Matthew Johns sex scandal in 2002

[El Diablo]

Those charities will find another sportsman/sportswoman to work on their behalf.

how the f**k would you know?

 

[bartman]

he didn't and has had to live with it

now some nuffy from the ABC just wants to make it worse. worse for him, his wife, children and possibly charities

Well, as you've said "he has to live with that".

why is it irrelevant :?

Because legality isn't the issue. It's to do with the image of the game's employees, the image of the game itself, and the damage the game's employees do to that image. Legality is only for courts, and irrelevant to this discussion/issue, imo.

the only person he should have to answer to over this is his wife. it's none of this journos business who he f**ks

Johns (like Brett Stewart) stands to gain additional income out of being a face of the game, so players also has to answer to the standards demanded by the game that gives them those opportunities. Pretty simple, it's about the code's players' attitude to women as sex objects, and whether the game's administrators have done enough. It's clear probably in all football codes that they haven't - this program is our code's chance to start cleaning itself up.

like his kids possibly getting teased at school because the media have made him out to be a monster?

i can really see how thats good :?

f**k his kids. He should have thought about his kids being teased when he was putting it in some 19 year old with his naked team mates clapping in time. He should have thought about it before going on to earn a fortune as an (informal) ambassador for the game.

exactly what have Johns or the Dogs done wrong?

certainly nothing against the law

it's just a hatchet job on League

thank christ the Footy is on so there's something decent to watch

Legality is irrelevant. What Johns and the Coffs Dogs did was step outside a broad moral/behavioural perception of a large segment of society, and in doing so brought disrepute on the game and code that gives them their paycheck.

Have a think about what the actions of players like Johns and the Coffs Dogs (and recent others, to be detailed in the program no doubt) do to potential sponsors of our code and clubs wanting to pitch their product at families, to potential government funding for our code versus others, to potential value of broadcast rights etc. Why do we want to keep bun culture in our game?

We can compare our media coverage to that of other codes and have a whinge, we can demonise the particular journalist who is reporting to the broader public interest/perception/moral code... or we can welcome this program as a chance for our game to react and clean itself up for its own sake and its own future.

 

[Flapper]

I agree it's beyond the moral line, but is RL alone in breaching that line? Of course not, I would wager a large amount on Victorian pubs and clubs shielding AFL players from controversy, whereas we have people turning NRL players away from pubs and clubs simply because they play League, drunk or not.

If the Sharks took turns banging some town bike, thats terrible, but to act like we're alone in this is naive.

 

[myanonymoususername]

The inference you're making assumes guilt.

Nobody has been found guilty.

I assume that at the very least some pretty dodgy lowlife behaviour has happened. Illegal perhaps? Provable beyond reasonable doubt, no.

Most in this forum assume innocence, on what basis. That they're footy players.

 

[StormChaser]

Well, as you've said "he has to live with that".


Because legality isn't the issue. It's to do with the image of the game's employees, the image of the game itself, and the damage the game's employees do to that image. Legality is only for courts, and irrelevant to this discussion/issue, imo.


Johns (like Brett Stewart) stands to gain additional income out of being a face of the game, so players also has to answer to the standards demanded by the game that gives them those opportunities. Pretty simple, it's about the code's players' attitude to women as sex objects, and whether the game's administrators have done enough. It's clear probably in all football codes that they haven't - this program is our code's chance to start cleaning itself up.


f**k his kids. He should have thought about his kids being teased when he was putting it in some 19 year old with his naked team mates clapping in time. He should have thought about it before going on to earn a fortune as an (informal) ambassador for the game.


Legality is irrelevant. What Johns and the Coffs Dogs did was step outside a broad moral/behavioural perception of a large segment of society, and in doing so brought disrepute on the game and code that gives them their paycheck.

Have a think about what the actions of players like Johns and the Coffs Dogs (and recent others, to be detailed in the program no doubt) do to potential sponsors of our code and clubs wanting to pitch their product at families, to potential government funding for our code versus others, to potential value of broadcast rights etc. Why do we want to keep bun culture in our game?

We can compare our media coverage to that of other codes and have a whinge, we can demonise the particular journalist who is reporting to the broader public interest/perception/moral code... or we can welcome this program as a chance for our game to react and clean itself up for its own sake and its own future.

QFT!

