Rumours and Stuff

[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.

Was a sexual offence charge given to Mitchell Pearce? What about a bestiality charge?

It seems balance of probabilities was the burden of proof required to hand out sanctions.

 

[Bazal]

Was a sexual offence charge given to Mitchell Pearce? What about a bestiality charge?

It seems balance of probabilities was the burden of proof required to hand out sanctions.

Add to that previous offences. Or is that irrelevant because it goes against your point?

Honestly, your point of view is that because they made mistakes with sanctions last year, they should continue to make those mistakes. So realistically the likelihood you just want to whinge about it regardless, IMO.

And that's the major issue. No matter what sanctions were given, there would be mass whining about how it was wrong.

 

[Happy MEel]

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.

Court of law??? Are you serious? The NRL can ban them for however length of time they see fit as they have breached their contract by bringing the game into disrepute. It doesn't mean they're forcing the clubs not to pay them. The courts would throw this out if poor little Jesse came to them in a tiff because he doesn't get to play footy on a weekend.

Come on Baz, you're better than that.

 

[Happy MEel]

Add to that previous offences. Or is that irrelevant because it goes against your point?

Honestly, your point of view is that because they made mistakes with sanctions last year, they should continue to make those mistakes. So realistically the likelihood you just want to whinge about it regardless, IMO.

And that's the major issue. No matter what sanctions were given, there would be mass whining about how it was wrong.

My argument is that I don't see any evidence from an NRL perspective that they believe they got Corey's punishment wrong so they have no reason not to apply a similar sanction.

 

[Bazal]

Court of law??? Are you serious? The NRL can ban them for however length of time they see fit as they have breached their contract by bringing the game into disrepute. It doesn't mean they're forcing the clubs not to pay them. The courts would throw this out if poor little Jesse came to them in a tiff because he doesn't get to play footy on a weekend.

Come on Baz, you're better than that.

Of course I'm serious. You reckon a player, banned for an obviously ridiculous amount of time or unfairly sanctioned otherwise, wouldn't challenge it in court?

Or wait, maybe they would....

http://www.pscinsurance.com.au/nrl-star-todd-carney-wins-unfair-dismissal-case/

 

[Bazal]

My argument is that I don't see any evidence from an NRL perspective that they believe they got Corey's punishment wrong so they have no reason not to apply a similar sanction.

Yes but you are comparing a convicted felon to an alleged one time drug user.....

 

[Noise]

Of course I'm serious. You reckon a player, banned for an obviously ridiculous amount of time or unfairly sanctioned otherwise, wouldn't challenge it in court?

Or wait, maybe they would....

http://www.pscinsurance.com.au/nrl-star-todd-carney-wins-unfair-dismissal-case/

Wasn't that (The Todd Carney thing) a wrongful dismissal case that effected his earnings? An NRL suspension where a player gets paid while suspended is completely different

 

[Bazal]

Wasn't that (The Todd Carney thing) a wrongful dismissal case that effected his earnings? An NRL suspension where a player gets paid while suspended is completely different

A year long ban would certainly affect earnings....rep bonuses, future contracts, etc. I reckon you could just about guarantee that if the NRL imposed a blatantly over the top sanction, as Cronulla did with Carney, it would end up in court. That was more the point I was making.

 

[Happy MEel]

Of course I'm serious. You reckon a player, banned for an obviously ridiculous amount of time or unfairly sanctioned otherwise, wouldn't challenge it in court?

Or wait, maybe they would....

http://www.pscinsurance.com.au/nrl-star-todd-carney-wins-unfair-dismissal-case/

Or wait...maybe they wouldn't.

That was a case against the club where he lost his income. Who's talking dismissal? Carney was sacked. I'm talking about the NRL suspending a player. Bromwich is still employed so he's not going to win a wrongful dismissal case. The Storm can keep paying him so I don't see your point.

 

[Happy MEel]

A year long ban would certainly affect earnings....rep bonuses, future contracts, etc. I reckon you could just about guarantee that if the NRL imposed a blatantly over the top sanction, as Cronulla did with Carney, it would end up in court. That was more the point I was making.

Well if you can guarantee it then I retract my rebuttal.

Perhaps you should speak to semi's lawyer about a loss of earnings because you seem to be an expert in these matters.

