, because it's going to lead me to some extremely thin ice as far as forum regulations go...

one thing i do know is that circumstantial evidence isn't enough for a case against houston... and that something has obviously changed in the last week or so. that's probably the limit of what we can comfortably speculate on that matter...

I am glad you reeled yourself in there Perverse. We have to be careful as a whole where we go with this one. Like it or not this is the life and career of a young man we are talking about here. His name though is already tarnished.

 

[Big Tim]

so you think hooking someone up with drugs is cool, as long as you're not the one taking the cash for it? interesting line to draw in the sand...

i'm not going to speculate on the differences between the cases too much, because it's going to lead me to some extremely thin ice as far as forum regulations go...

one thing i do know is that circumstantial evidence isn't enough for a case against houston... and that something has obviously changed in the last week or so. that's probably the limit of what we can comfortably speculate on that matter...

Nope.

I am stating that if he just put people in contact with each other, didnt actually sell the gear, then he will be in a far better situation in terms of staying around not only the NRL, but this club.

Twist it any way you like. I am not condoning the selling of drugs. Far from it.

 

[perverse]

I am glad you reeled yourself in there Perverse. We have to be careful as a whole where we go with this one. Like it or not this is the life and career of a young man we are talking about here. His name though is already tarnished.

the reason why i pulled my head in is that conversation will lead us right down the road of speculation. until that point i'm merely sharing my opinion on the potential outcomes of what is already put in front of us.

roopy - my entire argument is based on the assumption that is he is found guilty of supplying drugs, we have the legal right to terminate his contract. if we do have that right, then i 100% believe we should exercise it. if i am wrong on that assumption, then so be it, i'll put my hand up when the time comes and house has been found guilty or not guilty. i find it extremely hard to believe that a football club wouldn't have that legal right, regardless of quantity. i also find it hard to believe that what you are saying is 100% true, in that if it is written in black and white in his contract, and he has signed it, that he could still sue the club and be successful.

tim - i'm not twisting anything. what you just said is exactly what i said, paraphrased to look slightly more candy coated (sorry if you didn't like lingo like "hooking up"... it's just what we say in the ghetto ;-)). i really don't think our players should be telling people where they can get their drugs, especially if it's his housemate, and i believe he should be punished to the full extent of our legal rights, -edit- which until this discussion i firmly believed would be immediate termination of his contract. if i am wrong about that, so be it... you can easily substitute "termination of his contract" with "implement maximum punishment under our legal rights in the given situation" and get the same message out of my opinion. all i want is the best long term solution for our football club, and i believe the time has come to drop the maximum weight of bricks we possibly can. -/edit-

 

[shane1970]

Ok lets get some facts into the matter.

he has been charged with supply. the fact that he has been issued a CAN, rather than arrested, would indicate that the charges will be dealt with summarily.

.
What a load of CRAP - it doesn't matter a sh*t if he's been issued with a CAN - FCAN - charged or charged and bailed if it's gonna be delat with summarily or by a trial!!!!!!!!!!!! What DOES matter is the offence and with a drug supply charge it DOES have the potential (quantity taken into consideration ofcourse) to be indictable.