 

[myanonymoususername]

I agree it's beyond the moral line, but is RL alone in breaching that line? Of course not, I would wager a large amount on Victorian pubs and clubs shielding AFL players from controversy, whereas we have people turning NRL players away from pubs and clubs simply because they play League, drunk or not.

If the Sharks took turns banging some town bike, thats terrible, but to act like we're alone in this is naive.

Didn't your mum tell you just because everyone else does it, you don't have to? :lol:

 

[El Diablo]

Well, as you've said "he has to live with that".

and he has been living with it. now the ABC have taken the moral high ground and decided to make it 10 times worse 7 years later

what for?

ratings

Because legality isn't the issue. It's to do with the image of the game's employees, the image of the game itself, and the damage the game's employees do to that image. Legality is only for courts, and irrelevant to this discussion/issue, imo.

there is only damage to the games image because the ABC are running the story and every other media outlet is latching on

it had not hurt a soul except Johns and his family till now. the ABC decided that they need to hurt more though and make people go through it again.

reading quotes from the woman you have to wonder how truthful the ABC were with her

eg http://www.leaguehq.com.au/news/lhqnews/league-in-lockdown/2009/05/09/1241727661879.html

It is understood that the woman, now 26 and married, is distraught at the attention her individual case has attracted and is terrified her identity will be revealed.

Johns (like Brett Stewart) stands to gain additional income out of being a face of the game, so players also has to answer to the standards demanded by the game that gives them those opportunities. Pretty simple, it's about the code's players' attitude to women as sex objects, and whether the game's administrators have done enough. It's clear probably in all football codes that they haven't - this program is our code's chance to start cleaning itself up.

why mention Brett Stewart?

Johns has not been charged

and it's Johns they're using to hype this story

f**k his kids. He should have thought about his kids being teased when he was putting it in some 19 year old with his naked team mates clapping in time. He should have thought about it before going on to earn a fortune as an (informal) ambassador for the game.

he can't undo what has been done and he has dealt with it. the ABC have decided to escalate it and portray him as an animal with no regard to his family

scumbags imo

Legality is irrelevant. What Johns and the Coffs Dogs did was step outside a broad moral/behavioural perception of a large segment of society, and in doing so brought disrepute on the game and code that gives them their paycheck.

there was no disrepute untlll the ABC decided to put it out there knowing full well what damage they would cause

and for no good reason

Have a think about what the actions of players like Johns and the Coffs Dogs (and recent others, to be detailed in the program no doubt) do to potential sponsors of our code and clubs wanting to pitch their product at families, to potential government funding for our code versus others, to potential value of broadcast rights etc. Why do we want to keep bun culture in our game?

potential sponsors would not have heard of this unless the ABC decided they were the ones who said exactly what legue players can and can't do

We can compare our media coverage to that of other codes and have a whinge, we can demonise the particular journalist who is reporting to the broader public interest/perception/moral code... or we can welcome this program as a chance for our game to react and clean itself up for its own sake and its own future.

it only needs 'cleaning up' if hack journos decide what players are doing is wrong and that they have to abide by a different set of rules than those sportsman of other codes and your every day tom, dick or harry

 

[El Diablo]

Most in this forum assume innocence, on what basis. That they're footy players.

no

because they weren't charged

 

[Flapper]

Didn't your mum tell you just because everyone else does it, you don't have to? :lol:

What the f**k are you on about you rabid lunatic?

I know you're looking for an excuse to rail upon Matthew Johns and attack anyone even remotely on his side, but you're a f**kwit, so stop it.

Here's the facts: Matty Johns gets in on a gang bang in 2002.

Distasteful? You better believe it.

Wrong? f**k yeah, he cheated on his wife!

Any of our business? NO!

Any of 4 Corners business? See 3

A regretful skank trying to make money out of the only former Sharks player she knows? Oh yeah.

It's not a good look, it's a morally wrong act, but it isn't illegal, and only brought up (the day before the test no less) for reason unrelated to current player behaviour (as it was 7 years ago)

What he did was beyond the pale, I wouldn't do it, and I think cheating on your partner is reprehensible. What I find just as reprehensible however, is the media praying on (a) relationship problems and (b) the perceived notion that it's only League players that f**k up, and then use that for financial gain, or for the gain of another code of football.

 

[StormChaser]

El Diablo, If only the world was really as black and white as you like to think it is.

 

[El Diablo]

i posted this the other day on how league players are treated differently by the media

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,,25414954-5013480,00.html

The contrast between the handling of scandal by the football codes helps establish the contrast.

