Hindyscrack
Bench
- Messages
- 3,433
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/sport/nrl/story/0,26799,25174543-5016307,00.html
Conduct unbecoming if you're a poster boy
By Nick Walshaw | March 12, 2009 12:00am
Have your say!Add your comments or read what others are saying
ANTHONY Laffranchi must be thankful he never launched a season. Never won Sexiest Man. Never spawned a Facebook site. Never had $1.25 million hanging on his image.
Because what other reason can there be for Manly wonderboy Brett Stewart missing the first four rounds of 2009?
Sidelined by some dusty Code of Conduct clause insisting all NRL players behave publicly in a sober, courteous and professional manner.
And so punters in front bars around the country shake their collective heads.
Questioning what ever happened to the presumption of innocence for this 24-year-old?
For a fella whose only crime, right now, is being refused service at Manly Wharf Hotel.
A footballer who come this weekend, should be playing football for the Manly Sea Eagles.
Because while most of Sydney is howling him down, Brett Stewart should be free to challenge the Bulldogs for the new "Bullfrog Arko" Cup.
Should be free to play right up until his innocence is decided in court.
Which doesn't make this a defence of Stewart. Because in a code where accountability often seems rarer than sandbuckets, he should be tried on the sexual assault charges and dealt with accordingly.
But that should happen in a court of law.
And until then Stewart should be playing.
Should be offered the same right of every other Australian who faces trial believing they are innocent until proven guilty.
Certainly this is how it played out for Laffranchi - the Gold Coast back-rower who needed 414 days to prove his innocence.
Who, had he been stood down, would've missed the most important period of his working career. A year when he not only played himself into NSW and Kangaroo jerseys, but earned a reputation that forever improved his earning capacity.
And why should that opportunity be taken from him for a claim that eventually proved false? Or from Warriors winger Michael Crockett - who took 383 days to clear his name?
Of course, this isn't to say NRL boss David Gallop shouldn't be furious with Stewart.
He should.
Because surely even prop forwards knew this wasn't the best week to drink like a sailor on shore leave.
Or that drinking yourself into a stupor two days after launching the season might also cause some angst with the suits down at Fox Studios.
But where was this Code of Conduct when Todd Carney first started on his rampage?
Or when a pantsless Tim Smith started abusing pensioners? Indeed, where was the code in any of the dramas that have seen leaguies brawling with knives, assaulting with plastic chairs and being done for DUI?
This Section 20 (2) ruling could've been used any number of times in the decade since its last appearance - against serial offender Julian O'Neill.
And even then good ol' Jules had to poo in a shoe.
And so the inconsistencies continue.
Like if Stewart is suspended, why not fellow Sea Eagle Anthony Watmough?
Because, surely drinking and slapping a club sponsor sits outside the realm of sober, courteous and professional behaviour too?
OK, so police last night dropped all charges against the Sea Eagles enforcer. But Stewart is not yet guilty of anything either.
Maybe Choc should just be thankful he never launched the NRL season.
Probably the most sensible thing I have read from that excuse of a paper in a long time.
Conduct unbecoming if you're a poster boy
By Nick Walshaw | March 12, 2009 12:00am
Have your say!Add your comments or read what others are saying
- Email article
- ShareAdd to DiggAdd to del.icio.usPost to NewsVinePost to FacebookWhat are these?
- Printer friendly
- Text size+-
ANTHONY Laffranchi must be thankful he never launched a season. Never won Sexiest Man. Never spawned a Facebook site. Never had $1.25 million hanging on his image.
Because what other reason can there be for Manly wonderboy Brett Stewart missing the first four rounds of 2009?
Sidelined by some dusty Code of Conduct clause insisting all NRL players behave publicly in a sober, courteous and professional manner.
And so punters in front bars around the country shake their collective heads.
Questioning what ever happened to the presumption of innocence for this 24-year-old?
For a fella whose only crime, right now, is being refused service at Manly Wharf Hotel.
A footballer who come this weekend, should be playing football for the Manly Sea Eagles.
Because while most of Sydney is howling him down, Brett Stewart should be free to challenge the Bulldogs for the new "Bullfrog Arko" Cup.
Should be free to play right up until his innocence is decided in court.
Which doesn't make this a defence of Stewart. Because in a code where accountability often seems rarer than sandbuckets, he should be tried on the sexual assault charges and dealt with accordingly.
But that should happen in a court of law.
And until then Stewart should be playing.
Should be offered the same right of every other Australian who faces trial believing they are innocent until proven guilty.
Certainly this is how it played out for Laffranchi - the Gold Coast back-rower who needed 414 days to prove his innocence.
Who, had he been stood down, would've missed the most important period of his working career. A year when he not only played himself into NSW and Kangaroo jerseys, but earned a reputation that forever improved his earning capacity.
And why should that opportunity be taken from him for a claim that eventually proved false? Or from Warriors winger Michael Crockett - who took 383 days to clear his name?
Of course, this isn't to say NRL boss David Gallop shouldn't be furious with Stewart.
He should.
Because surely even prop forwards knew this wasn't the best week to drink like a sailor on shore leave.
Or that drinking yourself into a stupor two days after launching the season might also cause some angst with the suits down at Fox Studios.
But where was this Code of Conduct when Todd Carney first started on his rampage?
Or when a pantsless Tim Smith started abusing pensioners? Indeed, where was the code in any of the dramas that have seen leaguies brawling with knives, assaulting with plastic chairs and being done for DUI?
This Section 20 (2) ruling could've been used any number of times in the decade since its last appearance - against serial offender Julian O'Neill.
And even then good ol' Jules had to poo in a shoe.
And so the inconsistencies continue.
Like if Stewart is suspended, why not fellow Sea Eagle Anthony Watmough?
Because, surely drinking and slapping a club sponsor sits outside the realm of sober, courteous and professional behaviour too?
OK, so police last night dropped all charges against the Sea Eagles enforcer. But Stewart is not yet guilty of anything either.
Maybe Choc should just be thankful he never launched the NRL season.
Probably the most sensible thing I have read from that excuse of a paper in a long time.
