Jdb case

[gitano]

I do agree that Aitken should be sacked, but Dufty to prop??? lol Dufty either starts at fullback in first grade or ISP. What does any of that have to do with the JDB case? Wrong thread Gitano. lol

So you do value my opinion after all. lol

Of course I do. Wouldn't be much of a forum if everyone saw it the same way all the time.

In saying that, Aitken is our best right centre.

 

[SnowDragon]

I am unsure why there is surprise that it is going to court. Seemed inevitable, and I actually think it should in the best interest of the game that it does.

1) If upheld, then everyone knows that the NRL rules can be enforced, move forward.
2) If overturned, then the NRL can say they tried, can revert to previous method of waiting till guilty and then banning for life or as appropriate.

Best to,get it all done directly before they are in too deep.

None of this defines a position, which is murky at the least...

 

[Brutalitops]

I am tempted to take the stance of a Dragons fan here, but I can't help but hope the NRL's stance is upheld as I think the way they came out was long overdue. It's not about deciding guilt with any of these players, it's about protecting the destroyed reputation of the NRL while all this goes on.

The NRL sanctions were largely well received by most circles of league fans. For the first time in a while there was positivity coming out about NRL policy and most being on the same page. This really risks making things worse as I believe we were on the right track

 

[SnowDragon]

I am tempted to take the stance of a Dragons fan here, but I can't help but hope the NRL's stance is upheld as I think the way they came out was long overdue. It's not about deciding guilt with any of these players, it's about protecting the destroyed reputation of the NRL while all this goes on.

The NRL sanctions were largely well received by most circles of league fans. For the first time in a while there was positivity coming out about NRL policy and most being on the same page. This really risks making things worse as I believe we were on the right track

Fair post mate!

As a fan of the game I think I agree with you, and hope the same, but the legal precedence and effect concerns me. I actually considered all this without my saints hat on as the issue is so much greater then JDB and saints this year.

 

[GC Dragon]

I am tempted to take the stance of a Dragons fan here, but I can't help but hope the NRL's stance is upheld as I think the way they came out was long overdue. It's not about deciding guilt with any of these players, it's about protecting the destroyed reputation of the NRL while all this goes on.

The NRL sanctions were largely well received by most circles of league fans. For the first time in a while there was positivity coming out about NRL policy and most being on the same page. This really risks making things worse as I believe we were on the right track

Yeap well said . I was much the same your first thought is as a Dragons fan . If the NRL's stance isn't upheld it could be catastrophic for the game .
I think JDB may need protecting from himself in this situation . If he plays the club the team and himself will cop it right left and centre from the fans , the media and everybody else for the entire season .
If he doesn't play it will defuse the situation by not being in the spotlight week in week out for everybody .

 

[Saints Forever]

The NFL often suspend players for disciplinary reasons after conducting their own independent investigation as whether a player has breached its standards of conduct.

They investigate and compile their own evidence.

In JDB’s case, JDB alleges Beattie formed a view about JDB’s perceived conduct without the ARL conducting any form of investigation.

There is nothing wrong with the new rule.

The problem is the ARL made a call based on speculation.

Compare this to the sex tape saga.

May admitted making the tape. The tape
was publicly circulated without the consent of the other person. The ARL is entitled to stand May down for his conduct under the new rule.

 

[getsmarty]

Dragons player Jack de Belin launches Federal Court challenge over NRL ban

• Dragons Den
  St George Illawarra star Jack de Belin could sensationally play in the Dragons' season opener against North Queensland if a Federal Court challenge is successful.
  
  De Belin is suing the NRL for misleading and deceptive conduct and challenging its power to suspend him as he faces a criminal trial for aggravated sexual assault.
  
  In documents filed in the Federal Court, Mr de Belin claims the NRL and the Australian Rugby League Commission – the sport's governing body – did not have the power to suspend him on February 28 and it was "misleading or deceptive" to claim they had done so. Mr De Belin, 27, and Shellharbour Sharks player Callan Sinclair, 21, were charged in December with aggravated sexual assault after they were allegedly involved in an incident with a 19-year-old woman in Wollongong during a night out on December 9. The men have pleaded not guilty to the charges and will next appear in court on April 17.
  
