Jdb case

[pfrano]

Didn't it go a little further than that? I thought that his requirement for reporting to police was relaxed so as he could fulfill his contractual obligations to play footy......or am i just imagining that?

You're correct

 

[st penguin]

Didn't it go a little further than that? I thought that his requirement for reporting to police was relaxed so as he could fulfill his contractual obligations to play footy......or am i just imagining that?

I wouldn't say you're imagining that because journalists often stuff up these types of reports!

JDB originally had to report to the police every Monday and Friday. This would obviously make it hard to travel to interstate games. So, he asked for bail conditions to be relaxed. (maybe just report once a week? I don't know)

The magistrate's court then had to decide whether this would increase his flight risk. In the end, the magistrate said JDB was high profile and would be travelling with the team, so it wouldn't affect flight risk.

 

[Old Timer]

Due process is an interesting aspect here. I mean, if you're a bus driver, does it really affect your life if you are stood down for 18 months? You would probably be given an admin job or something similar.

In this case, JDB is still an employee and can do everything he used to do, except take the field on the weekend. But he's at the peak of his career right now and will be out of the game for his best years. By the time the trial is over, he may be too old to play again (at least at the same level). Will the courts see that as too much of a punishment in this particular case? I don't know the answer to that.

As another example, say you were CEO. You could stand down from that position for a couple of years and still build a career after the trial if you are found not guilty. JDB doesn't have enough time to build up his career again because league players' careers are so short.

I have always been in favour of standing him down. If it was just for 6 months or even a year I think that's appropriate. However, in this case, he will probably miss two whole seasons and be about 31 by the time he returns? It's very harsh.

From a nerd point of view, I am very interested to see what the ruling will be here.

In simple terms, who cares what your job is be it bus driver, footballer, circus clown, MP etc etc.
It's not about anything other than the alleged crime and that takes nothing into account other than the alleged incident and should therefore make no allowances for who or what you are.
Far too many people talking about how sad it is that JDB's career is on hold etc etc which is mostly just smoke and mirrors for people who are too frightened to say that regardless of what has transpired they want to have the best team on the paddock and that means JDB being eligible.
His high profile has already afforded him lenient bale conditions which the average jo-blo would probably not get.
By the way at age 31 he has plenty of time to start building a career in some other endeavour as that is exactly what he would have to do if he had a career ending injury and Alex Mc Kinnon, Ben Creagh, Nighty are just a few who are testimony to that fact.

 

[Nevan_]

IMO GOVERNMENT AND COURTS must find a way to fast track charged people, particulary those in society with prominent positions such as public figures, people in authorative and responsible positions in society & close cases in a max.

That’s ridiculous.

 

[Morotti]

In simple terms, who cares what your job is be it bus driver, footballer, circus clown, MP etc etc.
It's not about anything other than the alleged crime and that takes nothing into account other than the alleged incident and should therefore make no allowances for who or what you are.
Far too many people talking about how sad it is that JDB's career is on hold etc etc which is mostly just smoke and mirrors for people who are too frightened to say that regardless of what has transpired they want to have the best team on the paddock and that means JDB being eligible.
His high profile has already afforded him lenient bale conditions which the average jo-blo would probably not get.
By the way at age 31 he has plenty of time to start building a career in some other endeavour as that is exactly what he would have to do if he had a career ending injury and Alex Mc Kinnon, Ben Creagh, Nighty are just a few who are testimony to that fact.

Have to disagree with you on a few points.

Nighty retired because he was old and at the end of his career.

It is interesting that we want to hold sports people to higher standards than the average person on a number of fronts. Yet at the same time in other circumstances we insist they must be treated like everyone else.
Jack is a football player. That is his profession. Not playing hurts his market value and his career will only be so long. Also ending his career on a bad note would not be conducive to a post football career.
His skills are as a football player and at present he is not allowed to use those skills to show his market value.
My first argument is and always has been innocent until proven guilty.
In addition to that, if we want to hold our stars up to higher standards than the bloke next door, then on occasion there are other aspects to that also.
This being one of them.
Because if I was stood down from my job on full pay for 2 years and then was acquitted, I would lose a lot. And I would have to rebuild my career. Think about how it affects women who have children. They have several years out of the workforce and fall behind their male counterparts.
But for us in the end it is salvageable as I have a longer career in my profession than Jack does.
So my point is standing Jack down has a huge impact on him financially. Because his career will end a lot sooner than mine. And he is close to the zenith as a middle forward.
And he should be afforded the presumption of innocence given he has plead not guilty.
Also if my employer decided to stand me down like this and I had plead not guilty, I would want to do the same as Jack.

