Jdb case

[ST Tangles 01]

I'm not sure what is right or wrong on this occasion per contracts but from my experience dealing with stand downs at work we have 2 scenarios

1 Salaried employee have a signed contract that has clauses stating we can and will be stood down on full pay if we are charged with any criminal offence that could cause detrimental publicity for our employer.
If we are found innocent we can come straight back to work
If found guilty the company has the right to terminate our employment.

2 EBA employees we have the right to stand them down for an incident that has occurred at work that is deemed to serious enough to warrant termination pending an Investigation on full pay.
After the investigation we would either terminate employment or have them return to work depending findings.

If one of our EBA employees was charged with a criminal offence and have not faced court we can not stand them down.

If they were charged and refused bail we would have to wait for them to be away for a certain time and could terminate them for abandonment of duties.

We have tried to implement similar policies for our EBA staff that we have for our contracted staff but it has never gotten past the negotiation stage.

 

[2218]

Did they do any investigation before laying charges? Like maybe flying to Italy to interview the suspect? Extensive interviews with the victim and others who may have useful information? Pretty sure they did.
In case you’re wondering how often reports of sexual assault result in charges...
View attachment 27960

Well the victim in this case i

Did they do any investigation before laying charges? Like maybe flying to Italy to interview the suspect? Extensive interviews with the victim and others who may have useful information? Pretty sure they did.
In case you’re wondering how often reports of sexual assault result in charges...
View attachment 27960

Of cause they did Damo. The extensive interview of the victim is the allegation. The accused has to be offered interview as part of procedural fairness. Of course all avenues of investigation have to be conducted however in this case the alleged witness was dead leaving police with a case of pretty much he said versus he said. Basically charged on the basis of an allegation. Although extremely weak all police need is a Prima facie case to charge.
Now if this policy goes through any disgruntled sexual interlude can end up in a sexual assault allegation with possible charges. I don’t believe that this is a fair outcome for anybody. However currently if the NRL are privy to evidence putting a lot of weight into possible conviction ie Mat Lodge with video evidence I do not have a problem with the player being suspended. However if the NRL are not privy to any evidence I believe that the player should continue to play until the matter is finalised.
As you have posted evidence suggests that only a small proportion of sexual assault cases end in conviction. On the other hand other offences such as drug supply for instance have a higher conviction rate. This makes the 11 year blanket rule even more absurd.
Every case should be determined on its own as they all have factors that need to be considered before the drastic measure of suspension just because it fits into a category.

 

[Willow]

When the NRL brought new rules in around concussions and players passing tests to show they’ve returned to their cognitive baseline do you think they added that clause to every players contract? They gave themselves the ability to stop players from taking the field unless they complied with a new rule. Do you think that was illegal?

You answered it at the top. It was a new rule. The NRL changing the rules for what happens on the football field is quite different to a judicial ruling away from the field.

 

[The Damo]

You answered it at the top. It was a new rule. The NRL changing the rules for what happens on the football field is quite different to a judicial ruling away from the field.

That rule also established off field requirements to get onto the football field. This new rule
Would come broadly under the same powers I imagine.

 

[The Damo]

Well the victim in this case i

Of cause they did Damo. The extensive interview of the victim is the allegation. The accused has to be offered interview as part of procedural fairness. Of course all avenues of investigation have to be conducted however in this case the alleged witness was dead leaving police with a case of pretty much he said versus he said. Basically charged on the basis of an allegation. Although extremely weak all police need is a Prima facie case to charge.
Now if this policy goes through any disgruntled sexual interlude can end up in a sexual assault allegation with possible charges. I don’t believe that this is a fair outcome for anybody. However currently if the NRL are privy to evidence putting a lot of weight into possible conviction ie Mat Lodge with video evidence I do not have a problem with the player being suspended. However if the NRL are not privy to any evidence I believe that the player should continue to play until the matter is finalised.
As you have posted evidence suggests that only a small proportion of sexual assault cases end in conviction. On the other hand other offences such as drug supply for instance have a higher conviction rate. This makes the 11 year blanket rule even more absurd.
Every case should be determined on its own as they all have factors that need to be considered before the drastic measure of suspension just because it fits into a category.

