Stewart banned till rnd 5

[CharlieF]

That article makes perfect sense to me. If Manly had done the appropriate thing in the first place then the NRL wouldn't have to stand in.

Everyone keeps saying 'innocent until proven guilty' but in a drink driving case that certainly isn't the case. Once a person is charged they are almost considered definately guilty and players have been reprimanded and sacked as soon as those charges have been laid.

I don't think there's any doubt that the NRL are taking this stance because of the sexual assault charge, but claiming otherwise for legal reasons or due to their code of conduct. I don't have a problem with that.

If the NRL has the power to stand players down (which they have shown they do), then they can do it. Let them be the ones to determine it, not the clubs. They obviously will overrule clubs if they think it's wrong, so just cut the decision making away from the clubs for more consistent rulings across the board. Let the governing body be under the threat of legal actions if they have jumped the gun too early. Smart move by Manly in my opinion. The NRL would be hoping and praying for a guilty verdict.

 

[myanonymoususername]

um no , They arent on the front foot.

They waited until after manly made their descion to do anything. If the NRL were on the front foot they would have taken it out on manly's hands.

No, they expected Manly to act like a decent employer/member of society and do the right thing by the game. Manly were too pissweak to do this so the NRL did it for them.

I actually think the NRL should have put the onus back on Manly by saying ok you can pick him but if he runs out onto the field this week we will instruct the referee to cancel the game and award a forfeit against you.

 

[herbert henry1908]

That article makes perfect sense to me. If Manly had done the appropriate thing in the first place then the NRL wouldn't have to stand in.

Everyone keeps saying 'innocent until proven guilty' but in a drink driving case that certainly isn't the case. Once a person is charged they are almost considered definately guilty and players have been reprimanded and sacked as soon as those charges have been laid.

I don't think there's any doubt that the NRL are taking this stance because of the sexual assault charge, but claiming otherwise for legal reasons or due to their code of conduct. I don't have a problem with that.

why let the clubs make the decsion if the NRL are only going to overide it if they dont like it?

If the NRL felt stewart should be stood down they should have grown some balls and not even let manly make the decsion.

 

[CharlieF]

That article makes perfect sense to me. If Manly had done the appropriate thing in the first place then the NRL wouldn't have to stand in.

Everyone keeps saying 'innocent until proven guilty' but in a drink driving case that certainly isn't the case. Once a person is charged they are almost considered definately guilty and players have been reprimanded and sacked as soon as those charges have been laid.

I don't think there's any doubt that the NRL are taking this stance because of the sexual assault charge, but claiming otherwise for legal reasons or due to their code of conduct. I don't have a problem with that.

One SBW was done for DUI amongst a host of other drunken escapades.

Result: Legal action and threats of all kind to keep him playing in the NRL. Quite the opposite of what you are saying.

 

[typicalfan]

The NRL would be hoping and praying for a guilty verdict.

Why? i think you will find they would be hoping and praying for NOT guilty.

Its good when clubs are on the front foot with internal issues, clubs need to be taking action because thats whats best for the game.

 

[Pass the Ball]

If the NRL has the power to stand players down (which they have shown they do), then they can do it. Let them be the ones to determine it, not the clubs. They obviously will overrule clubs if they think it's wrong, so just cut the decision making away from the clubs for more consistent rulings across the board. Let the governing body be under the threat of legal actions if they have jumped the gun too early. Smart move by Manly in my opinion. The NRL would be hoping and praying for a guilty verdict.

Why on earth would you say that..??

Do you still not get it..??

 

[sneagle]

Ok so Manly in initially taking a stance - that had been done by other clubs in the past upset Gallop and the NRL...
They enforced their punishment ( I do get the reasons behind and the fact they are trying to clean the reputation of the game itself up - I can also relate to the outcry).
They have used the alcohol consumption and bringing the the game into disrepute as the excuse.
Now regardless of whether Stewart maintains his innocence he will still be subject to their interpretation even though this charge supposedly was not the reason for his suspension.........Oh ok.....

Also would the NRL be privvy to actual police evidence or would it be basing it's assumption on media reports and public reaction?

 

[herbert henry1908]

No, they expected Manly to act like a decent employer/member of society and do the right thing by the game. Manly were too pissweak to do this so the NRL did it for them.

