What's new
The Front Row Forums

Register a free account today to become a member of the world's largest Rugby League discussion forum! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

OT: ASADA and Drugs in NRL

Happy MEel

First Grade
Messages
6,964
I'm seeing an infographic showing all decisions and some key words associated with each decision. Most people understand infographics.

Maybe even a short video highlighting the different gradings for infractions - "Don't Do What Donny Don't Does"
That's why you should be running the show Gaz. I haven't found a problem yet that an infographic and an instructional video couldn't fix.
 
Messages
17,704
NRL - They chose to turn a blind eye on these latest indiscretions though.


http://m.nrl.com/nrl-suspends-corey-norman/tabid/10874/newsid/99422/default.aspx

Well, Norman actually got charged and convicted, and that was on the back of the warning for consorting and the dumbass photo stuff. Having said that, I would have thought that somewhere north of 2 weeks for Proctor / Bromwich was called for (e.g. 4).

The SKD case will be (potentially) a lot more of a direct comparison to that of Norman. That is, both were charged by police for possession of a small amount of an illicit substance.
 

Happy MEel

First Grade
Messages
6,964
Well, Norman actually got charged and convicted, and that was on the back of the warning for consorting and the dumbass photo stuff. Having said that, I would have thought that somewhere north of 2 weeks for Proctor / Bromwich was called for (e.g. 4).

The SKD case will be (potentially) a lot more of a direct comparison to that of Norman. That is, both were charged by police for possession of a small amount of an illicit substance.
I could probably understand a 4 week penalty for Bromwich and Proctor (even though I don't agree with it) because it could be argued 4 weeks for bringing the game into disrepute for the drugs and an additional 2 weeks each for Norman for the consorting and videos.

This is why they should have a schedule of sanctions for off field incidents like they do for on field incidents.
 

Bazal

Post Whore
Messages
84,803
This is why they should have a schedule of sanctions for off field incidents like they do for on field incidents.

I'd be all for that, but the issue is how do you account for things like impact?

I don't think anyone will argue that the Bromwich thing or the Norman thing was anywhere near as high impact as the Pearce thing, for example. Norman was objectively the worst of them IMO but Pearce's incident had a much greater impact
 

Happy MEel

First Grade
Messages
6,964
Well, Norman actually got charged and convicted, and that was on the back of the warning for consorting and the dumbass photo stuff. Having said that, I would have thought that somewhere north of 2 weeks for Proctor / Bromwich was called for (e.g. 4).

The SKD case will be (potentially) a lot more of a direct comparison to that of Norman. That is, both were charged by police for possession of a small amount of an illicit substance.
The other point that raises questions is the sanction handed down to Pearce who wasn't charged and convicted. It would seem it's the act or behaviour that is bringing the game into disrepute rather than the conviction of a crime. Papalli's DUI is further evidence of this as he was charged and convicted and yet received a much lighter sentence.
 

Happy MEel

First Grade
Messages
6,964
I'd be all for that, but the issue is how do you account for things like impact?

I don't think anyone will argue that the Bromwich thing or the Norman thing was anywhere near as high impact as the Pearce thing, for example. Norman was objectively the worst of them IMO but Pearce's incident had a much greater impact
That's a fair point but I guess they'd account for that in a similar way they do for on field incidents.
 
Top