  
  
  
  Bid to play: Jack de Belin. Picture: Nathan Hopkins/NRL Imagery
  
  Mr de Belin is asking the Federal Court to order the NRL and the ARLC to issue a press release and place corrective advertising in media organisations stating that: “The NRL has not suspended St George Illawarra player Jack de Belin. He is available to play for St George Illawarra.”
  
  He also wants the court to award him damages and costs and make a range of declarations, including that he was not "validly suspended or stood down" from the sport and that the NRL and the ARLC engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct and unconscionable conduct.
  
  Mr de Belin's lawyers claim a major change to the game's disciplinary policy, announced on February 28 and requiring the automatic suspension of players accused of serious crimes, amounts to an unreasonable restraint of trade and is a "threatened suspension" rather than a suspension that has taken effect. He is seeking an order permanently restraining the NRL and ARLC from inserting the new rule into the NRL Rules or NRL Code of Conduct.
  
  Under the ARLC's old policy, players who pleaded not guilty to alleged offences were allowed to continue playing while the matters were dealt with in court.
  
  Under the new policy, affecting the upcoming NRL competition, any player who is charged with an offence that carries a maximum prison term of 11 years or more will be automatically stood down.
  
  NRL chief executive Todd Greenberg also has discretionary powers to stand down players charged with offences involving the assault of women or children. Players will be allowed to continue to train with their teams and remain on full pay.
  
  Mr de Belin's lawyers say neither the NRL nor the ARLC had in their possession "any evidence capable of enabling them to properly form a view as to whether de Belin engaged in the alleged offence or conduct that constituted a breach of the NRL Code of Conduct".
  
  An NRL spokesman said on Wednesday: "We have this afternoon received legal documents relating to Jack de Belin. We are currently reviewing those documents."
  
  The parties will appear before Justice Steven Rares for a preliminary hearing on Thursday. The Dragons kick-off against the Cowboys on March 16, after de Belin missed a trial against Newcastle and the Charity Shield against South Sydney.

https://www.illawarramercury.com.au...ay-de-belins-federal-court-challenge/?cs=3713

 

[getsmarty]

Dragons player Jack de Belin launches Federal Court challenge over NRL ban

• Local Sport
  
  
  
  Jack de Belin outside Wollongong court last month. Picture: Adam McLean
  St George Illawarra star Jack de Belin could sensationally play in the Dragons' season opener against North Queensland if a Federal Court challenge is successful.
  
  De Belin is suing the NRL for misleading and deceptive conduct and challenging its power to suspend him as he faces a criminal trial for aggravated sexual assault.
  
  In documents filed in the Federal Court, Mr de Belin claims the NRL and the Australian Rugby League Commission – the sport's governing body – did not have the power to suspend him on February 28 and it was "misleading or deceptive" to claim they had done so.
  
  Mr De Belin, 27, and Shellharbour Sharks player Callan Sinclair, 21, were charged in December with aggravated sexual assault after they were allegedly involved in an incident with a 19-year-old woman in Wollongong during a night out on December 9. The men have pleaded not guilty to the charges and will next appear in court on April 17.
  
  Mr de Belin is asking the Federal Court to order the NRL and the ARLC to issue a press release and place corrective advertising in media organisations stating that: “The NRL has not suspended St George Illawarra player Jack de Belin. He is available to play for St George Illawarra.”
  
  
  
  
  Bid to play: Jack de Belin. Picture: Nathan Hopkins/NRL Imagery
  
  He also wants the court to award him damages and costs and make a range of declarations, including that he was not "validly suspended or stood down" from the sport and that the NRL and the ARLC engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct and unconscionable conduct.
  
  Mr de Belin's lawyers claim a major change to the game's disciplinary policy, announced on February 28 and requiring the automatic suspension of players accused of serious crimes, amounts to an unreasonable restraint of trade and is a "threatened suspension" rather than a suspension that has taken effect.
  
  He is seeking an order permanently restraining the NRL and ARLC from inserting the new rule into the NRL Rules or NRL Code of Conduct.
  
