Jdb case

[Eastview]

Was there a verdict on the stand down policy today?

 

[TruSaint]

Was there a verdict on the stand down policy today?

No mate

 

[Glenn012]

Stand down rule is good just the way it was implemented was wrong. Backdating it to cater for previous misdemeanours wreaks of incompetence by the NRL. When you bring out a new rule or law, you can't go back and penalise someone for something that was not around at the time? Lets decrease the speed limit on a road today and anyone who went past the new limit last week gets fined? WTF?

Leaving the stand down rule will make players think twice about doing stupid stuff that is for sure. They should not be in that position to do so. If JDB wins teh case they should still keep the rule and emphasis how lucky JDB is for not being out of the game for 2 years until the case was over.

The Gus Gould timing is excellent as he is now free to take over Greentud's role in the NRL. Or better still they can get Dousty. How good would that be. He was a much more successful CEO than Greenberg was at the Dogs. Dousty got us a premiership, Greenberg got nothing just left a huge pile of $hite for the NZ bird to step in and take the blame.

I don't understand why you think it's good. Does the rule of law mean anything at all? What the hell happens if the accused is proven innocent??? And why couldn't unscrupulous people take advantage of it by setting up key players even though they know it won't stand up to under the scrutiny of a court?

 

[Wittenberg]

I don't understand why you think it's good. Does the rule of law mean anything at all? What the hell happens if the accused is proven innocent??? And why couldn't unscrupulous people take advantage of it by setting up key players even though they know it won't stand up to under the scrutiny of a court?

I get the innocent until proven guilty argument but lawyers, teachers, policemen, nurses and many others would be immediately stood down / suspended on full pay if charged with a serious offence while they were waiting for the chase to be dealt with. As much as some would like to think that NRL players are the only ones to which a stand down situation applies are wrong....

 

[Old Timer]

I don't understand why you think it's good. Does the rule of law mean anything at all? What the hell happens if the accused is proven innocent??? And why couldn't unscrupulous people take advantage of it by setting up key players even though they know it won't stand up to under the scrutiny of a court?

You obviously don't understand many things.
The sand down rule applies only to serious offences.
Serious offences cannot just be created out of nothing there needs to be a body of evidence.
Courts do not contest such matters without the DPP stating that there is enough evidence that a conviction might be arrived at.
There are severe penalties for people making vexatious claims against other parties.
The likelihood of malicious and false claims being made in an effort to get players suspended is ludicrous.

 

[Lethal25]

I get the innocent until proven guilty argument but lawyers, teachers, policemen, nurses and many others would be immediately stood down / suspended on full pay if charged with a serious offence while they were waiting for the chase to be dealt with. As much as some would like to think that NRL players are the only ones to which a stand down situation applies are wrong....

I think the difference is the shelf life a a professional sports player is so small that taking a year or two out of their career could actually be career ending. That's not to say it may not impact in other professions but more likely in this case. In addition the incentive based nature of contracts does create further issues. Apparently De Belin will miss out on 3 x origin fees plus another 30k incentive. That's $120k he is unable to earn this year with future contract negotiations hindered without being able to show his wares.

I'm not supporting JDB as with many I believe if he's found guilty then he deserves to face the music. But it's certainly murky waters when you start restricting (entirely) someones ability to further their career and earn additional income when no verdict of guilt is at hand. Not a good situation for all involved

 

[ST Tangles 01]

I get the innocent until proven guilty argument but lawyers, teachers, policemen, nurses and many others would be immediately stood down / suspended on full pay if charged with a serious offence while they were waiting for the chase to be dealt with. As much as some would like to think that NRL players are the only ones to which a stand down situation applies are wrong....

Lawyers, teachers, policemen, nurses and many other jobs being run by professional people would have this included in their contracts as I do.

The difference here is the NRL despite being a professional sport is run by amateurs.

Should of been in NRL contracts a long time ago.