 

[Bazal]

Or wait...maybe they wouldn't.

That was a case against the club where he lost his income. Who's talking dismissal? Carney was sacked. I'm talking about the NRL suspending a player. Bromwich is still employed so he's not going to win a wrongful dismissal case. The Storm can keep paying him so I don't see your point.

He can't train, he can't earn any bonuses built into his contract for rep or finals footy, he can't maximise his contract value for future contracts....obviously this isn't relevant to a 2 week ban, but if you don't reckon a ridiculously over the top ban would end up in court then there's not a lot to be gained here....

 

[Bazal]

Well if you can guarantee it then I retract my rebuttal.

Perhaps you should speak to semi's lawyer about a loss of earnings because you seem to be an expert in these matters.

I'm just going off precedent.....that sounds familiar....

 

[Happy MEel]

Yes but you are comparing a convicted felon to an alleged one time drug user.....

I think you'll find Norman's crime was a misdemeanour not a felony so he is not a "convicted felon".

 

[Happy MEel]

I'm just going off precedent.....that sounds familiar....

Which precedent is that? Perhaps you should enlighten us...

Particularly one where a player takes the NRL or another governing body to court for suspensions, not a wrongful dismissal.

 

[Bazal]

I think you'll find Norman's crime was a misdemeanour not a felony so he is not a "convicted felon".

My mistake. He still has a conviction against his name

Look, ultimately, you are arguing that because they f**ked up with Pearce and Normans suspensions last year, they should continue f**king up ad nauseum based on some kind of messed up idea of precedent. It's not a great position to be taking, that's really all there is to it IMO.

 

[Happy MEel]

My mistake. He still has a conviction against his name

Look, ultimately, you are arguing that because they f**ked up with Pearce and Normans suspensions last year, they should continue f**king up ad nauseum based on some kind of messed up idea of precedent. It's not a great position to be taking, that's really all there is to it IMO.

My argument is that it's irrelevant whether you or I think the suspensions for Pearce and Norman were wrong. The NRL certainly don't think so. The point is that their punishments must be handed down consistently, which is pretty strong ground to base an argument from IMO.

 

[parra-matters]

In the grand scheme of things, did Norman being suspended for 8 weeks really cost us anything? We wouldn't have made the Top 8 if he'd played all those matches, so did we really miss out?

Would Norman have learnt as much of a lesson if he was out for 2 weeks??

If SKD ends up being found guilty and gets two weeks, then Norman and the Club can probably feel hard done by.

Norman also had that video and was seen out for dinner with alleged criminals.
I think they rolled that all into one and we were also a chance to make the finals after cheating the salary cap so it was convenient to punish him that way.

 

[IFR33K]

Yes but Bromwich wasn't convicted of anything so you can't compare the punishments. His stance is basically "I was so drunk I have no idea what I took". Norman was convicted of possessing an illegal substance.

There's a massive difference.

How is it a massive difference???? It's probably a slight difference. Just because the players weren't charged by police doesn't mean they're innocent.

 

[Tommy Coco]

Two weeks is a laugh, I don't really care, but pissed to the point of memory loss and coke shenanigans shouldn't be part and parcel with pro sport, should be massive sanctions, not a flippin fortnight.

What I am interested in is why was it 2 years for Wendell sailor and Reni Matuia (spelling)?

The nonsense nuances being bandied are garbage. Imagine your child working these angles when caught...? It wouldn't matter, you wouldn't accept it, close enough to this would be enough for massive discipline. It's not illegal, I didn't take any, I was too drunk, it wasn't really coke I brought....Jesus, I would've had the ass kicked off me

 

[Bazal]

Two weeks is a laugh, I don't really care, but pissed to the point of memory loss and coke shenanigans shouldn't be part and parcel with pro sport, should be massive sanctions, not a flippin fortnight.

What I am interested in is why was it 2 years for Wendell sailor and Reni Matuia (spelling)?

The nonsense nuances being bandied are garbage. Imagine your child working these angles when caught...? It wouldn't matter, you wouldn't accept it, close enough to this would be enough for massive discipline. It's not illegal, I didn't take any, I was too drunk, it wasn't really coke I brought....Jesus, I would've had the ass kicked off me

Maitua tested positive to clenbuterol....