Rumours and Stuff

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Yes. I think so. I don't believe a line of coke is a massive issue

What if they did 2 lines each?

4 weeks?

 

[Bazal]

You think all the mummies would be happy to have their league playing kids grow up to be doing lines with their footy mates?

I think at the end of the day it all (drunken stupidity, drugs, hanging with criminals) figures out to be bring the game into disrepute about the same

I think that if parents are worried about other kids getting their kids into coke they aren't parenting right, tbh.

 

[strider]

Lol. I'm not making up shit, mate.

You are aware that distributing a sex tape without consent is a criminal act, right? As I said, none of us know whether he had consent or not (hence "may have been a criminal act") but at best it's a pretty rubbish look that brings the game into disrepute and at worst it's a potential crime whether you like it or not.

Why was he not charged then?

 

[Djay]

Lol. I'm not making up shit, mate.

You are aware that distributing a sex tape without consent is a criminal act, right? As I said, none of us know whether he had consent or not (hence "may have been a criminal act") but at best it's a pretty rubbish look that brings the game into disrepute and at worst it's a potential crime whether you like it or not.

Just like buying, consuming cocaine is.

Its all wrong, negative and bringing the game into disrepute.

 

[Bazal]

Why was he not charged then?

Who f**king knows? Maybe he did have consent. Maybe he didn't, but the chick figured it was no big deal so whatever. Maybe she just didn't bother pressing any charges. Maybe she proofread the messages that he sent along with it and laughed at how she looked on video. I'm not privy to the details and neither are you, and I never said he didn't have consent. Nor that he did. I simply said that it is illegal to distribute a sex tape without consent, and that we have no idea whether he did or did not have consent, so he may have in fact committed two criminal acts.

The overarching fact is that Norman did more wrong than Bromwich. It's not even really debateable, given the NRL said that he was supended for four separate offences when handing down the suspension

 

[Bazal]

Just like buying, consuming cocaine is.

Its all wrong, negative and bringing the game into disrepute.

Yes but Norman put himself in a situation where he could potentially be charged with two criminal offences, as well as doing other things the NRL frowned upon, and that was reflected in his suspension as compared to single offence Bromwich. How hard is that to get?

 

[strider]

SKD stood down indefinitely by roosters ... source ch9 news

Rough translation, roosters need more time to figure out the appropriate level of suspension - lol

 

[Gronk]

Ch9 have a report coming up which suggests Moses attended Eels training. Could be their usual BS to keep u watching but.

 

[The EELiminator]

Ch9 have a report coming up which suggests Moses attended Eels training. Could be their usual BS to keep u watching but.

attended just means he was there which tells us nothing
was he watching or training?

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

Ch9 have a report coming up which suggests Moses attended Eels training. Could be their usual BS to keep u watching but.

What drugs did he do? And who sold em to him?

 

[strider]

Ch9 have a report coming up which suggests Moses attended Eels training. Could be their usual BS to keep u watching but.

I thought they suggested might be at eels training soon - not actually attended
I jumped to the conclusion they just read this forum

 

[I bleed blue & gold]

The way French was talking it sounded like they have been told he is coming.

 

[parrathruandthru]

Ch9 have a report coming up which suggests Moses attended Eels training. Could be their usual BS to keep u watching but.

I watched the field work at training today and Moses was not there

 

[El Diablo]

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

no he wasn't

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-15/corey-norman-drug-conviction-overturned/7849716

 

[Bazal]

no he wasn't

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-15/corey-norman-drug-conviction-overturned/7849716

Yes that was discussed about 275 pages ago. It did not overturn the guilty verdict. It also happened AFTER the ban was completed so is irrelevant to the length of ban.

Do try and keep up.

 

[strider]

The way French was talking it sounded like they have been told he is coming.

Yeah, sounded very much like someone had suggested it was gonna happen .... tho who knows if ch9 cut it to seem that way??

Bev basically said, if he is here by wednesday then they can train and have him ready by sunday .... be interesting to see what team named tomorrow

They also said Bevo is set to return on sunday

 

[Bazal]

Yeah, sounded very much like someone had suggested it was gonna happen .... tho who knows if ch9 cut it to seem that way??

Bev basically said, if he is here by wednesday then they can train and have him ready by sunday .... be interesting to see what team named tomorrow

They also said Bevo is set to return on sunday

Be interesting to see where he returns....personally I'd keep Gutho at the back

 

[El Diablo]

. It did not overturn the guilty verdict.

yes it did

he has no criminal record

 

[Barry O'Speedwagon]

no he wasn't

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-09-15/corey-norman-drug-conviction-overturned/7849716

FFS. He was found guilty and convicted. He then appealed the fact that a conviction was recorded (after the NRL penalty was imposed). So, at the time the NRL penalty was imposed he was both found guilty and convicted. The appeal has no effect on the original finding of guilt.

 

[Bazal]

yes it did

he has no criminal record

No it didn't. He was found guilty but had no conviction recorded. He was issued a Section 10...do you know what that is? Here, let me help

The expression "section10" refers to section 10 of the Crimes (Sentencing Procedure) Act 1999. This section allows a Court that finds you guilty of an offence, to discharge you without recording a conviction.

https://www.armstronglegal.com.au/criminal-law/penalties/section-10

He was still found guilty. And it was still irrelevant to his suspension