 

[Old Timer]

I think the difference is the shelf life a a professional sports player is so small that taking a year or two out of their career could actually be career ending. That's not to say it may not impact in other professions but more likely in this case. In addition the incentive based nature of contracts does create further issues. Apparently De Belin will miss out on 3 x origin fees plus another 30k incentive. That's $120k he is unable to earn this year with future contract negotiations hindered without being able to show his wares.

I'm not supporting JDB as with many I believe if he's found guilty then he deserves to face the music. But it's certainly murky waters when you start restricting (entirely) someones ability to further their career and earn additional income when no verdict of guilt is at hand. Not a good situation for all involved

No different than if you were working for a large corporation where your remuneration package was retainer, plus commission and bonus's.
In my working life if I had been stood down for any reason my salary would have been affected seriously and my reputation damaged within the industry making it hard for me to have an effective career so I made sure I kept my nose very clean.
IMO some of the arguments being presented by pro JDB people are based on people wanting him on the paddock to give our team the best chance possible and not necessarily about much more than that.

 

[Lethal25]

No different than if you were working for a large corporation where your remuneration package was retainer, plus commission and bonus's.
In my working life if I had been stood down for any reason my salary would have been affected seriously and my reputation damaged within the industry making it hard for me to have an effective career so I made sure I kept my nose very clean.
IMO some of the arguments being presented by pro JDB people are based on people wanting him on the paddock to give our team the best chance possible and not necessarily about much more than that.

I think you missed the part where I stated it may impact in other professions but IMO more so for a professional sports person given things like the average number of games across the code is something in the region of only 48.

By quoting my comments and referencing pro JDB arguments is nothing more than you linking two separate threads together in order to support your own point of view. I clearly stated I'm not supporting JDB, my point was more around the sports person in general and the difficulties in handling these cases. But you read whatever you want into it and if you feel the need to attack that's really on you

 

[Old Timer]

I think you missed the part where I stated it may impact in other professions but IMO more so for a professional sports person given things like the average number of games across the code is something in the region of only 48.

By quoting my comments and referencing pro JDB arguments is nothing more than you linking two separate threads together in order to support your own point of view. I clearly stated I'm not supporting JDB, my point was more around the sports person in general and the difficulties in handling these cases. But you read whatever you want into it and if you feel the need to attack that's really on you

Not quite sure why the testy response? I can assure my reply was not intended to be argumentative
My response was merely offering some information as to other professions and what might happen in similar circumstances and then a general comment re why I believe some people want JDB to be available to play
I made no attempt to link your post to people supporting JDB but if you feel the need to think that way then that’s really on you.

 

[pfrano]

You obviously don't understand many things.
The sand down rule applies only to serious offences.
Serious offences cannot just be created out of nothing there needs to be a body of evidence.
Courts do not contest such matters without the DPP stating that there is enough evidence that a conviction might be arrived at.
There are severe penalties for people making vexatious claims against other parties.
The likelihood of malicious and false claims being made in an effort to get players suspended is ludicrous.

Have you forgotten the Stewart case.

 

[Lethal25]

Not quite sure why the testy response? I can assure my reply was not intended to be argumentative
My response was merely offering some information as to other professions and what might happen in similar circumstances and then a general comment re why I believe some people want JDB to be available to play
I made no attempt to link your post to people supporting JDB but if you feel the need to think that way then that’s really on you.

Haha, well done on using my language in your response.

When you quote someones post they tend to take it as read that the comments made are directly related to that post. If that wasn't your intention then you might be best placed to not quote the post and make a general comment. The below statement from yourself with my post quoted inferred quite heavily IMO that I was being wrapped up in points of view that were definitely not mine.

"IMO some of the arguments being presented by pro JDB people are based on people wanting him on the paddock to give our team the best chance possible and not necessarily about much more than that."

But if that's not the case then let's just all move on

 

[The Damo]

Have you forgotten the Stewart case.

