OT: ASADA and Drugs in NRL

[strider]

We didnt have a board at the time so the nrl made the decision for us. Do you think bernie and the current board would have given corey 8 weeks

We had a board. There were just some people missing.

 

[strider]

We didnt have a board at the time so the nrl made the decision for us. Do you think bernie and the current board would have given corey 8 weeks

They gave kenny 8 weeks

 

[strider]

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.

Wasnt the consorting/dumb photo thing on the same evening as he got done in possession? ... one of those merkins gave it to him .... i dont think he was previously warned .... and i imagine the video was probably done about the same time

I think corey needed a smack in the head - and i hope he got it ... if a court appearance, 8 weeks and a decent fine arent enough then he is a lost cause

 

[strider]

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

One minute you are saying actually being charged makes a massive difference ... the next pearce is worse than all and he never got charged with diddly

 

[Happy MEel]

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.

...and @strider rightly pointed out that Norman's conviction was overturned on appeal. Further evidence that it's the act or behaviour that warrants the sanction for bringing the game into disrepute.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...erturns-drug-convictions-20160915-grhago.html

 

[strider]

...and @strider rightly pointed out that Norman's conviction was overturned on appeal. Further evidence that it's the act or behaviour that warrants the sanction for bringing the game into disrepute.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...erturns-drug-convictions-20160915-grhago.html

Mind you, the NRL had already penalised him before the courts overturned it .... cant undo what they already did

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Was the conviction overturned or was it just the decision to record a conviction?

 

[strider]

Was the conviction overturned or was it just the decision to record a conviction?

Im not sure whats the difference ... his conviction being recorded was overturned ... no one is saying he didnt do anything wrong

 

[Bazal]

One minute you are saying actually being charged makes a massive difference ... the next pearce is worse than all and he never got charged with diddly

Mate, seriously? This is from the EXACT POST you quoted

Norman was objectively the worst of them IMO

I'm talking about the impact that each incident had. Pearce was splashed over every major media outlet in Australia humping a dog, forcing himself on a clearly unimpressed woman and pissing on some poor merkins couch because he was too drunk to function. His incident had a higher impact, despite not being as bad as Norman who committed a crime, and if the suspension is about bringing the game into disrepute Pearce's incident was much higher impact than Norman or Bromwich.

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

...and @strider rightly pointed out that Norman's conviction was overturned on appeal. Further evidence that it's the act or behaviour that warrants the sanction for bringing the game into disrepute.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/...erturns-drug-convictions-20160915-grhago.html

He appealed the decision to put the conviction on his record. He was originally found guilty and a conviction recorded. After the appeal, the conviction was removed, but this doesn't change the fact that he was found guilty of the possession offence.. And......the appeal was finalised after the NRL's penalty was determined.

 

[I'm a loser baby...]

Im not sure whats the difference ... his conviction being recorded was overturned ... no one is saying he didnt do anything wrong

Yeah I'm just saying that he wasn't later found not guilty, just that I think the offence is so minor that they decided not to record a conviction.

 

[strider]

Mate, seriously? This is from the EXACT POST you quoted



I'm talking about the impact that each incident had. Pearce was splashed over every major media outlet in Australia humping a dog, forcing himself on a clearly unimpressed woman and pissing on some poor merkins couch because he was too drunk to function. His incident had a higher impact, despite not being as bad as Norman who committed a crime, and if the suspension is about bringing the game into disrepute Pearce's incident was much higher impact than Norman or Bromwich.

Pearce never humped the dog .... an embarassing bit of stupidity
The chick never made any form of complaint what-so-ever ... she hardly resisted when he gave her a peck - and then left when asked.

He embarassed the f**k out of himself and made himself look a dumb f**k ... agree totally that he made the game look bad - but others arent covering the game in glory either

 

[84 Baby]

Mind you, the NRL had already penalised him before the courts overturned it .... cant undo what they already did

They f**king should! Replay all those games Corey missed! We'll f**king smash Cronulla in last year's GF

 

[Bazal]

Pearce never humped the dog .... an embarassing bit of stupidity
The chick never made any form of complaint what-so-ever ... she hardly resisted when he gave her a peck - and then left when asked.

He embarassed the f**k out of himself and made himself look a dumb f**k ... agree totally that he made the game look bad - but others arent covering the game in glory either

He humped it. He didn't f**k it, but he humped it. Simulated sex with it, whatever you want to call it.

All I'm saying is that although he didn't technically commit a crime, his incident was pretty high impact and therefore there would need to be a system whereby that is taken into account if, as the post I was replying to suggested, there was a framework for these off field incidents and the sanctions involved.

 

[strider]

They f**king should! Replay all those games Corey missed! We'll f**king smash Cronulla in last year's GF

Bring back the Alternative Standings thread ffs!!! ... we won it all!

 

[Gary Gutful]

Bring back the Alternative Standings thread ffs!!! ... we won it all!

Done.

 

[Gronk]

Infinity Group Australia withdraws Sharks, Roosters sponsorship deal
EXCLUSIVE Phil Rothfield, The Daily Telegraph

THE NRL’s cocaine scandal has cost the Cronulla Sharks and the Sydney Roosters more than $1 million in sponsorship.

The Daily Telegraph can reveal Infinity Group Australia has informed the management of both clubs this morning that they are withdrawing their support.

The Sharks have been rocked by chairman Damian Keogh’s cocaine possession charges and the Roosters by Shaun Kenny-Dowall facing similar charges.

The Roosters and Sharks have both lost sponsorship deals over the drugs scandals. Picture: Gregg Porteous
Infinity is a sponsor on the back of the Sharks jersey and was to spend $700,000 over the next two years.

The company also sponsors the Roosters for around $150,000.

The Daily Telegraph is seeking comment from Infinity and the two clubs.

Infinity used to sponsor the Parramatta Eels but pulled out over the club’s salary cap scandal.

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/sp...l/news-story/12584f69de65d37eb7bb7fa20c003907

 

[Gronk]

...and there we have it. Greenberg is satisfied with the Storm punishment.

http://wwos.nine.com.au/2017/05/08/12/55/greenberg-satisfied-with-bromwich-sanction

 

[Happy MEel]

Now that's a much better response from the club and makes the Storm look weak as piss. I guess it helped being an NRL owned club.

 

[Gronk]