Stewart banned till rnd 5

[Brimmer]

Maybe we have different expectations.

If Cronulla didn't sack Bird in the off-season, then I'm pretty sure he still wouldn't be playing, until he is cleared by the court.

Stewart hasn't been found to be lying to the club, it's pretty honest to admit to the club or police you had no memory of the evening. But sexual assault charges are serious - more serious than common assault, and imo we and the league need to give them more respect, so the game isn't tarnished any further than it has been in the past.

A player should never be as big as the club. I applauded cronulla's actions with bird as they took the 'moral high ground' on that issue. It would have been a tough decision but the right one. They have set a fine example for the league.

Manly (the club) should take more pride in their jersey rather than the trophy cabinet.

Guilty or not guilty, Stewart has done enormous damage to the club and indeed the competition's reputation.

Dunno if most manly supporters can count past 1 or not but winning a competition doestn't mean sh*t if our supporters, sponsors and juniors start leaving in droves. Too right the NRL should suspend players who are putting this all in jeapardy.

Being a raiders supporter, I found it very uplifting to read some posts about avid canberra fans calling for the axing of Todd Carney. Let's remember, he was our 'saviour' so to speak and to see the majority of fans saying 'the club is bigger than any player' as affirmation to my support.

And to be very clear on this...if saviour#2 (Campo) got involved in a similiar incident. He would lose my support as well.

The NRL's stance on this issue (albeit too little, too late) is the right one.

If had more drunken nights out than these boys have had hot dinners and I've never got in any situations remotely as close as these guys. Some of these clowns seriously need a reality check. Guilty or not guilty, for the police to lay charges would suggest to me at the very minimum, the guy is a complete twat that the game needs to bring into line.

 

[MsStorm]

Manly to me seem to have missed the last three years, where seemingly all clubs overhauled their system of discipline and many put in place very tough code of conduct procedures and are adhearing to them. Now Manly have had a golden run, they havent had any issues to speak of and it seems like they are in a time warp of sorts with their policy. If Stewart played for Newcastle he would have been stood down on Saturday morning. I imagine other clubs, the dogs, canberra, cronulla would have done the same thing. Manly are rallying around stewart, well, thats brave in this day and age to do that, to be seen to condone the misconduct, whatever it was. Same with the other idiot that alledgedly punched the sponsor. If it was any other club, they would have either sacked him on the spot or stood him down until they finished an investigation. No, not Manly with their 1980's desi inspired ideals leading the way.

What a lot of people who love to carry on about guilt being proven first forget is being charged with a very serious offence carries a certain responsibility, IF YOU DID IT OR NOT, you have been charged with an offence. He could just as well be sitting in a remand centre right now waiting for the court date instead of crying about not playing this weekend. Lets not forget that either, it seems manly see it as a bit of a joke.

They are caught in a time warp, and their lack of self awareness and ability to see what was coming has cost them 100k. I have no doubt that fine was meant to be a wake up call more than anything. I am really annoyed that the season has been hijacked by this, and I am even more annoyed that Manly have dug their head into the sand and attempted to pretend nothing is wrong. I have heard so many f**king lame excuses so far from the bar not having enough food, to peter peters not liking the owner so he left early and didnt mind people, to diabetes, to the events co-ordinator not choosing an appropriate venue.

Got to agree with you.

Here we all are talking about serious off-field incidents fuelled by alcohol instead of looking forward to a brand new footy season.

Rugby league is quickly becoming the laughing stock of all footy codes.
Its embarrassing to me living here in Vic. where you practically get no r/l news on the radio, but this week its all been about how Brett Stewart and Anthony Watmough...they couldn't wait to get a new update on what was happening.

I am so glad the nrl stepped in and stood him down. Now they have set this precedent, they must follow through with any other players that damage the code's name.

 

[herbert henry1908]

Guilty or not guilty, Stewart has done enormous damage to the club and indeed the competition's reputation.

If he's not guilty what is the enormous damage he's done?

the events that have followed last friday night are hardly stewarts fault if he is not guilty of the charge.

Infact if there was no accusation/charge we wouldnt even have heard about it.

 

[herbert henry1908]

:lol: At people that are hung up on the past much? Lafranchi, Crocket etc. You could just as easily look at Tilse as your precedent...

Things change as time moves on. Otherwise we'd still be stuck in John Howard's utopian vision of the 1950s...

The league is allowed to change how it deals with things. Guess what - there are two refs this year! Just because there was only one ref last year doesn't mean it has to stay the same.

Offcourse they should be able to change the way things are done.

But the real issue here is the process isnt transparent and Independent .

The NRL should set up a tribunal to deal with off field behaviour. Have an open process where a player is allowed to defend himself.

It would make much more sense than the mickey mouse approach they have now.

 

[Brimmer]

If he's not guilty what is the enormous damage he's done?

Don't read the papers? As previously stated, he's been charged with a serious offence. Maybe if you take the lyrics of ice-T or N.W.A literally would you form the opinion that the cops are out to take people down for no reason.

If he's not guilty...he was a pissed idiot who's actions have put another smudge on our game's reputation.