So it was an extensive investigation of an allegation that led to a charge - Not, repeat Not just an allegation.
I’d also note that I think it’s quite a stretch to describe a case that ended with the conviction of one of the most powerful and expensively represented men in Australia as weak.

The evidence I posted says the vast majority of allegations don’t reach court. This makes the claim that all it takes is an allegation from a “disgruntled sexual interlude” to get a charge an utterly unsupported one. It’s the vast majority of reports that don’t get convictions, not the vast majority of charged cases.
In that year less than 1 in 5 allegations led to court. So it’s actually difficult to get an allegation to court. However of those that did around 1 in 2 ended in a conviction.

 

[Saints Forever]

Look forward to the judge making his ruling one way or the other.

We should be focused on the pre-game discussion for round 1, not the legal argument as to whether the NRL can make and enforce rules.

Fire up Saints, we have a game to win in Townsville !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[Pablooo]

FFS, false evidence? I swear to god people here just make stuff up.

Sorry, meant to post “exculpatory” evidence not “false”.

 

[SnowDragon]

Just another comment on the debate here.

This is a complicated issue where many people rightly have an opinion. This is good, and discussing the issue rather than hiding it is good. (My opinions of course).

Given the wildly diverse views expressed, and the spread of opinions it is clear that there is no obvious solution anyone can claim now, and it must come down to a legal decision.

Views should thus be expressed as that, and the debate should be carried out in that light ... I guess I am saying there are lots of people here who should grow up! Listen, express learn...

Regards,
A pompous fence sitter

P.s. I still don’t know what is right, or more likely there is no right here, and we just need to have clear rules to follow. My biggest concern is that the NRL have made decisions and timed them in such a way as to screw with our season, and that pisses me off. If they implement then they should pay, and not negatively effect any club unless they can state that the actions of the club contributed to the issue (which I believe they have the right to do as a way to push the agenda on cultural change).

 

[2218]

My thoughts on this are well documented. I can’t debate with Damo anymore I respect his thoughts however disagree with most of his points being googled and guess work. My thoughts are that this matter will be enacted by the NRL and if the policy is what they have stated publicly will be dismissed by the judge and jack will be allowed to play. That will be a provisional order with a final order being given later in the year to provide the judge time to peruse the evidence and make an informed decision. Something the NRL should of done to begin with.
A couple of factors come to mind in relation to my thoughts are that the NRL are heavily basing the policy on the loss of financial gains through sponsorship withdrawal. The dragons however have the full support of st George bank and I am not aware of any sponsors pulling out because of his court matter.
Another is that Beattie has already publicly stated that his position is at risk because of his stance on behaviour issues. I think this is his way of saying I stuffed up but had good intentions.
The other is that it is a breach of his ability to promote and progress his brand.
To those that see different I get it but I do not like seeing people getting shafted without due process.
I also love the dragons and see this as a bigger travesty of justice than some calling for McGregors head.

 

[The calm one]

My thoughts on this are well documented. I can’t debate with Damo anymore I respect his thoughts however disagree with most of his points being googled and guess work. My thoughts are that this matter will be enacted by the NRL and if the policy is what they have stated publicly will be dismissed by the judge and jack will be allowed to play. That will be a provisional order with a final order being given later in the year to provide the judge time to peruse the evidence and make an informed decision. Something the NRL should of done to begin with.
A couple of factors come to mind in relation to my thoughts are that the NRL are heavily basing the policy on the loss of financial gains through sponsorship withdrawal. The dragons however have the full support of st George bank and I am not aware of any sponsors pulling out because of his court matter.
Another is that Beattie has already publicly stated that his position is at risk because of his stance on behaviour issues. I think this is his way of saying I stuffed up but had good intentions.
The other is that it is a breach of his ability to promote and progress his brand.
To those that see different I get it but I do not like seeing people getting shafted without due process.
I also love the dragons and see this as a bigger travesty of justice than some calling for McGregors head.