Whenever anything goes wrong, as it often does in rugby league, people who apparently love the code are falling over themselves to say that the game is dead, that it will never recover from this latest body-blow to its credibility, that those responsible should be sacked, shamed, charged.

Whenever there's a drama in the AFL, all the protagonists and main players rally together for the good of the code, arguing that one isolated incident should not be allowed to besmirch this great game.

While the blood-letting runs unchecked in Sydney, in Melbourne everyone is holding hands and saying it's time to move on, often before the fight has even started.

even they know it

 

[myanonymoususername]

it had not hurt a soul except Johns and his family till now.

I think the woman in question might beg to differ on this point.

 

[El Diablo]

What the f**k are you on about you rabid lunatic?

I know you're looking for an excuse to rail upon Matthew Johns and attack anyone even remotely on his side, but you're a f**kwit, so stop it.

Here's the facts: Matty Johns gets in on a gang bang in 2002.

Distasteful? You better believe it.

Wrong? f**k yeah, he cheated on his wife!

Any of our business? NO!

Any of 4 Corners business? See 3

 

[El Diablo]

I think the woman in question might beg to differ on this point.

only if you chose to believe her

 

[bartman]

and he has been living with it. now the ABC have taken the moral high ground and decided to make it 10 times worse 7 years later

what for?

ratings

It's been explained what it's for. And outside of this small sample of people making excuses for footballers, I think we'll find the moral ground isn't "higher", it's just the reality of what it is...

there is only damage to the games image because the ABC are running the story and every other media outlet is latching on

it had not hurt a soul except Johns and his family till now. the ABC decided that they need to hurt more though and make people go through it again.

It's hurting the game. Who gives a toss about Johns, his wife and kid in this really?

We can critcise it for shining a mirror at what is going on, or we can embrace the chance to demand (as fans, sponsors) that our game clean these bun-humpers out of the code, for the codes' future financial state. The article about what Johns stands to lose indicates the reality that businesses and regular people out there will make character judgements, and our game's appeal suffers.

why mention Brett Stewart?

Johns has not been charged

and it's Johns they're using to hype this story

Legality and charges are irrelevant. Stewart's actions aren't being disputed, only the consent. He is mentioned because he's a more recent example of Johns of a footy player whose behaviour toward a women has brought the game (and himself) into disrepute.

he can't undo what has been done and he has dealt with it. the ABC have decided to escalate it and portray him as an animal with no regard to his family

scumbags imo

The ABC's story is about way more than Johns, as has been quoted. It speaks of a decade of incidents... Johns is probably only mentioned because he has a current role in the game and may be the most well known person involved to non-league followers. This show is our chance to embrace/demand an improvement for our game, that will help the game's broader appeal and finincial future.

there was no disrepute untlll the ABC decided to put it out there knowing full well what damage they would cause

and for no good reason

See above.

potential sponsors would not have heard of this unless the ABC decided they were the ones who said exactly what legue players can and can't do

it only needs 'cleaning up' if hack journos decide what players are doing is wrong and that they have to abide by a different set of rules than those sportsman of other codes and your every day tom, dick or harry

So a "cone of silence" approach instead? No thanks. Let's educate these dumb beasts that live comfortably off the hard earned cash of the average fan, and let's get this sh*t attitude to women out of our code for good, from the ground up. Using high profile examples hung out to dry if that's what it takes. I won't condemn this program's mere existence before it has even been viewed.

 

[El Diablo]

It's been explained what it's for. And outside of this small sample of people making excuses for footballers, I think we'll find the moral ground isn't "higher", it's just the reality of what it is...

excuses :?

he cheated on his wife

she is the only paerson he has to anser to, not some nuffy at the ABC

It's hurting the game. Who gives a toss about Johns, his wife and kid in this really?

it is :?

it happened in 2002 and had not been an issue till the ABC decided to make it one

suddenly players must abide by their rules

the rules of some trashy prog which has been sued a few times

says a lot for them

We can critcise it for shining a mirror at what is going on, or we can embrace the chance to demand (as fans, sponsors) that our game clean these bun-humpers out of the code, for the codes' future financial state. The article about what Johns stands to lose indicates the reality that businesses and regular people out there will make character judgements, and our game's appeal suffers.

clean up what?

why do league players have to live by dfferent rules to AFL players?