  Under the ARLC's old policy, players who pleaded not guilty to alleged offences were allowed to continue playing while the matters were dealt with in court.
  
  Under the new policy, affecting the upcoming NRL competition, any player who is charged with an offence that carries a maximum prison term of 11 years or more will be automatically stood down.
  
  NRL chief executive Todd Greenberg also has discretionary powers to stand down players charged with offences involving the assault of women or children. Players will be allowed to continue to train with their teams and remain on full pay.
  
  Mr de Belin's lawyers say neither the NRL nor the ARLC had in their possession "any evidence capable of enabling them to properly form a view as to whether de Belin engaged in the alleged offence or conduct that constituted a breach of the NRL Code of Conduct".
  
  An NRL spokesman said on Wednesday: "We have this afternoon received legal documents relating to Jack de Belin. We are currently reviewing those documents."
  
  The parties will appear before Justice Steven Rares for a preliminary hearing on Thursday. The Dragons kick-off against the Cowboys on March 16, after de Belin missed a trial against Newcastle and the Charity Shield against South Sydney.

https://www.illawarramercury.com.au...r-to-suspend-him-over-criminal-charge/?cs=302

 

[Morotti]

The problem with the nrl's policy is he has only brought the game into disrepute if he is guilty.

What if this person has made up all the charges? Then he is being punished for nothing and is in fact a victim.

Think of Brett Stewart and skd. Both accused and both acquitted.

I hope he is successful and is allowed to play. Because it is innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Auntie.Gerald]

I haven’t worked corporate for a long time

If a man works for a large corporation and is charged with sexual assault and it is not a case that involves another employee ie it was a charge relating to outside of work........Can the employee be asked to take leave from work but still be paid ?

Ie many female employees that maybe work in the same team as the “accused” male employee may feel cocerned in to continue working with him?

Another situation

What about a male coach working with say female swimmers? If the male coach is accused of sexual assault with a female that is not an athlete and is not involved with the coach professionally - can the coach be asked to step down from his role with pay until the charges have been heard in court ?

 

[Brutalitops]

The argument he should not be stood down because he's innocent until proven guilty is maddening. Of course he is. It's about standing aside while a high profile case plays out while continuing to receive your salary in the meantime. Common practice all around the country for full time employment.

The fact it's so high profile and is such a serious charge only strengthens this argument. Jack isn't being assumed guilty here, and people who defend this by saying that are digging their head in the sand and missing the point completely.

Innocent until proven guilty means legally innocent, it does not mean your whole life just goes on as if nothing is happening until a trial. There are circumstances and precautions that must be taken alongside the legal process. Jack being dragged through the media week in week out is not going to affect this process positively.

I like Jack as a player. It is devastating to be without him. But the NRL must protect itself and stop letting it's reputation tear to pieces by protecting players. The stand down policy is a good one and something I believe will be important from here on in for changing player behaviours. If it's overturned immediately players will go right back to their old ways. Jack is playing with the future of the NRL here and whether he's innocent or not, to me it doesn't reflect positively on his character.

If I was in this position and knew I was innocent, I would have voluntarily stood aside anyway for the good of my club and my sport.

 

[blacksafake]

I'm on the fence on this.
On one hand I'm glad the NRL have made a stand(whether it's legal though is yet to be decided).
But on the other the law of the land is & should be innocent until proven guilty.
You don't know until you walk in someone else's shoes how you would react.
Me,I'm a stubborn p*ick who at times am happy to cut off my nose to spite my face, so I'd probably push back if I knew I was innocent.
The fact that Beattie went on every radio,tv & print outlet for weeks leading up to their decision naming Jack & his case can't be helpful to his case, as well as possibly putting it into peoples minds that the NRL think he's guilty, without even talking to him to get his side of the story.All cases are different & should be treated accordingly but you can understand the confusion in the public's eye when certain players who have been found guilty by the courts are given references from the CEO of the NRL.What if his or any other players in similar circumstances court cases takes 2/3 years & they are found not guilty?
Their careers are ruined. *Edited out*

 

[possm]

I have said before on this forum. How can you walk the streets when you are on bail for murder but you can't play football when you are on a lesser charge. Especially when a magistrate varies your bail so you can play?????. I am totally confused. Please explain Tod

I'm sure that if it were Ingles, Smith, Cronk or Pangai Jr, there would not have been the urgency to stand down the player or rush to introduce such unfair policy.