Let's say he didn't do it...the players are educated not to put themselves in a situation where it could be perceived that there was any wrong doing. Again...innocent until proven guilty, but he has clearly damaged the game's reputation.

 

[herbert henry1908]

Don't read the papers? As previously stated, he's been charged with a serious offence. Maybe if you take the lyrics of ice-T or N.W.A literally would you form the opinion that the cops are out to take people down for no reason.

your missing the point , If he's found not guilty that means he didnt do what he has bee accused of. So take the assault away and whats all the fuss about?

and have you never heard of the police making a mistake? maybe we should just do away the judicial process and just allow the cops to be Judge & jury aswell?

btw - Public Enemy is my choice for anti establishment music. ;-)

If he's not guilty...he was a pissed idiot who's actions have put another smudge on our game's reputation.

what actions?! if found not guilty , what other actions are you talking about? name one thing he did other than the accusations that put a smudge on rugby league?

you cant tell me that there would be this much press over him just being intoxicated.

Let's say he didn't do it...the players are educated not to put themselves in a situation where it could be perceived that there was any wrong doing. Again...innocent until proven guilty, but he has clearly damaged the game's reputation.

What situation did he put himself into if he didnt do it? he was going home FFS! getting drunk in and of itself is not putting yourself in a situation.

 

[coolumsharkie]

I've had more drunken nights out than these boys have had hot dinners and I've never got in any situations remotely as close as these guys. Some of these clowns seriously need a reality check. Guilty or not guilty, for the police to lay charges would suggest to me at the very minimum, the guy is a complete twat that the game needs to bring into line

Very good point.

I can say the same, as can most normal people, including some footballers.

 

[herbert henry1908]

.

If had more drunken nights out than these boys have had hot dinners and I've never got in any situations remotely as close as these guys. Some of these clowns seriously need a reality check

Im going to go out on a limb here and suggest footballers get a little more attention than you do when there out in public.

Guilty or not guilty, for the police to lay charges would suggest to me at the very minimum, the guy is a complete twat that the game needs to bring into line.

lol.

he's a complete twat for being charged? tell me , in your eyes does anyone thats innocent actually ever get charged by police? are these people twats aswell?

 

[Slackboy72]

Well he's been charged with sexual assault but do we know what that means?
It could be anything from exposing himself to rape. I've heard DNA samples have been taken so that would imply something serious but at this stage we don't actually know.

BTW I wish I could get suspended from work for five weeks on full pay for being refused service at a bar.

 

[Pete Cash]

No exposing yourself would be an act of indecency. Sexual Assault has a fairly narrow definition and it is definitely at the rape end of the spectrum.

EDIT

Also, let us not forget Herbert Henry there is a big difference between being not guilty (the state could not establish that a person was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt) and innocent (you didn't commit a crime)

Brett Stewart obviously did "something" to put himself into that position in the first place. It may or may not have been sexual assault, but he has certainly brought the game into disrepute.

 

[HevyDevy]

If he's not guilty...he was a pissed idiot who's actions have put another smudge on our game's reputation.

This is the key point that most people seem to miss.

Stewart was the face of the NRL this season and - the sexual assault charge aside - he has tarnished the game by his actions.

I find it remarkable that some on here are arguing that we have no proof that he was even drunk. The facts of the case as we know it are that he was drunk and acted like a tool. We can leave it at that for now and hopefully that's as bad as it gets but either way he has hurt the game's image - of that there is no question.

 

[herbert henry1908]

No exposing yourself would be an act of indecency. Sexual Assault has a fairly narrow definition and it is definitely at the rape end of the spectrum.

EDIT

Also, let us not forget Herbert Henry there is a big difference between being not guilty (the state could not establish that a person was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt) and innocent (you didn't commit a crime)

Brett Stewart obviously did "something" to put himself into that position in the first place. It may or may not have been sexual assault, but he has certainly brought the game into disrepute.

this is something ive heard discussed here quite a bit. The fact is though you are innocent until proven guilty , it stands to reason then if your never proved guilty you dont somehow lose your presumption of innocence. To do otherwise would be ridiculous.

This 'Something' you are talking about is a pretty broad term and without knowing the facts ( just like the NRL dont) im amazed people can just make a presumption that he did this 'something'. Besides the issue of my above response was that if stewart hadnt of been charged with sexual assault ther woud be no 'enormous' damage to rugby league. It would possibly just be another pissed footy player , hardly enormous news at all.

How about we wait for the full facts to come forward before we make these kinds of judgements? If stewart admits to things or is found guilty of things that bring the game into disrepute i'll be right there with most other demanding he is punished properly by the NRL.

 

[herbert henry1908]

This is the key point that most people seem to miss.

Stewart was the face of the NRL this season and - the sexual assault charge aside - he has tarnished the game by his actions.

I find it remarkable that some on here are arguing that we have no proof that he was even drunk. The facts of the case as we know it are that he was drunk and acted like a tool. We can leave it at that for now and hopefully that's as bad as it gets but either way he has hurt the game's image - of that there is no question.

yes , and take the sexual assault aside and what actions are these? just getting drunk?

i dont think there is a dispute that he was drunk , but in and of itself how is this tarnishing rugby league?

