Stewart banned till rnd 5

[isaiah]

congrats to gallop and the nrl, right action taken for just the right reason

 

[cupid]

Thats the complete and utter hypocrisy of one D Gallop. Name me another player suspended for 5 weeks for being drunk?
Reni Mutua last yr? No
SBW? No

List goes on and on.

Gallop is a fool

So True, I have no problem him being stood down for the sexual assault charges, but for being drunk is just a flat out joke.

 

[Dave Q]

They ought to run an IQ test for some of these "hero"s before they turn them into adverts for the game.

Manly are not entitled to bring the game into disrepute by playing this moron.

It sends the wrong message out to the kids.

But there should be some consistency, such as if you get charged, you should be stood down until the outcome is known. The dilly-dallying gives the impression of favours.

Otherwise, Stewart is gone.

Shame as he was a great player, very skillful and exciting to watch.

 

[myanonymoususername]

Suspending him is the right thing to do. Can you imagine any other employer who would keep a person in a customer facing, high profile role in that job if they were charged with a serious criminal offence, and had embarassed the company by their behaviour?

The fact he's suspended for drunken behaviour rather than the alleged sexual assault is irrelevant. Its obviously a charge they can get him on without compromising his legal position over the serious criminal matter. I'd expect the suspension will be reviewed after his court appearance in April. The current suspension just puts him on ice for the time being.

The fact that he's been treated differently to Laffranchi and others is irrelevant. The NRL has to take a stand sooner or later. The test will be in what it does next time a player (inevitably) screws up. The past is the past and the NRL can't change it (personally I think they were wrong on those other players, by the way).

Manly acted in a gutless manner by refusing to act themselves on the matter. I can see the NRL stepping in being used as a copout by clubs in managing player discipline. They will hold their hands up and leave it to the NRL to be the bad guys.

Rather than suspending the player at NRL level, they should have called Manly's bluff and made them drop him - with the consequence being that if Manly ran out with him in the team the ref would cancel the match and award a forfeit to the other team.

 

[Cletus]

At the end of the day the NRL don't have the right to suspend him for pending legal charges, hence the bollocks about being drunk in public. I'm not sure whther he should have been dropped or not but it sounds like Brett has denied the allegations to them and they're standing by him, which is fair enough really.

 

[SaveTheChildren]

They ought to run an IQ test for some of these "hero"s before they turn them into adverts for the game.

Manly are not entitled to bring the game into disrepute by playing this moron.

It sends the wrong message out to the kids.

But there should be some consistency, such as if you get charged, you should be stood down until the outcome is known. The dilly-dallying gives the impression of favours.

Otherwise, Stewart is gone.

Shame as he was a great player, very skillful and exciting to watch.

If the NRL wish to elevate ordinary people to be something they are not then the responsibility is theirs. It is the NRL who require the IQ test.

Brett Stewart is not remotely gone. He will be back in round 5!

 

[Tommax25]

People are still forgeting that Stewart was the face of the 2009 campaign.
You cannot have someone who has been charged of sexual assault playing after his face has been plastered all over television screens.

Im sorry but that is completely wrong. The same crime should net the same punishment. The fact he was the face of the ad campagin should have zero bearing on any punishments issued. Clearly it has and its highly hypocritical of gallop and the league but its not right.

 

[bartman]

Suspending him is the right thing to do. Can you imagine any other employer who would keep a person in a customer facing, high profile role in that job if they were charged with a serious criminal offence, and had embarassed the company by their behaviour?

The fact he's suspended for drunken behaviour rather than the alleged sexual assault is irrelevant. Its obviously a charge they can get him on without compromising his legal position over the serious criminal matter. I'd expect the suspension will be reviewed after his court appearance in April. The current suspension just puts him on ice for the time being.

Quoted for truth and emphasis.

 

[Garts]

Suspending him is the right thing to do. Can you imagine any other employer who would keep a person in a customer facing, high profile role in that job if they were charged with a serious criminal offence, and had embarassed the company by their behaviour?

The fact he's suspended for drunken behaviour rather than the alleged sexual assault is irrelevant. Its obviously a charge they can get him on without compromising his legal position over the serious criminal matter. I'd expect the suspension will be reviewed after his court appearance in April. The current suspension just puts him on ice for the time being.

They can not review a suspension and increase it for the same offence later down the track. At least that is what I thought.

 

[SpaceMonkey]

They can not review a suspension and increase it for the same offence later down the track. At least that is what I thought.

No but they could suspend him for something else, potentially.