 

[st penguin]

In simple terms, who cares what your job is be it bus driver, footballer, circus clown, MP etc etc.
It's not about anything other than the alleged crime and that takes nothing into account other than the alleged incident and should therefore make no allowances for who or what you are.
Far too many people talking about how sad it is that JDB's career is on hold etc etc which is mostly just smoke and mirrors for people who are too frightened to say that regardless of what has transpired they want to have the best team on the paddock and that means JDB being eligible.
His high profile has already afforded him lenient bale conditions which the average jo-blo would probably not get.
By the way at age 31 he has plenty of time to start building a career in some other endeavour as that is exactly what he would have to do if he had a career ending injury and Alex Mc Kinnon, Ben Creagh, Nighty are just a few who are testimony to that fact.

Old timer, just to clarify we are talking about HR law here and not criminal law. Therefore the profession of the person is crucial as to whether it is reasonable to stand them down or not. As an example, if his job was a trainer for St George then he probably wouldn’t have been stood down.

 

[Old Timer]

Old timer, just to clarify we are talking about HR law here and not criminal law. Therefore the profession of the person is crucial as to whether it is reasonable to stand them down or not. As an example, if his job was a trainer for St George then he probably wouldn’t have been stood down.

If he was your national sales manager would you have him out negotiating deals at the top level?
If he was the chairman of a public listed company would you want him chairing an AGM?
The above are both high profile positions as is JDB's with the club and as part of the NRL.
Re there being some defining point in career status as to whether he should be stood down how does one draw the line?
IMO any employee of mine would be stood down with pay until the matter was finalised.
The argument that his career is only until the end of his playing days is not correct and he has plenty of opportunity to establish himself with a good career as would be the case if his career ended prematurely for a myriad of other reasons.

 

[Old Timer]

Have to disagree with you on a few points.

Nighty retired because he was old and at the end of his career.

It is interesting that we want to hold sports people to higher standards than the average person on a number of fronts. Yet at the same time in other circumstances we insist they must be treated like everyone else.
Jack is a football player. That is his profession. Not playing hurts his market value and his career will only be so long. Also ending his career on a bad note would not be conducive to a post football career.
His skills are as a football player and at present he is not allowed to use those skills to show his market value.
My first argument is and always has been innocent until proven guilty.
In addition to that, if we want to hold our stars up to higher standards than the bloke next door, then on occasion there are other aspects to that also.
This being one of them.
Because if I was stood down from my job on full pay for 2 years and then was acquitted, I would lose a lot. And I would have to rebuild my career. Think about how it affects women who have children. They have several years out of the workforce and fall behind their male counterparts.
But for us in the end it is salvageable as I have a longer career in my profession than Jack does.
So my point is standing Jack down has a huge impact on him financially. Because his career will end a lot sooner than mine. And he is close to the zenith as a middle forward.
And he should be afforded the presumption of innocence given he has plead not guilty.
Also if my employer decided to stand me down like this and I had plead not guilty, I would want to do the same as Jack.

Please read my post 1147 for clarification re career prospects.

 

[Dragoness]

No, because there wasn’t a known possibility that he could be a convicted rapist soon.
Now that is a possibility.

I might get crucified here myself.. I am a female & I believe he is innocent until proven guilty, I don’t think we have the right to assume that he is guilty, at least no more than assuming the woman involved made up the accusation. I have not met 1 woman in my 47 years that has been assaulted or raped, I have 2 adult daughters who know that some situations can be avoided, I drilled this into their heads. Never get a cab on your own, don’t leave with strangers you just met, I was always available to get them if stuck.
The thing is Damo we don’t know what happened, you believing him to be guilty is no different to someone believing she made it up. Just my opinion, sorry if I offended anyone

 

[TruSaint]

I might get crucified here myself.. I am a female & I believe he is innocent until proven guilty, I don’t think we have the right to assume that he is guilty, at least no more than assuming the woman involved made up the accusation. I have not met 1 woman in my 47 years that has been assaulted or raped, I have 2 adult daughters who know that some situations can be avoided, I drilled this into their heads. Never get a cab on your own, don’t leave with strangers you just met, I was always available to get them if stuck.
The thing is Damo we don’t know what happened, you believing him to be guilty is no different to someone believing she made it up. Just my opinion, sorry if I offended anyone

You shouldn't get crucified for posting your thoughts, having raised some sensible points.