If the player being stood down prior to the completion of the trial is the right thing to do for the game of rugby leagues, then the ARLC and the NRL should take responsibility and quietly behind the scenes negotiate with the player to bring about the outcome they desire i.e. stand down. To this end I would recommend:

• The ARLC/NRL pay out the players contract.
• Pay any compensation agreed too.
• Ensure the terms of the deal are kept private between the two parties.
• Salary and cap credit paid to the players club by the NRL.

In this way the ARLC/NRL get what they are after and the arrangement would not compromise the players trial and the players club could just get on with buying a replacement with the salary and cap credit pay to it by the NRL.

Of course this is a more expensive rout to take for the ARLC/NRL however, it would demonstrate the serious intentions of the ARLC/NRL without burdening the Club who had no part in the crime charged or the decision made for De Belin to stand down.

 

[possm]

The argument he should not be stood down because he's innocent until proven guilty is maddening. Of course he is. It's about standing aside while a high profile case plays out while continuing to receive your salary in the meantime. Common practice all around the country for full time employment.

The fact it's so high profile and is such a serious charge only strengthens this argument. Jack isn't being assumed guilty here, and people who defend this by saying that are digging their head in the sand and missing the point completely.

Innocent until proven guilty means legally innocent, it does not mean your whole life just goes on as if nothing is happening until a trial. There are circumstances and precautions that must be taken alongside the legal process. Jack being dragged through the media week in week out is not going to affect this process positively.

I like Jack as a player. It is devastating to be without him. But the NRL must protect itself and stop letting it's reputation tear to pieces by protecting players. The stand down policy is a good one and something I believe will be important from here on in for changing player behaviours. If it's overturned immediately players will go right back to their old ways. Jack is playing with the future of the NRL here and whether he's innocent or not, to me it doesn't reflect positively on his character.

If I was in this position and knew I was innocent, I would have voluntarily stood aside anyway for the good of my club and my sport.

Jack De Belin is employed and paid by SGI. SGI had decided not to stand him down however, the ARLC/NRL were not happy with this decision and rather than negotiate a settlement, the ARLC/NRL introduced new retrospective policy to force De Belin to stand down. The ARLC/NRL did not conduct an investigation to ascertain the facts of the matter and so were acting on their own preference.

I believe De Belin will win this legal battle and then be eligible to play this season. I also believe he will be awarded costs and a sizable sum in damages.

For what it is worth I also believe De Belin will be found not guilty after considering the actions of all three people concerned immediately after the alleged incident.

 

[Obi Wan]

Is it possible that what's really behind the aggressive push by certain media to negatively influence the image and public perception of rugby league pressuring the NRL into submitting with knee jerk reactions such as standing Jack De Belin down has anything to do with News Corp, The Daily Telegraph, Fox Sports and Channel Nine's etc direct opposition to the NRL's $150 million dollar digital media arm that is quickly growing in popularity and if so why should Jack pay the price ?

Is it in the best interests of our team and the game to not support the media sources responsible for bullying, manipulating and deliberately creating hysteria when it suits them by watching games with an NRL live pass subscription rather than on Fox Sports or Foxtel owned Kayo ?

"There are many at the NRL who believe the torrid attack on Greenberg from News in recent months is the media giant's direct response to its new digital strategy."

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.sm...en-the-nrl-and-news-corp-20180430-p4zcio.html

 

[Brutalitops]

For what it is worth I also believe De Belin will be found not guilty after considering the actions of all three people concerned immediately after the alleged incident.

Unfortunately your wishful thinking based on nothing you could know don't mean shit mate.

What a silly thing to say smh

 

[Saints Forever]

I am tempted to take the stance of a Dragons fan here, but I can't help but hope the NRL's stance is upheld as I think the way they came out was long overdue. It's not about deciding guilt with any of these players, it's about protecting the destroyed reputation of the NRL while all this goes on.