My thoughts are well documented as well. Out on bail for murder you can walk the streets. Lesser charge, can't play football. Please explain Tod

 

[getsmarty]

St George Illawarra players focused as Jack de Belin ban confirmed

• Cameron Mee

Dragons Den

Suspended: Jack de Belin. Picture: Robert Peet.

The Dragons have vowed to leave the Jack de Belin drama in the pre-season as they prepare to open their NRL campaign in Townsville on Saturday night.

The clash with the Cowboys will mark the end of a tumultuous off-season for the club, with questions surrounding de Belin's availability swirling since he was charged with aggravated sexual assault in December.

The Australian Rugby League Commission officially implemented the new no-fault stand down policy on Monday night after de Belin challenged the validity of his ban in court last week.

The confirmation of the policy means de Belin will be sidelined until court proceedings have played out.

Strike forward Tariq Sims conceded the uncertainty has acted as a distraction throughout the pre-season, however he's confident the team will be able to put the saga behind them once the season begins.

"I’d be lying if I said it wasn’t disrupting the camp," Sims said. "But we've got multiple players that have been training in his position throughout the year.

"Whether we keep Friz [Tyson Frizell] there, or we've got young Lachlan Timm, Josh Kerr, my brother Korbin coming after two weeks, Blake Lawrie. We've got a lot of options, we just need to make sure if we're called upon, we do our best job.

"At the moment, Jack's welfare is our main priority. There's obviously going to be a lot of back and forth with him in the court systems. With everything that's going on in the papers, I think it's a bit out of line, I think it needs to go before the courts before we throw our opinions around."

The off-season has been a busy one for St George Illawarra, with captain Gareth Widdop announcing 2019 will be his last year at the club and Eels half Corey Norman arriving in December.

Desperate to add to the premiership he won with the Storm in 2012, Widdop is confident the drama won't detract from the Dragons title chances.

https://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/5946414/dragons-re-sign-emerging-winger/?cs=3713Read more: Dragons re-sign emerging winger

"Obviously it's been in the paper every single day for the last couple of weeks," Widdop said. "You can't hide from it. But I keep saying it all the time, we turn up to training with a job individually and as a team to do. The coach has given us a role to play and that's all we can worry about.

"We can make sure we're there for Jack, obviously his welfare is the most important thing, make sure he's alright, but he seems to be okay. It's there, but it's not going to be a distraction, we can't let it be. We've got a job to do, to go out and play football."

With de Belin's ban likely to last many months, Sims recognises the remainder of the forward pack must step up to fill the void left by the absence of a representative forward.

It's a challenge, Sims believes, the pack is up for.

"Jack brings experience, but also passion and pride," Sims said. "We've got myself, Paul Vaughan, James Graham, Jeremy Lattimore, Tyson Frizell, they're some pretty handy players that do bring a lot of spirit and pride and passion in their game.

"If that means we all have to lift an extra 5 per cent, then so be it.

"After a couple of weeks we get Korbin back [from suspension], he's just as big and just as ugly as Jack. He plays the same style of game, he hits through the middle, he ball-plays really well, he makes some smart options defensive-wise and he'll be a really great player for us."

https://www.illawarramercury.com.au...ayers-focused-despite-de-belin-drama/?cs=3713

 

[st penguin]