However, nowhere in this discussion has @The Damo suggested he is guilty.

 

[Dragoness]

You shouldn't get crucified for posting your thoughts, having raised some sensible points.

However, nowhere in this discussion has Damo suggested he is guilty.

Things are so much easier to explain face to face, this writing thing can be taken in so many different ways. I didn’t mean to suggest he said that, nor am I saying that I believe the woman made the accusation up, my point being any of these points could be the truth we don’t have the right to assume one way or the other.
She is someone’s daughter, he someone’s son.. a lot of people are hurting right now

 

[Crush]

James Graham spoke very well on NRL 360 about the NRLs handling of JDB.
He is an intelligent articulate footy player.
No wonder he is so valuable to this current Dragons team.
He should be captain coach.

 

[TruSaint]

Things are so much easier to explain face to face, this writing thing can be taken in so many different ways. I didn’t mean to suggest he said that, nor am I saying that I believe the woman made the accusation up, my point being any of these points could be the truth we don’t have the right to assume one way or the other.
She is someone’s daughter, he someone’s son.. a lot of people are hurting right now

Understood.
Lets see how the case pans out and justice prevails.
No winners here.

 

[jeffdragon]

If it's a no fault policy how come he is stood down.
They said Todd Greenbergs daughter and friends have affected their passion for the game.
I and thousands of other still love the dragons.
And why is the storm CEO Bart Campbell taking the stand .
What the he'll does he have to do with it .
Butt out dickhead and look after the storm .

 

[West coast dragon]

As much as I value having jack in the team I think it’s best and this goes for widdop too just leave the side as is barring injuries let them gel and work on their combinations and settle their confidence is getting back to the right levels and I think we can do some damage and knowing mcClusterphuck he’ll screw with the side with 2-3 games to go just to squeeze widdop in for a couple of games and it’ll all blow apart again you can see this shit comic a mile off

 

[Old Timer]

I might get crucified here myself.. I am a female & I believe he is innocent until proven guilty, I don’t think we have the right to assume that he is guilty, at least no more than assuming the woman involved made up the accusation. I have not met 1 woman in my 47 years that has been assaulted or raped, I have 2 adult daughters who know that some situations can be avoided, I drilled this into their heads. Never get a cab on your own, don’t leave with strangers you just met, I was always available to get them if stuck.
The thing is Damo we don’t know what happened, you believing him to be guilty is no different to someone believing she made it up. Just my opinion, sorry if I offended anyone

So if your kids were going to the local church or community group and the person in charge had a sexual assault charge levelled against him / her but they pleaded "not guilty" would you be happy to keep your kids attending and be under his / her guidance or would you expect the person to be stood down?
Now of course people will jump on this post saying "well its not the same because its not as if Jack is going to assault somebody on the footy field" and "the others shouldn't be left in charge because they might get the opportunity to reoffend if they are guilty" etc etc.
Well under the proposition some people are putting forward they are all innocent until proven guilty and until such guilt is established the status quo should remain regardless of the number of allegations or person / persons involved or the age of any potential victims or the job that the alleged perpetrator holds.
The simple thing is there is 1 incident and that 1 incident deserves the same equality under the law as any other similar incident or multiple incidents.
So are people happy for people facing charges re children to be left in charge and if your answer is NO then the argument re innocent until proven guilty doesn't hold true.

