Souffs Sydney nude video complaint

[Pommy]

No I don’t. I’ve said all along let’s see what happens but if is as alleged he should get same punishment. I won’t hold my breathe waiting for greenburgess to be consistent

Didn't Pearce have a history which added to the punishment that he got?

 

[Different kind of Rabbit]

A player need not do anything illegal for the NRL to determine he has brought the game in to disrepute.

So far the facts state that some lewd pictures were sent to a young lady from one of Sam's social media accounts.

We don't know if it's him in them, if it's him that sent them or if he even had knowledge of what was going on. The Daily Telegraph says that the pictures were non consensual and have posted some emails to prove this but we are yet to hear anything from the other party / parties involved whoever they may be.

There is not one shred of evidence yet produced over and above what I've just stated.

Even Fairfax have stopped linking Sam to the incident on legal advice because nobody knows all the facts.

The NRL have said that they will finalise the investigation later this week. I suggest we all wait for more facts to emerge from this investigation before we go off and hang someone because his name is linked.

There is certainly a lot more information that needs to emerge before anyone is suspended or sacked.

 

[Cockosh]

Wow... You're so far removed from the facts, it's not funny...



The South Sydney Rabbitohs provide the following update regarding the investigation into claims made in today's media:

1. The Club's general enquiry email address received emails from an anonymous email address on 27 and 31 May 2018 about alleged lewd behaviour by a player over social media. The emails did not identify the player allegedly involved, nor did they identify the person making the complaint.
2. On 1 June, the Club replied through Football Operations and Player Wellbeing Manager Brock Schaefer confirming it would investigate the complaint, requesting further information regarding the alleged incident and asking for contact details for the person making the complaint.
3. The Daily Telegraph contacted the Club on the afternoon of Thursday, 13 September stating the Club had failed to respond to emails dated 5 June and 31 August regarding alleged lewd player behaviour.
4. Upon receipt of the information from The Daily Telegraph, the Club engaged an independent contractor to conduct an email system audit regarding the emails sent to Mr Schaefer on 5 June and 31 August. These emails, sent again from an anonymous address, were tagged as spam due to the sender's unique email address. As per the Club's junk email filter, these emails were subsequently routed to a junk mail folder and were not received or seen by Mr Schaefer.
5. Upon discovery and review of the emails on 13 September, the Club attempted to contact the complainant via an international phone number provided in these emails, but it was no longer in service. Again, the emails did not identify the player allegedly involved, nor did they identify the person making the complaint.
6. The Club contacted the person making the complaint again by email on 14 September 2018 and was provided with updated contact details by her.
7. Rabbitohs CEO Blake Solly has had a discussion with the person making the complaint this afternoon. Mr Solly gave her a commitment that the Club would undertake its investigation of the complaint with the utmost confidentiality and respect. The Club will deal with the complaint thoroughly and will move as quickly as it possibly can to conclude the investigation.
8. The Rabbitohs have appointed a panel of Commissioner Lea Drake (Independent), Karyn Murphy (NRL Integrity Unit) Nick Pappas (Rabbitohs Chairman), Emily Grant (Rabbitohs Head of Operations, People and Culture) and Mr Solly to investigate the complaint. Drake is the current Law Enforcement Conduct Commissioner for Integrity.
9. The above investigation will be undertaken in conjunction and co-operation with the NRL Integrity Unit.
10. The findings of the investigation will be thorough and transparent.

https://www.rabbitohs.com.au/news/2018/09/14/rabbitohs-update-regarding-claims-in-todays-media/

They made several attempts to contact the anonymous complainant via email and the number that she provided and couldn't get through to her.

How that equates to "not addressing the complaint" and "They clearly hoped it would blow over" is a mystery to me.

They received an email. They tried to act on it at the time and hit a brick wall. They were notified again later by the media and when they tried to contact the complainant, they again hit a brick wall when the number provided was no longer in service.

I would say that every effort has been made but through a litany of unfortunate events, contact couldn't be properly established.

Stop being an absolute peanut for five seconds and take some time to look at the facts before you shoot your mouth off half cocked and make yourself look like a moron.

As I said they never approached the players. What facts am I removed from? Read what I wrote. You not think it was worth approaching your players at the time?

 

[myrrh ken]

Have you got anything to say Sam has actually done anything yet? Is there any proof this was actually not consensual?

Her complaint and the fact that she made the complaint the following day.

That is all there is going to be, unless Sam admits or someone else squeals.

The fact that she apparently ignored 3 phone calls afterwards might be telling.

All this might not reach the criminal standard, but it only needs to reach the balance of probabilities if you are looking at player misconduct.

 

[Different kind of Rabbit]

As I said they never approached the players. What facts am I removed from? Read what I wrote. You not think it was worth approaching your players at the time?

Approach them with what?

"Hi guys, did one of you have a video conversation with an anonymous lady and show her your backside?"

They wrote back to her asking for more facts in the matter and they didn't receive a reply. It wasn't until the young lady approached the media that names and pictures were supplied.

Pretty hard to investigate something when you have no idea who or what was involved.

 

[Pommy]

As I said they never approached the players. What facts am I removed from? Read what I wrote. You not think it was worth approaching your players at the time?

"We've had an anonymous complaint made guys, the woman isn't contactable. Who wants to volunteer for an 8 week ban?"

