Jdb case

[getsmarty]

De Belin's challenge of NRL rule begins

• National Sport News
  
  
  
  Jack de Belin has taken the NRL to court as he attempts to return to the game.
  
• 
  
• St George Illawarra forward Jack de Belin will argue he may be rendered unemployable if the NRL's "draconian" no fault stand down rules are allowed to be enforced.
  
  De Belin has taken the league to the Federal Court to challenge the policy after he was indefinitely stood down when he was charged with aggravated sexual assault.
  
  The NSW State of Origin representative has pleaded not guilty to the charge.
  
  During his opening statement to the court on Monday, de Belin's barrister Martin Einfeld QC argued there was no guarantee his client's case would finish before the end of the 2020 NRL season, when he will come off contract.
  
  He planned to argue that not being able to play for two years would have a significant impact on de Belin's value as a player and ability to earn another contract.
  
  Einfeld told Judge Melissa Perry the NRL's stand down rule was "a harsh rule, an unfair rule, a draconian rule".
  
  He also argued there are no comparable rules in world sport, including the NFL or NBA in the US, or in other Australian codes, the AFL and soccer.
  
  The Dragons lock is challenging the rules on the grounds that it represents a restraint of trade.
  
  "For example an NBA player can be suspended for a reasonable period pending an internal investigation into misconduct by a player," Einfeld said.
  
  "Which is discretionary and invites and requires the question whether the allegations are supported by credible information."
  
  The ARL Commission introduced the no fault stand down rules in March after a series of off-field incidents and negative headlines over the off-season, arguing they needed to act to protect the reputation of the game and retain sponsors.
  
  Under the policy, any player charged with a serious crime which carries a jail term of 11 years or more can be automatically stood down.
  
  De Belin was one of three players stood down, along with Manly's Dylan Walker and Penrith's Tyrone May.
  
  NRL chief executive Todd Greenberg and chief commercial officer Andrew Abdo are both expected to give evidence during the three-day hearing.
  
  Greenberg is expected to give evidence on Tuesday.
  
  St George Illawarra great Mark Gasnier is present in court in support of de Belin.
  
  Australian Associated Press
  
  
  
  https://www.theleader.com.au/story/6050783/de-belins-challenge-of-nrl-rule-begins/?cs=13069

 

[ST Tangles 01]

Correct me if I'm wrong even if cleared he would not be able to play this weekend.
Teams need to be selected tomorrow with the Mandatory 21 players selected.
He is currently suspended so can not be named.
If cleared to play that would be Wednesday.
We would then need to apply for an exception for him to play.
Would the NRL grant it?

 

[The Damo]

Precisely! And if Jack is found not guilty at the end of it, I hope he pursues Beattie and Greenburg for damages and/or slander or something.

No, if you want me to take your message serious, just provide the f**king link or STFU about it.

I've already stopped reading your messages.

So you’ve got zero evidence to back your false claim? Surprising.
Question - are you deliberately lying, or deliberately stupid?

 

[Rob Dragon]

So why are you passing judgement on jack assuming he is guilty because he has been stood down?

Rufus, don't even bother with him mate. He is well off the pace. The way he sees it we would also do away with the Remand process as well. Imagine is a heinous crime was committed against one of Glenny's family members and the accused individual was charged and then pleaded not guilty and was awaiting trial. According to Little Glenny's rule of thumb that individual should be free to roam the streets whilst he awaits trial because he has not yet faced the judicial system. Just a weird little man.

 

[Morotti]

Y

Correct me if I'm wrong even if cleared he would not be able to play this weekend.
Teams need to be selected tomorrow with the Mandatory 21 players selected.
He is currently suspended so can not be named.
If cleared to play that would be Wednesday.
We would then need to apply for an exception for him to play.
Would the NRL grant it?

Yes good point.

I wonder if the dragons are bold enough to try to name him in the Squad? And if they get knocked back on the basis he is suspended and his suspension gets overturned, if they could then try to include him on Wednesday.