Legality and charges are irrelevant. Stewart's actions aren't being disputed, only the consent. He is mentioned because he's a more recent example of Johns of a footy player whose behaviour toward a women has brought the game (and himself) into disrepute.

only if he is found guilty

if he's not then the only thing he did wrong is what he was suspended for

The ABC's story is about way more than Johns, as has been quoted. It speaks of a decade of incidents... Johns is probably only mentioned because he has a current role in the game and may be the most well known person involved to non-league followers. This show is our chance to embrace/demand an improvement for our game, that will help the game's broader appeal and finincial future.

a decade of incidents that are nothing compared to spoertsman of another code yet the ABC have decided what they do is fine

it's a hatchet job on one code. simple as that

So a "cone of silence" approach instead? No thanks. Let's educate these dumb beasts that live comfortably off the hard earned cash of the average fan, and let's get this sh*t attitude to women out of our code for good, from the ground up. Using high profile examples hung out to dry if that's what it takes. I won't condemn this program's mere existence before it has even been viewed.

they are being educated

the media just gloss over those stories and make things out to be something they're not

 

[Engine]

Sucked in egomaniac

 

[myanonymoususername]

(1)What the f**k are you on about you rabid lunatic?

(2)I know you're looking for an excuse to rail upon Matthew Johns and attack anyone even remotely on his side, but you're a f**kwit, so stop it.

Here's the facts: Matty Johns gets in on a gang bang in 2002.

(3)Distasteful? You better believe it.

(4)Wrong? f**k yeah, he cheated on his wife!

(5)Any of our business? NO!

(6)Any of 4 Corners business? See 3

(7)A regretful skank trying to make money out of the only former Sharks player she knows? Oh yeah.

(8)It's not a good look, it's a morally wrong act, but it isn't illegal, and only brought up (the day before the test no less) for reason unrelated to current player behaviour (as it was 7 years ago)

(9)What he did was beyond the pale, I wouldn't do it, and I think cheating on your partner is reprehensible. What I find just as reprehensible however, is the media praying on (a) relationship problems and (b) the perceived notion that it's only League players that f**k up, and then use that for financial gain, or for the gain of another code of football.

(1) What I was getting at was just because people in other sports do bad stuff doesn't make it right, ie why copy what you know is wrong just because others do it?
(2)We can disagree without resorting to abuse, surely.
(3)No arguments from me
(4) Same.
(5)Probably something I'd rather not know about, but its out in the public arena now. The idea of M Johns rooting a drunk chick while his teammates clap, cheer and whack off is not a mental picture that gives me any delight.
(6)Presumably they think it is an example of a problem they think is worth making a point about. Johns is probably just unlucky that they found the woman prepared to talk to them and name him.
(7) Who knows? Although if she was in it for the money why go public on 4 Corners? Surely she'd have approached Johns and said hey look if you don't want this to happen, give me $$$$.
(8) Yes its a bad look, and immoral, and yes, no illegality has ever been proved. As for old history and unrelated to current player behaviour, 4 Corners clearly thinks there is something to be drawn from this example.
(9) Agree 100% with the first sentence. I'm fascinated by the theory that there is some sort of conspiracy in the media against RL, presumably because they're all on the AFL's payroll. I'm confident 4 Corners couldn't give a rats arse about AFL vs NRL.

 

[Pete Cash]

The media's double standard when it comes to reporting on Rugby League players comes from a perception that exists in the mind of the average person.

That the average Rugby League player is a thugish, drunken rapist who molests teenage girls. A person who is dumb as sh*t but has a sense of entitlement a mile deep because they are good at sport.

Now this image exists because Rugby League players allow it to. Rugby League is an easy sport to beat on for the media because it relies on an already established image. They can publish any old tripe, drop in the word allegedly a few times and the person reading or watching the story will take it as gospel because they believe that ALL rugby league players are at this very moment out raping a girl or getting blind drunk or getting into a fight or harassing somebody or a combination of all of them.

Scandals sell papers and a rugby league scandal is the easiest thing in the world because people expect it. If Rugby League players were little angels then the media would turn its attention onto another sport because they like the controversy.

 

[El Diablo]

The media's double standard when it comes to reporting on Rugby League players comes from a perception that exists in the mind of the average person.

not true

the media admit it as i posted here http://forums.leagueunlimited.com/showthread.php?p=5627357#post5627357