My thoughts on this are well documented. I can’t debate with Damo anymore I respect his thoughts however disagree with most of his points being googled and guess work. My thoughts are that this matter will be enacted by the NRL and if the policy is what they have stated publicly will be dismissed by the judge and jack will be allowed to play. That will be a provisional order with a final order being given later in the year to provide the judge time to peruse the evidence and make an informed decision. Something the NRL should of done to begin with.
A couple of factors come to mind in relation to my thoughts are that the NRL are heavily basing the policy on the loss of financial gains through sponsorship withdrawal. The dragons however have the full support of st George bank and I am not aware of any sponsors pulling out because of his court matter.
Another is that Beattie has already publicly stated that his position is at risk because of his stance on behaviour issues. I think this is his way of saying I stuffed up but had good intentions.
The other is that it is a breach of his ability to promote and progress his brand.
To those that see different I get it but I do not like seeing people getting shafted without due process.
I also love the dragons and see this as a bigger travesty of justice than some calling for McGregors head.

Just a point about loss of sponsorship. I don’t think it’s about loss of existing sponsors, it is trying to attract new sponsors. The Souths CEO said as much and estimated the game lost about $10 million in revenue. The titans chairman though about $6.5m.

This will be a compelling argument for the NRL. (As long as JDB gets full pay)

 

[Willow]

That rule also established off field requirements to get onto the football field. This new rule
Would come broadly under the same powers I imagine.

No, the two are miles apart. The judiciary doesn't get involved in an on-field rule, nor would the judiciary get involved off-field if a player is sidelined due to an injury. No player or Club are going to challenge this in court.

Perhaps a better example would be Dennis Tutty who in the 1970s sued the League for restraint of trade. He challenged the NSWRL's transfer rule through the courts, and ultimately won. I know this doesn't help your argument, especially given that the League lost that case.

 

[Willow]

Just a point about loss of sponsorship. I don’t think it’s about loss of existing sponsors, it is trying to attract new sponsors. The Souths CEO said as much and estimated the game lost about $10 million in revenue. The titans chairman though about $6.5m.

This will be a compelling argument for the NRL. (As long as JDB gets full pay)

Not sure how a magistrate would view that argument. That is, the loss of revenue they haven't received as yet. Surely any future revenue is the NRL's problem.

Where do the figures from Souths and Titans come from? Yes.... source please.

 

[The Damo]

My thoughts on this are well documented. I can’t debate with Damo anymore I respect his thoughts however disagree with most of his points being googled and guess work. My thoughts are that this matter will be enacted by the NRL and if the policy is what they have stated publicly will be dismissed by the judge and jack will be allowed to play. That will be a provisional order with a final order being given later in the year to provide the judge time to peruse the evidence and make an informed decision. Something the NRL should of done to begin with.
A couple of factors come to mind in relation to my thoughts are that the NRL are heavily basing the policy on the loss of financial gains through sponsorship withdrawal. The dragons however have the full support of st George bank and I am not aware of any sponsors pulling out because of his court matter.
Another is that Beattie has already publicly stated that his position is at risk because of his stance on behaviour issues. I think this is his way of saying I stuffed up but had good intentions.
The other is that it is a breach of his ability to promote and progress his brand.
To those that see different I get it but I do not like seeing people getting shafted without due process.
I also love the dragons and see this as a bigger travesty of justice than some calling for McGregors head.

Fair enough, for what it’s worth I know there are some things I can be combative on, but those are things I think are important, and that misinformation on genuinely needs to be pulled up as it’s damaging.
In this particular post of yours for instance I don’t agree with all of it, but it’s all reasonable differing opinion based on the actual situation. Things like that sure let’s discuss, debate, agree, disagree, whatever.

However the things that stray into misinformation are comments that imply that it’s easy to get a false sexual assault allegation to court. I will continue to dispute that strongly because it’s not true, and it’s damaging. It’s a view that has damaged people I know and care about personally and people I know and work with professionally. And yes I will google actual evidence that backs that stance, because it’s not opinion, it’s fact, and I am an optimist that most people are open to being convinced by evidence.

 

[The Damo]

No, the two are miles apart. The judiciary doesn't get involved in an on-field rule, nor would the judiciary get involved off-field if a player is sidelined due to an injury. No player or Club are going to challenge this in court.