I'm sure they would have been falling over themselves to own up.

 

[Cockosh]

Didn't Pearce have a history which added to the punishment that he got?

He obviously had a history but it was mentioned as part of the reason for the severity of the fine but no doubt they were thinking it. He copped a $20k fine and 1 game ban for the yellow dress incident.
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/s...o/news-story/8d1083036139156143cbb3b0999fa93f

 

[Great Dissenter]

Approach them with what?

"Hi guys, did one of you have a video conversation with an anonymous lady and show her your backside?"

They wrote back to her asking for more facts in the matter and they didn't receive a reply. It wasn't until the young lady approached the media that names and pictures were supplied.

Pretty hard to investigate something when you have no idea who or what was involved.

My understanding was that the complainant did reply, but that SSFC inadvertently failed to receive said reply due to their inbox settings.

 

[Pommy]

He obviously had a history but it was mentioned as part of the reason for the severity of the fine but no doubt they were thinking it. He copped a $20k fine and 1 game ban for the yellow dress incident.
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/s...o/news-story/8d1083036139156143cbb3b0999fa93f

f**king hell "lewd dog video' Still cant believe what a farce that entire thing was. Much better headline than 'drunk footballer makes twat of himself'

 

[Different kind of Rabbit]

My understanding was that the complainant did reply, but that SSFC inadvertently failed to receive said reply due to their inbox settings.

Sure... It went to spam so they never received the reply.

 

[Pommy]

My understanding was that the complainant did reply, but that SSFC inadvertently failed to receive said reply due to their inbox settings.

Yeah but the situation was if we are to believe the club that she didn't reply.

 

[Different kind of Rabbit]

He obviously had a history but it was mentioned as part of the reason for the severity of the fine but no doubt they were thinking it. He copped a $20k fine and 1 game ban for the yellow dress incident.
https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/s...o/news-story/8d1083036139156143cbb3b0999fa93f

The second ban and fine was so large because he'd made an utter pillock of himself twice in six months and had obviously learnt nothing from the first ban and fine.

If he had no priors he wouldn't have been hit so hard with the dog incident.

 

[Great Dissenter]

Sure... It went to spam so they never received the reply.

I think that Mr Schaefer should have done more to ensure that this wouldn’t come back to bite SSFC. Even if the emails were marked as ‘SPAM’ it would have been prudent to send one last email advising that the matter would be considered closed unless a response is received.

 

[Cockosh]

"We've had an anonymous complaint made guys, the woman isn't contactable. Who wants to volunteer for an 8 week ban?"

I'm sure they would have been falling over themselves to own up.

You seriously believe that in a footy club as high profile as souffs that if such a serious accusation was made the management wouldn’t ask questions of the players to at least be prepared or warm the players that accusations have been made. Hilarious!! Management wouldn’t act on it anyway till formal complaint is lodged ie all the other incident ce they always cover up.

 

[Pommy]

You seriously believe that in a footy club as high profile as souffs that if such a serious accusation was made the management wouldn’t ask questions of the players to at least be prepared or warm the players that accusations have been made. Hilarious!! Management wouldn’t act on it anyway till formal complaint is lodged ie all the other incident ce they always cover up.

The management did act on it though, they responded by email.

 

[Cockosh]

The second ban and fine was so large because he'd made an utter pillock of himself twice in six months and had obviously learnt nothing from the first ban and fine.

If he had no priors he wouldn't have been hit so hard with the dog incident.

Your opinion. But even if that is so he was punished for his first misdemeanour which is far less than alleged burgess one. If it turns out he is wrong at the very least he gets more than Pearce. Won’t happen though. The spin doctors are onto it.

 

[Cockosh]

The management did act on it though, they responded by email.

Did they speak to the players?

 

[Different kind of Rabbit]

I think that Mr Schaefer should have done more to ensure that this wouldn’t come back to bite SSFC. Even if the emails were marked as ‘SPAM’ it would have been prudent to send one last email advising that the matter would be considered closed unless a response is received.

Honestly... Considering the email came in from a G Mail account and the name was Anony mous... I'm surprised that he replied in the very first case.

I work for a multi national company and can tell you for a fact that G Mail accounts aren't even routed to our spam system anymore. We've received so much spam from G Mail over the years that they are blocked on our servers.

 

[Valheru]

Sure... It went to spam so they never received the reply.

But she did reply? And followed up a month or so later? What more could she have done?

The second ban and fine was so large because he'd made an utter pillock of himself twice in six months and had obviously learnt nothing from the first ban and fine.

If he had no priors he wouldn't have been hit so hard with the dog incident.

The yellow dress incident was 18 months prior to aus day 2016.

 

[Great Dissenter]

Honestly... Considering the email came in from a G Mail account and the name was Anony mous... I'm surprised that he replied in the very first case.

I work for a multi national company and can tell you for a fact that G Mail accounts aren't even routed to our spam system anymore. We've received so much spam from G Mail over the years that they are blocked on our servers.

Fair enough, your view is that he did everything he could in the circumstances to protect the SSFC brand. In your view, he earned his $150k plus salary.

My view, albeit that I am NOT a SSFC shareholder, differs and I would hold him to a higher standard given that he did receive the first email.

I acknowledge that many company ‘SPAM’ filters are more aggressive and I have also been frustrated by this in my professional life having overlooked valid client emails.