 

[Dragoness]

So if your kids were going to the local church or community group and the person in charge had a sexual assault charge levelled against him / her but they pleaded "not guilty" would you be happy to keep your kids attending and be under his / her guidance or would you expect the person to be stood down?
Now of course people will jump on this post saying "well its not the same because its not as if Jack is going to assault somebody on the footy field" and "the others shouldn't be left in charge because they might get the opportunity to reoffend if they are guilty" etc etc.
Well under the proposition some people are putting forward they are all innocent until proven guilty and until such guilt is established the status quo should remain regardless of the number of allegations or person / persons involved or the age of any potential victims or the job that the alleged perpetrator holds.
The simple thing is there is 1 incident and that 1 incident deserves the same equality under the law as any other similar incident or multiple incidents.
So are people happy for people facing charges re children to be left in charge and if your answer is NO then the argument re innocent until proven guilty doesn't hold true.

That comparison is way off, funny thing is there are probably more catholic priests charged for pedophilia than there are NRL players for rape. This girl was out clubbing was she not. She is not a child, there will always be shady characters out there, girls have to be smarter in some of their decisions, I’m not saying that if jack did rape her it’s her fault, I’m saying had she made the right decision she wouldn’t of been there it wouldn’t of happened to her, he had a mate there, where were her friends, was she clubbing alone? Again we don’t know what happened, we are all making assumptions on rumours. If you recall the Skaf brothers case, different scenario, she knew him trusted & probably liked him, that situation is hard for a young girl. JDB I believe was a stranger to her..

 

[getsmarty]

Jack de Belin rape case won’t be resolved ‘until mid-next year’, lawyer warns
League

• April 17, 2019 1:53pm
• by Staff writers
• Source: FOX SPORTS

NRL player Jack De Belin with a member of his legal team arrive at the NSW Federal Court in Sydney to contest the ARLC’s stand-down policy.Source: AAP
Lawyers for accused rapist Jack de Belin and his co-accused Callan Sincalir have warned the cases will not be resolved this year, and may not be listed for trial until 2020.

St George Illawarra forward de Belin has pleaded not guilty to a charge of aggravated sexual assault in company. Sinclair has pleaded not guilty to the same charge.

It’s alleged de Belin sexually assaulted a 19-year-old woman inside a Wollongong apartment on December 9, while Sinclair watched on.

The case was mentioned in Wollongong Local Court on Wednesday and has been adjourned to May 29.

But lawyers for the two men told reporters outside court they don’t expect the case to go to trial until next year.

“Mr de Belin maintains he’s not guilty of the charges and unfortunately this matter’s not likely to be listed for trial until mid-next year,” de Belin’s lawyer Robert Foster said.

“It’s going to be quite a long road indeed.

360 hosts clash over JDB

8:18

“It’s quite frustrating for him but I can’t comment beyond that.”

De Belin has continued to train with the Dragons since being charged with aggravated sexual assault in company. But the ARLC’s new no-fault stand-down policy is preventing the State of Origin lock to compete in the NRL.

Under the new ruling, de Belin cannot play professional rugby league until his court case is resolve.

De Belin has taken the NRL to court over the stand-down and he appeared in the Federal Court on Wednesday. NRL boss Todd Greenberg also spoke at the hearing.


https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/ja...s/news-story/a1182db06d9bd6ad987fcd995adb4265

 

[getsmarty]

James Graham says the NRL has mishandled the Jack de Belin situation
Dragons

• April 17, 2019 5:55am
• John Dean@johndean_
• Source: FOX SPORTS

James Graham claims the NRL has mishandled the Jack de Belin situation.Source: FOX SPORTS
St George Illawarra prop James Graham has taken aim at the NRL over its handling of the Jack de Belin situation.

De Belin is suing the ARL Commission and NRL in Federal Court after he was stood down over the game’s new hard-line “no fault” stand-down policy that was announced on February 28 before being rubber-stamped in March in the lead-up to Round 1.


Round 6
On Tuesday, NRL chief executive Todd Greenberg was forced to admit he had no evidence of de Belin misbehaving before he was stood down indefinitely after he was charged with the aggravated sexual assault of a 19-year-old woman.

Greenberg argued that he acted to protect the image of the game, corporate support, broadcast revenues and participation rates, in particular female player numbers.

De Belin has pleaded not guilty to the alleged sexual assault and the case is scheduled to be mentioned in Wollongong Local Court on Wednesday.

St George Illawarra Dragons player Jack de Belin arrives at the Federal Court where he is fighting an injunction against him playing after he was stood down over aggravated sexual assault charges. Picture: Toby ZernaSource: News Corp Australia

“It’s a very delicate situation and I really feel for Jack because a lot of the commentary around it, it seems like it’s putting a lot of the blame on him for the financial implications that it’s had,” Graham told NRL 360 on Fox League.

