Stewart banned till rnd 5

[***MH***]

Stewart was always going to get in trouble when he was quoted "I was too drunk to remember anything"

 

[Timmah]

As a reference point for what you're trying to say Bluebags - the Bulldogs players investigated were not charged after the alleged incidents in 2004 - the mud stuck against the entire club and still does to this day due to, in large, the media's primary role in the investigation (Hadley & DPP issues in particular). In 5 years time Stewart will still feel the mud sticking from this, irrespective of the outcome of his court case.

 

[Sleep]

The Bulldogs had a lot of bad things happen in a short period of time which tarnished the club. Probably permanently.

Brett's only one guy and I don't think this damage will be as bad or ongoing as it was for them.

 

[Eels Dude]

Not only that Timmah, but with the Bulldogs no names were ever named so it's simply "The Bulldogs" incident which hurts the club ore than anything. This will always be the "Brett Stewart" incident first, rather than a "Manly incident".

 

[Timmah]

The Bulldogs had a lot of bad things happen in a short period of time which tarnished the club. Probably permanently.

Brett's only one guy and I don't think this damage will be as bad or ongoing as it was for them.

Are you forgetting the Delmege/Penn issue, the Watmough incident amongst other ones that will no doubt emerge from the woodwork?

I have the deepest sympathy for Manly, I know how it all feels - but they're on the same bad-news path.

 

[adamkungl]

That's a good point. The Bulldogs players were never named for what I remember to be legal reasons. At what point in the last couple of years did it become OK for the media to name and shame before a charge has even been laid? Or does this policy of public lynch mob only apply to footballers?

 

[t-ba]

Fair Enough.

The NRL needs to apply this new policy whenever an incident occurs however. Regardless of the player.

 

[Jatz Crackers]

Are you f**king dense?

It is fact he consumed alcohol at the function and it is fact he was intoxicated.

Oh FFS Timbo.

Just because you say it or saw some snippet in the paper doesnt make it fact. Is that just too hard for you to understand.

Ill say it again. If you have evidence....(not hearsay by the papers) then please show us. For example, show us his blood alcohol reading. Show us the transcript of the statement where it states the number of drinks consumed by him.

BTW...shove your large font up your date.

 

[Surely]

I cant be bothered going through it all and it may have already been said, but bird has not been convicted of anything and has had to miss a finals series and an entire series.

So in the interests of consistency stewart, watmough, Sa, and the other roosters dick should cop the same.

 

[t-ba]

I cant be bothered going through it all and it may have already been said, but bird has not been convicted of anything and has had to miss a finals series and an entire series.

So in the interests of consistency stewart, watmough, Sa, and the other roosters dick should cop the same.

Maybe if he gets charged...

Bird's worse than the rest of them. Fabricating a story, refusing to talk to the club, circumventing an AVO...

 

[cupid]

I cant be bothered going through it all and it may have already been said, but bird has not been convicted of anything and has had to miss a finals series and an entire series.

So in the interests of consistency stewart, watmough, Sa, and the other roosters dick should cop the same.

That's because he lied to his club, in this case stewart has cooperated.

 

[Pierced Soul]

Why Bird ? apart from him being a class 1 DH - whats the difference ? In all likelihood his charges are going to be dropped altogether .

Sharks acted responsibly with that case , and it did affect there semi's performance .

I for one would have loved Bird being given the same innocent until proven guilty trip - but the club took the correct action , as has the NRL today

sorry i was being facetious in regards to bird.

it needs to be a blanket ruling, not just for one player because they're a 1st rgader or rep player. has the nrl done anythiong about the rooters players who's admitted bashing his gf?

 

[Gaba]

I cant be bothered going through it all and it may have already been said, but bird has not been convicted of anything and has had to miss a finals series and an entire series.

So in the interests of consistency stewart, watmough, Sa, and the other roosters dick should cop the same.

Again Bird issue there is a big difference, , Bird is serious trouble for lying to the police there is no doubt about that, if bird is let off on technicality which doesnt mean he is innocent then the police could go after him for lying which is another serious charge,and that charge will be harder for bird to defend

 

[Pass the Ball]

Oh FFS Timbo.

Just because you say it or saw some snippet in the paper doesnt make it fact. Is that just too hard for you to understand.

Ill say it again. If you have evidence....(not hearsay by the papers) then please show us. For example, show us his blood alcohol reading. Show us the transcript of the statement where it states the number of drinks consumed by him.

BTW...shove your large font up your date.

I think you need to look at it with both eyes open....

It's great to support your team, but you need to be reasonable about it too...

 

[adamkungl]

Fair Enough.

The NRL needs to apply this new policy whenever an incident occurs however. Regardless of the player.

Pah. Consistently being wrong doesn't make it right.

 

[Eels Dude]

That's a good point. The Bulldogs players were never named for what I remember to be legal reasons. At what point in the last couple of years did it become OK for the media to name and shame before a charge has even been laid? Or does this policy of public lynch mob only apply to footballers?

It's a case by case basis. I think the legal system can step in and prevent the media from from releasing certain information if it effects the case or to protect a victim's identity for example.

 

[herbert henry1908]

His intoxication occured at an official club function.

no it didnt.

The function finsihed at 4pm , he kept drinking at other venues afterwards and the incident took place at 8pm.

Infact the bloke who says watmough hit him actually said on steve prices show that stewart behaved well at the function.

 

[HevyDevy]

OK fair enough, the point I was trying to make is that the mud sticks. His reputation is in tatters. This incident could result in him being deprived of sponsorship income in future.There should be laws in place to supress naming individuals until proven guilty.

Me, you and Joe Bloggs from across the road should have no knowledge of this case via reading about it in the papers.

Cool, well that's one for the what ifs I guess.

As it stands though, I'm sick of people blaming the media for doing their job. Sure, there are times when they overstep the mark - but this isn't one of them.

 

[HevyDevy]

That's a good point. The Bulldogs players were never named for what I remember to be legal reasons. At what point in the last couple of years did it become OK for the media to name and shame before a charge has even been laid? Or does this policy of public lynch mob only apply to footballers?

They didn't name and shame, they just named. The shame part, well that's not their fault.

 

[herbert henry1908]

Are you f**king dense?

It is fact he consumed alcohol at the function and it is fact he was intoxicated.

:lol:

you are a funny farker.

If he was intoxicated at the function , why was he not asked to leave by the manly warf hotel?

the function took place between 12pm and 4pm. Then the function finished and he got intoxicated and was asked to leave 2 other venues ( if you believe what is reported)

Intoxicated by my definition is showing signs if intoxication , ie. enough to be asked to leave a licsensed venue.