Rumours and Stuff

[hindy111]

Norman had multiple tablets and some muscle relaxants on him.. He was hanging around some bad dudes and made some pretty ordinary video which I seen. Legal or not he is meant to be one of the leaders of our club. And he carried on like a typical bonehead and not someone people would respect and look up to. Perhaps a guy that would make you laugh and not take seriously. I think of Normans punishment as something he would reflect on and make him a better leader for the club. And am just glad it happened last year when it didn't matter at all .

I reckon the club benefited from it just as much as Norman long term.

 

[Bazal]

Why wasn't Bromwich tested by the NRL and ASADA???

So being drunk is an excuse???

4 weeks would of been a fair outcome, because the 8 marker weeks of last season was absolute bullshit.

Where did I say it was an excuse? The point is the NRL cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that Bromwich took cocaine. Of course that's the most likely conclusion, but that doesn't make it comparable to Norman. For all anyone knows he got stitched up with a fking $200 line of icing sugar. it would hardly be the first time some scumbag has taken advantage of a blind drunk knucklehead looking for a hit....

Norman was proven to be in possession of an illicit substance and convicted of said offence. I'd have been happy with 4 weeks for him. The NRL got it wrong then. 2 weeks is right in this case. Or are you advocating that they continue to get it wrong?

 

[hindy111]

Problem is fans and Club is penalised by banning them from playing.
Id hit them with very heavy fines 50k + Then see if they want to walk the tight rope.

 

[Bazal]

Surely a smart marine biologist such as yourslef can see its really just semantics whether you get caught with some in your pocket as opposed to filmed with it up your nose .... end of the day its the same shit - footballer taking an illegal substance

Your reckon 2 weeks is all Norman should have got?

Pearce playfully touched a chicks dress (yes shouldnt have done it) and played silly buggers with a dog .... what was he convicted of?

Pearce is a different argument, he was filmed in a position that could be construed as sexually harassing or assaulting a woman whilst just about mute drunk, twice. People have forgotten about that in the face of the whole dog thing, but he was clearly filmed slobbering all over a woman who was telling him to GTFO....

Once again, Norman was proven to be in possession of an illicit substance. Bromwich was caught in CCTV taking something that looks like cocaine. Obviously there's a huge difference....Eels fans were up in arms when Tim Smith was "caught on CCTV" drinking "alcohol" and plastered all over the papers, only for it to be revealed he was drinking a soda water.

 

[Happy MEel]

What offence has Bromwich been convicted of?

I thought they got it wrong with Norman, but he was convicted of an offence in a court of law.

From an NRL perspective, bringing the game into disrepute, which has brought about significant suspensions in the past. Just ask Mitchell Pearce.

 

[Happy MEel]

Pearce is a repeated pest with a massive problem on the drink.

Just because they got it wrong in the past doesn't mean they have to continue getting it wrong now.

It's called precedent so unless they have changed their protocols, which the statements made by Todd suggest they haven't, then yes they should continue applying the same penalties.

 

[Bazal]

From an NRL perspective, bringing the game into disrepute, which has brought about significant suspensions in the past. Just ask Mitchell Pearce.

So because they got it wrong with Pearce (according to some, I think they were about 2 weeks too harsh so not far wrong) and Norman, they need to stick with that and continue getting it wrong?

 

[Last Week]

I know this is off topic, but I've been told that Nathan Peats to us is a done deal. The guy who told me also knew about Moses well before hand and he is someone who would know. Take it or leave it.

 

[Happy MEel]

So because they got it wrong with Pearce (according to some, I think they were about 2 weeks too harsh so not far wrong) and Norman, they need to stick with that and continue getting it wrong?

Yes. You don't need to agree with the penalties but that is the precedent the NRL have set for themselves. That now becomes the litmus test for such cases.

 

[Bazal]

It's called precedent so unless they have changed their protocols, which the statements made by Todd suggest they haven't, then yes they should continue applying the same penalties.

If you want to talk about precedent for players caught with questionable substances on CCTV, look at the Broncos. Several times. Based on existing precedent it should be swept under the carpet to be perfectly honest

A conviction for a drug offence and a repeat sex pest are not precedent for someone doing a line....

 

[Bazal]

Yes.

Well that is a patently ridiculous position to take, tbh.

 

[hindy111]

I know this is off topic, but I've been told that Nathan Peats to us is a done deal. The guy who told me also knew about Moses well before hand and he is someone who would know. Take it or leave it.

Ironic..... This is on topic for this thread. It seems everyone uses this thread as the common hang out talk about anything in NRL.

 

[Happy MEel]

Where did I say it was an excuse? The point is the NRL cannot prove beyond reasonable doubt that Bromwich took cocaine. Of course that's the most likely conclusion, but that doesn't make it comparable to Norman. For all anyone knows he got stitched up with a fking $200 line of icing sugar. it would hardly be the first time some scumbag has taken advantage of a blind drunk knucklehead looking for a hit....

Norman was proven to be in possession of an illicit substance and convicted of said offence. I'd have been happy with 4 weeks for him. The NRL got it wrong then. 2 weeks is right in this case. Or are you advocating that they continue to get it wrong?

WTF???
Why is he being given a 1st strike under the NRL drugs policy?

 

[Bazal]

Ironic..... This is on topic for this thread. It seems everyone uses this thread as the common hang out talk about anything in NRL.

This thread has no topic. Unlike the Brett Horsnell fishing thread.

 

[Bazal]

WTF???
Why is he being given a 1st strike under the NRL drugs policy?

Because they can do that. On balance of probability he took cocaine. It's only a first strike....some counselling and shit.

"Balance of probability" is in no way comparable to "convicted of drug offences" when preparing a sanction.

 

[Happy MEel]

Well that is a patently ridiculous position to take, tbh.

So is this...

Norman was proven to be in possession of an illicit substance. Bromwich was caught in CCTV taking something that looks like cocaine. Obviously there's a huge difference.

You forget we're not in a court of law and talking about bringing the game into disrepute. If the NRL have sufficient evidence to give them a strike then there is little to no difference between Corey's drug charge and this latest incident from an NRL perspective.

You also forget that they were named in a court hearing relating to a drug charge.

 

[Eelpout]

I know this is off topic, but I've been told that Nathan Peats to us is a done deal. The guy who told me also knew about Moses well before hand and he is someone who would know. Take it or leave it.

I'll let you know on Thursday.

 

[Happy MEel]

Because they can do that. On balance of probability he took cocaine. It's only a first strike....some counselling and shit.

"Balance of probability" is in no way comparable to "convicted of drug offences" when preparing a sanction.

How is a strike not a sanction. Balance of probabilities is all the NRL need to go off to deliver sanctions.

 

[Bazal]

So is this...


You forget we're not in a court of law and talking about bringing the game into disrepute. If the NRL have sufficient evidence to give them a strike then there is little to no difference between Corey's drug charge and this latest incident from an NRL perspective.

You also forget that they were named in a court hearing relating to a drug charge.

They were still not convicted of anything. What is so hard to understand about that?

Two cleanskins, caught on CCTV potentially taking an illicit substance, vs a bloke who had been warned for associating with criminals and was then convicted of a drug offence. Pretty easy distinction I would have thought.

 

[Bazal]

How is a strike not a sanction. Balance of probabilities is all the NRL need to go off to deliver sanctions.

It's the most minor sanction they can impose.

Of course they could decide to ban them for a year if they wanted. Good luck defending it in court, however.

2 weeks is right.