Also hypothetically, if this ban gets overturned, does Peter Beattie have to stand down? Surely there will be pressure.

 

[Morotti]

Yawn ... why dont people understand that standing someone down on full pay is not passing judgement on their guilt/innocence. It is simply a risk mitigation strategy.

The easiest way to understand it is this ... Teacher charged with being a kiddie fiddler .. They are entitled to the same presumption of innocence as Jack? yes! .. does it make sense to have them in a classroom teaching? Absolutely not !! Stood down on full pay pending the case.

If you are happy for Jack to not be stood down then the concept you are supporting is precisely the same as the pedo priest or the pedo teacher - just taken to the Nth degree.

If that is a little to confrontational for you then bank teller charged with theft etc etc


The NRL have the right to do whatever they think is in the best interest of the game.

That example isn't the same nor does it equate.

A teacher is alone in a classroom full of children all day. And if he is suspended on full pay and is acquitted, then surely he goes straight back to teaching. Albeit unfortunately a stigma would follow him.

Jack is accused of sexual assault on someone that has nothing to do with his job. So it doesn't equate.

Also he is not exactly stood down on full pay for the duration of the case. He is stood down for the duration of the case until his contract ends. Then what?

We will see if the NRL do have the power to do this. Which will be interesting.

And Jack being allowed to play in my opinion is separate to his sexual assault case. I believe he should be allowed to play as he has pleaded not guilty and is entitled to the presumption of innocence. I have no comment on his court case either supportive or otherwise. Other than to say all people are innocent until proven guilty. We can wait for the verdict as then we will know all the facts.

 

[slippery5]

Rufus, don't even bother with him mate. He is well off the pace. The way he sees it we would also do away with the Remand process as well. Imagine is a heinous crime was committed against one of Glenny's family members and the accused individual was charged and then pleaded not guilty and was awaiting trial. According to Little Glenny's rule of thumb that individual should be free to roam the streets whilst he awaits trial because he has not yet faced the judicial system. Just a weird little man.

With all due respect, you are the one way of the pace when you use inmates on remand as your example. Crimes of that serious magnitude is when there is more than probable evidence of their guilt, such as video evidence/ witnesses/ police covert operation etc etc.
A very high % of Inmates on remand for those crimes they are charged with, are usually found guilty & receive a custodial sentence.

 

[Rob Dragon]

With all due respect, you are the one way of the pace when you use inmates on remand as your example. Crimes of that serious magnitude is when there is more than probable evidence of their guilt, such as video evidence/ witnesses/ police covert operation etc etc.
A very high % of Inmates on remand for those crimes they are charged with, are usually found guilty & receive a custodial sentence.

Slippery, agree with your summation. I was simply being illustrative in terms of there is not "one rule for all".

 

[Saints Forever]

IThis matter Iis scheduled to run for 3 days.

Ultimately it may end up part heard. Either way, I don't expect a result any time soon, unless the judge considers the new rule to be totally unreasonable.

Can't wait for this issue to go away.

 

[ST Tangles 01]

Just read this in an article this is a statement from the NRL chief commercial officer Andrew Abdo that completely contradicts the no fault stand down policy.

He is one of the 3 supplying affidavits alongside Greenberg and the Storm guy.


Mr Abdo claiming “people would be entitled to think Mr de Belin was a sexual predator” whose tarnished reputation has had a “serious impact on television audiences”,

 

[j0nesy]

Yawn ... why dont people understand that standing someone down on full pay is not passing judgement on their guilt/innocence. It is simply a risk mitigation strategy.

The easiest way to understand it is this ... Teacher charged with being a kiddie fiddler .. They are entitled to the same presumption of innocence as Jack? yes! .. does it make sense to have them in a classroom teaching? Absolutely not !! Stood down on full pay pending the case.