A - that was a much less serious charge. Stewart was facing a maximum of 14 years, Jack is facing a maximum of life. Obviously if ether case were proved they wouldn’t attract the highest possible penalty, but that should give you an idea of the difference in severity.
B - cases like Brett’s are extremely rare. Like less than 1% of cases rare. Theyd be even rarer for the charge Jack is facing. It’s not good practice to make rules based on the rarest circumstances in any scenario.
C - I imagine the DPP remembers that case better than anyone except Brett. I don’t believe there was any medical evidence supporting the allegations in his case.

 

[Old Timer]

Haha, well done on using my language in your response.

When you quote someones post they tend to take it as read that the comments made are directly related to that post. If that wasn't your intention then you might be best placed to not quote the post and make a general comment. The below statement from yourself with my post quoted inferred quite heavily IMO that I was being wrapped up in points of view that were definitely not mine.

"IMO some of the arguments being presented by pro JDB people are based on people wanting him on the paddock to give our team the best chance possible and not necessarily about much more than that."

But if that's not the case then let's just all move on

If I was going to link you to it I wouldn't have said "some" I would have been very specific.
Anyway we have cleared the air so no need to explain further.

 

[Old Timer]

Have you forgotten the Stewart case.

No indeed I have not.
The JDB case is specific in its own right and regardless of what happened to Stewart it should have no bearing whatsoever.
Every case is entitled to be judged on its own merits and not be influenced by any prior happenings to anyone else.

 

[Morotti]

You obviously don't understand many things.
The sand down rule applies only to serious offences.
Serious offences cannot just be created out of nothing there needs to be a body of evidence.
Courts do not contest such matters without the DPP stating that there is enough evidence that a conviction might be arrived at.
There are severe penalties for people making vexatious claims against other parties.
The likelihood of malicious and false claims being made in an effort to get players suspended is ludicrous.

I very much disagree about the idea that people Mau make up false claims as being "ludicrous".

And let's remember that Greenberg can stand you down too if he feels it is warranted.

So realistically it is completely within the realm of possibility that a member of the public, for whatever reason, can obtain information or photos of a on NRL player in a compromising position and leverage that to their advantage.

 

[Old Timer]

I very much disagree about the idea that people Mau make up false claims as being "ludicrous".

And let's remember that Greenberg can stand you down too if he feels it is warranted.

So realistically it is completely within the realm of possibility that a member of the public, for whatever reason, can obtain information or photos of a on NRL player in a compromising position and leverage that to their advantage.

Your post suggests real life events being exposed which is a totally different issue to false and malicious charges being levelled which was what I eluded to.
The changes to the code of conduct are an attempt (for right or wrong) to get players to understand there will be severe consequences for bad behaviour.

 

[The Damo]

I very much disagree about the idea that people Mau make up false claims as being "ludicrous".

And let's remember that Greenberg can stand you down too if he feels it is warranted.

So realistically it is completely within the realm of possibility that a member of the public, for whatever reason, can obtain information or photos of a on NRL player in a compromising position and leverage that to their advantage.

Realistically, that was a possibility prior to the rule coming in. The difference in risk vs reward of trying to get an NRL player charged with a serious crime hasn’t changed in any significant way with the rule in place. If it was that easy to get someone charged then it would’ve been done already. You reckon someone getting Cameron Smith or Keary charged with sexual assault before the grand final last year wouldn’t have had an effect on their performance? Would they have been allowed to play if charged the week before the final? The risk is not markedly greater of that happening now.

 

[Morotti]

Your post suggests real life events being exposed which is a totally different issue to false and malicious charges being levelled which was what I eluded to.
The changes to the code of conduct are an attempt (for right or wrong) to get players to understand there will be severe consequences for bad behaviour.

My actual point was that someone could manufacture evidence somehow that they either interpret or manipulate to show a player in a bad light and then extort them.

In my opinion the presumption of innocence is paramount and has to be respected.

I have no opinion one way or another on the actual case against Jack as I do not have all the facts.

 

[hewi]

I have just read in the SMH an article by Roy Masters in which he says JDB has been banned from attending as a spectator Cantebury cup and Jersey Flegg games. IMO that’s outrageous.