“For me personally, the NRL need to look at themselves a little bit and ask some questions about not having the foresight and sitting on this for two or three months.

“It’s my understanding that they were given no new evidence from December and yet it took them until February to make a decision on it, so this was all allowed to play out in the court of public opinion.

“Under the last collective bargaining agreement we’ve had incidents in our sport in the past and not having the foresight to put things in place I think was poor from the NRL, to be honest.

“ … For me, I look back to previous cases and if you look at the words of the District Court judge Paul Conlon after the (Shaun) Kenny-Dowall case, he speaks about putting the presumption of innocence first. This isn’t a case of ‘don’t believe the alleged victim’, this is something else, there’s something more to it than that.

“I think Mr Beattie made some comments around ‘all of Australia was on holiday in January’, well, the NRL channel wasn’t on holiday, the papers weren’t on holiday, the people with the telephoto lenses weren’t on holiday.

“I think they’ve got to look back at themselves a little bit and say we’ve mishandled this.

“ … They should’ve put this in the collective bargaining agreement because things like this have happened before. Why didn’t they see it coming and deal with it so we’re not having this — it’s been dragged out in Federal Court and rules have been changed after the alleged incidents.”

St George Illawarra Dragons player Jack de Belin leaves the Federal Court where he is fighting an injunction against him playing after he was stood down over aggravated sexual assault charges. Picture: Toby ZernaSource: News Corp Australia

Following his side’s win over Canterbury on Sunday, Dragons coach Paul McGregor said de Belin was mentally and physically fit to return and that he’d “absolutely” pick the star lock if he was successful in getting his ban overturned.

Graham said he hadn’t seen de Belin around the club this week while he fights the NRL’s policy, but believed he was in a good headspace.

“I think he’d be fine (to make a return) and I’d back the coach’s decision to do that,” Graham said.

“Jack’s allowed to train with us, and that’s predominantly against us and I think he think’s he’s playing in a Test match sometimes when he’s coming up against us.”

— with AAP

https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nr...n/news-story/fdcdf7a3d5884dc3f2ce4f6133aa584b

 

[getsmarty]

‘The decision was wrong’: Paul Kent and Paul Crawley fire up over Jack de Belin
NRL Teams

• April 16, 2019 8:36pm
• by Staff writers
• Source: FOX SPORTS

Paul Kent and Paul Crawley on NRL360Source: FOX SPORTS
Daily Telegraph journalists Paul Kent and Paul Crawley have gotten into a fiery exchange when debating the rights and wrongs of the standing down of Jack de Belin.

De Belin has been in court this week to contest the NRL’s no-fault stand down policy which saw him unable to play over an alleged sexual assault. De Belin denies the charge.

Speaking on NRL360 on Fox League, about the fact de Belin could miss large chunks of his career due to the NRL’s ruling, Crawley said: “Innocent until proven guilty in this country.

“The NRL are making decisions based on popularity, it’s not on what’s right. There’s rules within the NRL that they’d agreed to.


“The decision was wrong. Brett Stewart spoke recently about the damage it did to him in the mid-2000s and he’s not recovered from it.”

Kent responded, saying the NRL had to protect its image.

“The fact is the game depends on reputation,” he said.


“There’s reputational damage. They get a billion dollar broadcast deal built on reputation, they get fans in the ground built on reputation, they get sponsors built on reputation.

“The NRL fluffed up because there was already a rule in place that Todd Greenberg at his discretion that he could’ve done that. I don’t agree with stood down until end of the court proceedings but there’s still got to be some sort of ramifications.”

Crawley replied: “At the conclusion of the case!”

Kent responded: “I don’t agree with that, the game needed to make a statement about where it stands to protect its reputation. Look at Karl Stefanovic, made a couple of wrong moves in his career and he’s struggling to get back — nothing near as serious as Jack de Belin.”

Crawley hit back: “It’s allegations, Paul. He can’t come back. If you stand him down for two years and ultimately he’s proved not guilty, how do you give that back?”


https://www.foxsports.com.au/nrl/nr...n/news-story/7cb78bbd67f23d7e62148deb9babb705