If you are happy for Jack to not be stood down then the concept you are supporting is precisely the same as the pedo priest or the pedo teacher - just taken to the Nth degree.

If that is a little to confrontational for you then bank teller charged with theft etc etc


The NRL have the right to do whatever they think is in the best interest of the game.

I get your point but I don’t think JDB’s circumstances are equivalent (or even similar) to your examples. Are his Dragons team mates a greater risk of being raped by him if the NRL lets him play? He’s training with them, are they not already at risk?

I don’t know anything about the JDB case and it’s not for me to know. The legal system will determine his guilt or otherwise. However, the NRL have well and truly ballsed this up. It seems to me they have come out with a new rule as a knee jerk reaction to some very poor off field behaviour, and subsequent publicity. They then decide to apply this new rule retrospectively. Based on that, and the history of unprofessional adjudication by the NRL, I suspect the new rule will be I’ll conceived. In which case I’m betting that JDB is allowed to play.

 

[The Damo]

I don’t think the rule really is retrospective.
Jack is ‘currently’ charged with a serious crime.
It’s not in the past, it’s right now. The rule applies from the day it was passed, Jack was still charged then.
The rule isn’t included in contracts, but with the way NRL player contracts are staggered they’d never be able to introduce new rules if they couldnt apply them to existing contracts.
I think the HIA rules are the most analogous to this. The NRL introduced new rules governing eligibility to play. Every player has to take a cognitive test at the start of the year to establish their baseline. If they get concussed, they have to prove they’ve returned to that baseline or they aren’t allowed to play. They didn’t have to get players to sign new contracts, if a player doesn’t return to that baseline then the suspension is indefinite.
It’s obviously not exactly the same, but I’d like to hear an argument that articulated why the power to institute those rules is legitimate and this rule is not?

 

[ST Tangles 01]

I don’t think the rule really is retrospective.
Jack is ‘currently’ charged with a serious crime.
It’s not in the past, it’s right now. The rule applies from the day it was passed, Jack was still charged then.
The rule isn’t included in contracts, but with the way NRL player contracts are staggered they’d never be able to introduce new rules if they couldnt apply them to existing contracts.
I think the HIA rules are the most analogous to this. The NRL introduced new rules governing eligibility to play. Every player has to take a cognitive test at the start of the year to establish their baseline. If they get concussed, they have to prove they’ve returned to that baseline or they aren’t allowed to play. They didn’t have to get players to sign new contracts, if a player doesn’t return to that baseline then the suspension is indefinite.
It’s obviously not exactly the same, but I’d like to hear an argument that articulated why the power to institute those rules is legitimate and this rule is not?

Hi Damo

To me there not the same (I'm not against the stand down policy in principle)

The HIA policy was implemented with due consultation with all parties including the players association.
They went through a thorough process to implement this.

The no fault stand down policy was a rush job and not consulted on properly.
I'm not saying it's a bad policy but any policy is only as good as it's implementation.

The NRL could of done this better and could have it as an insert on any new contract signed.

Cheers
Tangles

 

[The Damo]

Hi Damo

To me there not the same (I'm not against the stand down policy in principle)

The HIA policy was implemented with due consultation with all parties including the players association.
They went through a thorough process to implement this.

The no fault stand down policy was a rush job and not consulted on properly.
I'm not saying it's a bad policy but any policy is only as good as it's implementation.

The NRL could of done this better and could have it as an insert on any new contract signed.

Cheers
Tangles

Thanks mate,
I totally agree that the process was poor, reactive and rushed. They could absolutely have done it better. And they should be criticised for that.
But I do think the outcome is the right one, and though the process was done badly compared to the HIA rules, the power to do it is, to my mind, very similar. I’m not familiar at all wit the details of commercial law that will decide this case, so could be totally wrong. but the principle seems sound.
It sucks that it’s one of our best, and one of my favourite players, that’s suspended. But I genuinely don’t think it would be the right thing for the club, the game, or for our society to have someone charged with such a serious crime playing. The potential downside is massive. I think it’s hard to overstate how bad it would be for all parties if he kept playing and then ended up found guilty and in gaol for a long stretch.