The issue here is what actions he did when he was drunk. So if you take the alledged sexual assault asside what else is there?

 

[HevyDevy]

It's actually his actions while he was drunk that is the issue.

People on here keep claiming that he has been suspended for being drunk but that's not accurate.

Whatever happened that night, something happened that has sparked this furore. It may end up being relatively inconsequential (hopefully) but it was enough to tarnish the game's reputation.

That's where the issue lies.

 

[herbert henry1908]

It's actually his actions while he was drunk that is the issue.

People on here keep claiming that he has been suspended for being drunk but that's not accurate.

Whatever happened that night, something happened that has sparked this furore. It may end up being relatively inconsequential (hopefully) but it was enough to tarnish the game's reputation.

That's where the issue lies.

The only actions are his alledged sexual assault. In your own post above you said if you put this aside( the sexual assault) his actions still tarnished rubgy league.

all im asking is what actions are you speaking of?

 

[bartman]

Offcourse they should be able to change the way things are done.

But the real issue here is the process isnt transparent and Independent .

The NRL should set up a tribunal to deal with off field behaviour. Have an open process where a player is allowed to defend himself.

It would make much more sense than the mickey mouse approach they have now.

Or they could just stand the players who get charged down from their duties (on full pay) as a matter of process, and allow them to prepare their defence for where it really matters - the courts.

There are some/many people linking the decision to stand Stewart down on full pay to some breach of his presumption of innocence, when it's simply not the case. The only people saying that are people who seem for some reason to want every footy player playing every week, regardless of what charges might be hanging over their heads and damaging the game by association, until they are cleared?

Stand them down, give them the chance to clear their names where it counts, then let them back in. Simple, open and transparent. Can't ever really be independent, as the league/clubs are their employer - and independent is what the court is for.

Why duplicate things and put the player through two "trials" when you can just cut the damage to the game by standing him down and letting him concentrate one trial.

 

[herbert henry1908]

Or they could just stand the players who get charged down from their duties (on full pay) as a matter of process, and allow them to prepare their defence for where it really matters - the courts.

There are some/many people linking the decision to stand Stewart down on full pay to some breach of his presumption of innocence, when it's simply not the case. The only people saying that are people who seem for some reason to want every footy player playing every week, regardless of what charges might be hanging over their heads and damaging the game by association, until they are cleared?

Stand them down, give them the chance to clear their names where it counts, then let them back in. Simple, open and transparent. Can't ever really be independent, as the league/clubs are their employer - and independent is what the court is for.

Why duplicate things and put the player through two "trials" when you can just cut the damage to the game by standing him down and letting him concentrate one trial.

Not all poor player behaviour is automatically going to go before the courts.

most cases of poor player behaviour are much smaller than that.

Infact at the NRL's own admission the 4 match suspension is nothing to do with the alledged assault. But you couldnt have any such tribunal hearing until after a court date , that much is obvious.

But for once the NRL could get of the front foot and annouce they are putting proper processes in place for future incidents.

 

[HevyDevy]

The fact that he has been charged for sexual assault.

Doesn't mean he is guilty but even being in a position to be accused is a problem.

And we know that something has happened through neighbour testimony etc. What that something is will be determined over time but this should never have been allowed to happen.

There is a massive difference between being drunk and being accused of sexual assault. You can't tell me that Stewart couldn't have avoided this situation.

 

[bartman]

Not all poor player behaviour is automatically going to go before the courts.

most cases of poor player behaviour are much smaller than that.

True, but isn't that even more reason for the bigger ones - the ones that end in charges - to face standing down (on full pay) when that happens?

Infact at the NRL's own admission the 4 match suspension is nothing to do with the alledged assault. But you couldnt have any such tribunal hearing until after a court date , that much is obvious.

Hence why you have to stand a player down so they can face charges first, the tribunal idea doesn't wash unless you want to have it happen after the courts have finished, in which case what's the point? And its equally obvious (to me) that the NRL couldn't say the suspension is related to the charges, for the same reason that it might prejudice the trial.

But for once the NRL could get of the front foot and annouce they are putting proper processes in place for future incidents.

Um... they are on the front foot. That is why people are whinging! Their process from now on is that a player facing charges is stood down between the charge being made and their day in court. Cronulla did it to Bird last year, and then the parties mutually chose to drop the final year of the contract. Manly should have followed suit when the charge was laid - they didn't and the NRL did it for them. Simple, proper process, led by the NRL!

 

[bartman]

The fact that he has been charged for sexual assault.

Doesn't mean he is guilty but even being in a position to be accused is a problem.

And we know that something has happened through neighbour testimony etc. What that something is will be determined over time but this should never have been allowed to happen.

There is a massive difference between being drunk and being accused of sexual assault. You can't tell me that Stewart couldn't have avoided this situation.

And through the fact police have laid charges. Doesn't mean he is "guilty" - but he is guilty of having put himself in that position through the behaviour that led up to it.

That is what has brought the game into disrepute, that is what he is suspended for pending his day in court, and that is what he could have avoided so easily if he'd made different choices at any point in the 8 hours before.