The NRL sanctions were largely well received by most circles of league fans. For the first time in a while there was positivity coming out about NRL policy and most being on the same page. This really risks making things worse as I believe we were on the right track

The new rule is reasonable.

The public want to see players held to acceptable social standards of conduct.

However it is unreasonable to stand a player down without having a basis for it.

Being charged by the police is not evidence of a breach of the new rule.

If I maliciously accuse you of something You haven’t done, why should you voluntarily stand down.

Take the lift from the top of your ivory tower down to ground level for a minute.

It’s not about Jack, it’s about the NRL making reasonable rules that can be used to administer the game.

This one needs some tweaking

 

[Slippery Morris]

The Rule is great and should stand however it should be for cases from when the rule was implemented
which is Feb 2019 and not for backdated cases. I think it should be up to the club and player to step down. For Tyrone May who had the charges laid after the rule came in, he should be banned, players charged before should be as per the previous rules. I can't believe he is not standing down personally or for the Dragons asking him to.

For JDB and the Dragons' sake, they better be confident he gets off because if he doesn't that will definitely damage the club's reputation.Having a guy play who later gets a long jail term especially for what JDB did is pretty bad and will damage their brand big time.

 

[Belta]

.

 

[ViceVersa]

Dragons star Jack de Belin free to play Round one unless NRL enacts ‘no fault’ policy

The judge presiding over Dragons star Jack de Belin’s Federal Court bid to overturn his ban says the forward will be free to play round one unless the NRL enacts it’s “no fault” policy.

De Belin claims he wasn’t validly suspended by the NRL after being charged with rape, contending the league engaged in misleading and deceptive conduct.

The 27-year-old’s matter was heard in court on Thursday for a preliminary hearing.

The judge told the court the NRL had “no entitlement to stand Jack de Belin down” with its ‘no fault policy’ and said suggestions he has suspended were “damaging to Jack de Belin as a professional and an individual”. He will make a ruling on Thursday.

A lawyer representing the NRL, meanwhile, told the court he expects the policy will be in effect before the Dragons’ opening clash against the Cowboys on Saturday week.

In documents filed with the court, de Belin states the bodies did not have the power to suspend him on full pay on February 28, purportedly under a new rule allowing players charged with a serious criminal offence to be stood down so they can’t take part in the NRL competition.

De Belin and Callan Sinclair, 21, have pleaded not guilty to raping a 19-year- old woman in Wollongong on December 9 and are due back in court on April 17.

De Belin claims the NRL and ARLC engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by claiming they had the power to suspend him and by making a number of public comments.

They include suggesting they had “formed a view that de Belin was guilty” of the rape and had “engaged in conduct that warranted his immediate suspension as a player for the club”.

“The suspension representation was made in press releases, social media, on www.nrl.com, in television, radio and newspaper interviews by Peter Beattie and Todd Greenberg published in every state and territory of Australia,” the court documents state.

The player says this caused irreparable damage to his reputation and financial loss.

He is seeking an order that the NRL and ARLC immediately issue a press release and place corrective advertising in numerous newspapers stating: “The NRL has not suspended St George Illawarra player Jack de Belin. He is available to play for St George Illawarra”.

De Belin is seeking damages, compensation and legal costs, as well as a string of court declarations including that the two bodies engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct and unconscionable conduct.

He also wants an order permanently restraining them from inserting the new rule into the NRL Rules or NRL Code of Conduct, claiming it is unreasonable and contrary to public policy.

Under the old policy, players who pleaded not guilty to serious charges were allowed to continue playing until their case was finalised in court.

His lawyers say neither body had any material to enable them to determine de Belin was guilty of rape or in breach of the NRL Code of Conduct.

But for the “threatened suspension”, de Belin intends playing in the first 2019 match on March 16 and in matches through the year and 2020, and to make himself available for representative selection including for State of Origin, the documents state.

https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nr...n/news-story/9ca75a4a1aea3f8ca39dcbc42c244e82