 

[Tommax25]

Correct decision by the NRL. Stewart was the face of the NRL this season and he let the game down.

Whether he is inocent or guilty of sexual assaulty, he is definitely guilty of bringing the game into disrepute.

More importantly, he has been charged by the police so this is no tiny issue we're dealing with.

I don't care about inconsistency from the past - this is absolutely the correct decision.

Should be irrelevant. Also I missed the memo that said in 2009 we were serious about stopping alcohol related incidents, and that the indifference in 2008 is now over. Why did you not call on lockyer to be suspended? Why not hayne for putting himself in the situation to be shot at?

 

[Tommax25]

Well said, manly have shown they have no integrity, none what so ever. Lets see what the club does with watmough, maybe a monetary fine they'll do sweet FA.

I'll just complete that sentence for you: manly, the warriors and the titans have shown they have no integrity.

 

[bartman]

The memo about the game getting serious about this stuf fin 2009 is the collection of press clippings about player behaviour that damaged the game during 2008.

That's all you need. Perhaps the Broncos three around semi-final time was the final straw? And Hayne and Co were dickheads for being in the cross at that time of night when in season training.

Who cares where the line is drawn, it's a good thing it's been drawn, so long as they are consistent from now on.

Since when the the entire year become an end-of-season trip for these blokes? They should pull their heads in, and pretty much only really let their hair down (never illegally) during their weeks off after the season is over.

 

[Tommax25]

BWAHAHAHAHAHA, spitting, assaulting, assaulting minors, public disturbances.

Well manly the Karma's finally comming back.

And I am sitting back cheering on Gallop about this magnificent decision.

So you must have been absolutely fuming when gallop didnt step in and take care of laffranchi, or crocket, or lockyer, or the other broncos players, or hayne ect. But Im guessing you werent.

 

[Mr Saab]

Do you really think Gallop would be foolish enough to come out and leave himself and the NRL liable by saying he has been suspended for allegedly sexually assaulting someone...

Gallop and many other solicitors would have been working night and day to try to come up with the best and safest outcome...

I love it how many here think they would do a better job than Gallop at running the NRL...It is no walk in the park..

Gallop is far from perfect but in this instance he is doing what he thinks is the best for the NRL...

No..but he cant suspend someone for being drunk. How many players have been suspended for being drunk in a public place???
This is ridiculous...

 

[Tommax25]

The memo about the game getting serious about this stuf fin 2009 is the collection of press clippings about player behaviour that damaged the game during 2008.

That's all you need. Perhaps the Broncos three around semi-final time was the final straw? And Hayne and Co were dickheads for being in the cross at that time of night when in season training.

Who cares where the line is drawn, it's a good thing it's been drawn, so long as they are consistent from now on.

Since when the the entire year become an end-of-season trip for these blokes? They should pull their heads in, and pretty much only really let their hair down (never illegally) during their weeks off after the season is over.

I bet stewart, who has said he wants to play, and manly, who named him to play, sure as hell care when the line is drawn. It has been drawn arbitrarily, for no other reason than the media have taken a hold of it and he was the face of their ad. In saying that I will not have a problem with it if it is consistent but do you think the next bloke reported getting smashed at a pub will get 4 weeks? I have severe, severe doubts that they will. I cannot wait til the punishment the next player gets for getting hammered.

 

[Tommax25]

Looks pretty factual to me - the many, many people decrying the scenario suggests to me that yes, he has brought the game into disrepute.

Let's hope that's all he has done.

So lockyer didnt for drunkenly tackling some guy? That was about 6 months ago, you cant argue thatr morality has changed since then. Even if you want to disregard that, which Im guessing you do because apparently nothing that happened before last Friday matters anymore, EVERY SINGLE PLAYER who brings the game into disrepute from onw on, whatever it is, better get 4 weeks. They wont of course, but thats the hypocrisy of it all.

 

[Tommax25]

Fair Enough.

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

I cant wait to see that happen. I know I wont live long enough to see it, but I would love to see that happen.

 

[Pete Cash]

So the only time the NRL should take action is when players have been sacked??

Seems a bit odd that the NRL will happily de-register Todd Carney (who is a complete lunatic) and Dane Tilse (who wasn't even charged remember) and nobody really cares but they step in to stop Manly from bringing more negative attention upon the game and its suddenly awful.

 

[Tommax25]

Lockyer was charged with what exactly?

Nothing, but he borught the game into disrepute. Or are you saying what happened with lockyer was positive the game?