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!

Phone taps put Sharks under pressure

Inferno

Coach
Messages
18,282
Here they go again, the big bluff, you see they don't really have enough phone taps to warrant charges so they leak the story to the media that they do have taps, so players get on phones and they do or players become stressed and paranoid so they take the deal and spill the beans on their mates and colleagues, it's the oldest trick in the book. The truth with legal phones taps, they must have sufficient evidence to get a wiretap court order and then there is a limit of up to 72 hours and then they have to reapply, this can only happen on a few occasions, the courts will not permit longer periods. Any illegal taps cannot be used fullstop. Say nothing boys!

There is no limit of 72 hours mate. Not sure where you heard that.
 

Big man

Juniors
Messages
512
There is no limit of 72 hours mate. Not sure where you heard that.

Yes of course they can apply for longer but not with the initial wiretap orders, the court will only give limited period and given that the events in question occurred in 2011 and were not current would work against the applicant. IF they don't intercept any conversations that can support their case with initial orders than it makes it difficult to apply for longer periods.
 

Inferno

Coach
Messages
18,282
Yes of course they can apply for longer but not with the initial wiretap orders, the court will only give limited period and given that the events in question occurred in 2011 and were not current would work against the applicant. IF they don't intercept any conversations that can support their case with initial orders than it makes it difficult to apply for longer periods.

I don't know where you're getting your information from but that's not true at all.
 

husky65

Juniors
Messages
260
Why does everybody believe they have no evidence, or the evidence they do have is weak?

Genuine question.

a. they offered deals rather than pressed charges.
b. they have so far not showed hard evidence.
c. "credit card receipts" - seriously, they think it will say "banned substance X - $32.95", at most it will say "health products" or "services".
d. political involvement.
 

blacktip-reefy

Immortal
Messages
34,079
a. they offered deals rather than pressed charges.
b. they have so far not showed hard evidence.
c. "credit card receipts" - seriously, they think it will say "banned substance X - $32.95", at most it will say "health products" or "services".
d. political involvement.
Great Answers.
I'll addto that, if the ACC or ASADA told any board member, that a Player purchased anything on credit card, its game over. Gillard Loses.
 

carcharias

Immortal
Messages
43,120
I do know from a very very reliable source that when you use your credit card at the Polly Waffle they don't have "whorehouse.. 1 hour service call = $250.00" on the reciept.
 
Top