Perhaps a better example would be Dennis Tutty who in the 1970s sued the League for restraint of trade. He challenged the NSWRL's transfer rule through the courts, and ultimately won. I know this doesn't help your argument, especially given that the League lost that case.

I disagree, the league instituted cognitive tests to establish a baseline for each player. After they receive a concussion they have to repeat the tests until they’ve returned to that baseline, or they can’t play. I think if the league has the power to install that kind of requirement, where they have the power to not allow players to be selected without altering anyone’s contract, they likely have the power to do so on the basis of serious criminal charges. I could be wrong of course.
I genuinely don’t think restraint of trade stuff will come into it, but again I could be wrong. Under those kind of commercial contract rules though there is a strong presumption that a governing body can set rules about what kind of requirements there are for someone to participate. We’ll all find out if Jack keeps up his challenge I guess.

 

[possm]

I disagree, the league instituted cognitive tests to establish a baseline for each player. After they receive a concussion they have to repeat the tests until they’ve returned to that baseline, or they can’t play. I think if the league has the power to install that kind of requirement, where they have the power to not allow players to be selected without altering anyone’s contract, they likely have the power to do so on the basis of serious criminal charges. I could be wrong of course.
I genuinely don’t think restraint of trade stuff will come into it, but again I could be wrong. Under those kind of commercial contract rules though there is a strong presumption that a governing body can set rules about what kind of requirements there are for someone to participate. We’ll all find out if Jack keeps up his challenge I guess.

So then, if the ARLC introduced specific and legal controls as parameters within the rules and providing the rule then meets the test of being within the ARLC/NRL's authority and also meets the test of fairness, then the rule may survive.

Unfortunately for the ARLC/NRL in my opinion none of the above is included in this new rule.

 

[st penguin]

Not sure how a magistrate would view that argument. That is, the loss of revenue they haven't received as yet. Surely any future revenue is the NRL's problem.

Where do the figures from Souths and Titans come from? Yes.... source please.

Loss of potential earnings is argued in the courts every day. It really isn’t unusual at all.

In terms of the quantum, I don’t know about the easts ceo but the titans chairman pointed to NRLs drop in the Net Promoter Score:

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp...-sponsors-go-cold-on-nrl-20190216-p50ya3.html

In any event there are many, many different ways to argue loss of revenue.

The point I’m making (in case it isn’t clear) is this: By conitinuing to play JDB it is damaging the NRL brand as evidenced by lack of new sponsors, newspaper surveys, market research etc etc.

Therefore, NRL decided to let jdb continue to train with the club on full pay but not have a customer facing role.

This is consistent with other industries.

 

[Saints Forever]

Loss of potential earnings is argued in the courts every day. It really isn’t unusual at all.

In terms of the quantum, I don’t know about the easts ceo but the titans chairman pointed to NRLs drop in the Net Promoter Score:

https://www.google.com.au/amp/s/amp...-sponsors-go-cold-on-nrl-20190216-p50ya3.html

In any event there are many, many different ways to argue loss of revenue.

The point I’m making (in case it isn’t clear) is this: By conitinuing to play JDB it is damaging the NRL brand as evidenced by lack of new sponsors, newspaper surveys, market research etc etc.

Therefore, NRL decided to let jdb continue to train with the club on full pay but not have a customer facing role.

This is consistent with other industries.

Don’t suppose it has anything to do with poor administration on the part of the NRL and the participating clubs?

On field rules constantly being changed.

On field rules not being consistently applied.

Amateurish marketing by most clubs.

 

[Willow]

Loss of potential earnings is argued in the courts every day. It really isn’t unusual at all.

Loss of potential earnings might be something that Jack de Belin will be looking for down the track.

What you're suggesting is that the NRL can use the potential earnings argument to support their retrospective no fault stand down ruling over something that hasn't happened yet and involving a case that hasn't been yet been proven in a court of law.

That was quite a mouthful. This is why lawyers make so much money.