 

[ST Tangles 01]

Thanks mate,
I totally agree that the process was poor, reactive and rushed. They could absolutely have done it better. And they should be criticised for that.
But I do think the outcome is the right one, and though the process was done badly compared to the HIA rules, the power to do it is, to my mind, very similar. I’m not familiar at all wit the details of commercial law that will decide this case, so could be totally wrong. but the principle seems sound.
It sucks that it’s one of our best, and one of my favourite players, that’s suspended. But I genuinely don’t think it would be the right thing for the club, the game, or for our society to have someone charged with such a serious crime playing. The potential downside is massive. I think it’s hard to overstate how bad it would be for all parties if he kept playing and then ended up found guilty and in gaol for a long stretch.

Definitely a tough one mate.
I believe JDB has a good chance of being cleared to play.
But from my experience dealing with employment / contract issues you can never be to confident.

 

[Glenn012]

So you’ve got zero evidence to back your false claim? Surprising.
Question - are you deliberately lying, or deliberately stupid?

I'm asking you to provide the f**king link or STFU in regard to the issue. It's not rocket science. Why won't you provide the f**king link?

 

[The Damo]

I'm asking you to provide the f**king link or STFU in regard to the issue. It's not rocket science. Why won't you provide the f**king link?

Tell you what my guy - you provide a single piece of data supporting your false claim, and then I’ll find the link. Come on, it’s your false claim, surely you didn’t just pull it out of your arse?
If you’re actually interested it’s somewhere earlier in this thread when I first posted that graph in response to someone making a similar claim. They were honest enough to stop making it though. You?

 

[Morotti]

Just read this in an article this is a statement from the NRL chief commercial officer Andrew Abdo that completely contradicts the no fault stand down policy.

He is one of the 3 supplying affidavits alongside Greenberg and the Storm guy.


Mr Abdo claiming “people would be entitled to think Mr de Belin was a sexual predator” whose tarnished reputation has had a “serious impact on television audiences”,

It looks like the NRL are going to argue they had to do this to to preserve the game. No idea how this stands up from a legal point of view. But be interesting to see what happens.

 

[Morotti]

I don’t think the rule really is retrospective.
Jack is ‘currently’ charged with a serious crime.
It’s not in the past, it’s right now. The rule applies from the day it was passed, Jack was still charged then.
The rule isn’t included in contracts, but with the way NRL player contracts are staggered they’d never be able to introduce new rules if they couldnt apply them to existing contracts.
I think the HIA rules are the most analogous to this. The NRL introduced new rules governing eligibility to play. Every player has to take a cognitive test at the start of the year to establish their baseline. If they get concussed, they have to prove they’ve returned to that baseline or they aren’t allowed to play. They didn’t have to get players to sign new contracts, if a player doesn’t return to that baseline then the suspension is indefinite.
It’s obviously not exactly the same, but I’d like to hear an argument that articulated why the power to institute those rules is legitimate and this rule is not?

When we say retrospective, it means that Jack's incident already took place. So the nrl knows what they need to do in order to exclude him from playing. They can formulate a rule that captures Jack's incident because they already know what he did.

 

[The Damo]

When we say retrospective, it means that Jack's incident already took place. So the nrl knows what they need to do in order to exclude him from playing. They can formulate a rule that captures Jack's incident because they already know what he did.

Yeah I get that’s its a technicality, but these things often are. The rule doesnt apply to the act, it applies to the status of being charged.
For example let’s say next year a player gets charged for a murder that was alleged to have happened 5 years ago - the act happened before the rule was brought in, but it wouldn’t be retrospective and still apply because they are charged now. That’s obviously an extreme example, but I think it illustrates the principle.