I actually think the NRL should have put the onus back on Manly by saying ok you can pick him but if he runs out onto the field this week we will instruct the referee to cancel the game and award a forfeit against you.

Gallop was on the phone to the manly board room pleading with them to stand him down. That only makes gallop look as weak as p*ss.

It is understood Gallop spoke to Manly directors by phone at 11pm in a bid to convince them to stand down Stewart, whose alleged offence occurred at 8pm last Friday night, less than 48 hours after he and brother Glenn launched the NRL season at a back-to-grassroots function in the Domain.

http://www.leaguehq.com.au/news/new...-stewart/2009/03/11/1236447245660.html?page=2

he knew in advance what their decsion was , why not step out in front of them and ban him anyway?

 

[typicalfan]

Because it would have looked better for the game had Manly done it. All it looks like is Manly trying to cover up their issues which in turn makes the situation worse not better.

 

[CharlieF]

Why on earth would you say that..??

Do you still not get it..??

Legal action and loss of income is one.

The NRL can give whatever excuse they like about suspending him, facts are this decision has influenced the case. The NRL would hope that all physical evidence must be pretty good so that thair decision is justifiable. Manly are clear as they have judged him not to be guilty or innocent..

 

[myanonymoususername]

Manly have f**ked up majorly on this one. They will be on the NRL sh*tlist for a long, long time. The new Bulldogs.

 

[Eels Dude]

What's the relevance of a Drink Driving charge?

Idiot.

Ah more petty insults from Manly supporters. Only way to respond to a post it seems.

It's relevent because a lot of posters keep bringing up the 'innocent until guilty' term in defence of Brett Stewart. People may like to think it works that way all the time but it doesn't.

Let's face it, once a person is charged with drink driving they are almost certainly guilty. There's almost never a presumption of innonence there. Should there be? I'll leave that up to you to decide? If yes, then fair enough, but if no, then should it not be the same for other criminal charges?

 

[CharlieF]

Because it would have looked better for the game had Manly done it. All it looks like is Manly trying to cover up their issues which in turn makes the situation worse not better.

Its a legal thing.

 

[herbert henry1908]

Because it would have looked better for the game had Manly done it. All it looks like is Manly trying to cover up their issues which in turn makes the situation worse not better.

yes and it also looks better for the game if we didnt have manly doing one thing and the NRL another.

Gallop knew that was going to happen and he let it happen anyway. Seems to me gallop isnt as concerned with the image of the game as some might think.

 

[MSIH]

Ah more petty insults from Manly supporters. Only way to respond to a post it seems.

It's relevent because a lot of posters keep bringing up the 'innocent until guilty' term in defence of Brett Stewart. People may like to think it works that way all the time but it doesn't.

Let's face it, once a person is charged with drink driving they are almost certainly guilty. There's almost never a presumption of innonence there. Should there be? I'll leave that up to you to decide? If yes, then fair enough, but if no, then should it not be the same for other criminal charges?

Of course it's still innocent until proven guilty. Often in drink driving offences the offender pleads guilty. If they plead not guilty, then the presumption of innocent until proven guilty still applies.

 

[Pass the Ball]

Legal action and loss of income is one.

The NRL can give whatever excuse they like about suspending him, facts are this decision has influenced the case. The NRL would hope that all physical evidence must be pretty good so that thair decision is justifiable. Manly are clear as they have judged him not to be guilty or innocent..

My god - One more time..

Innocent or guilty or evidence or privy to police info is absolutely irrelevant as the NRL has made the safest decision in standing him down for bringing the game into disrepute..

The NRL are not entering a discussion about the charges against Brett Stewart..That would leave them liable..

Do you disagree that Brett Stewart has brought the game into disrepute?

 

[CharlieF]

Ah more petty insults from Manly supporters. Only way to respond to a post it seems.

It's relevent because a lot of posters keep bringing up the 'innocent until guilty' term in defence of Brett Stewart. People may like to think it works that way all the time but it doesn't.

Let's face it, once a person is charged with drink driving they are almost certainly guilty. There's almost never a presumption of innonence there. Should there be? I'll leave that up to you to decide? If yes, then fair enough, but if no, then should it not be the same for other criminal charges?

Yeah, but players aren't sacked for DUI. Just ask SBW.

 

[typicalfan]

Legal action and loss of income is one.

The NRL can give whatever excuse they like about suspending him, facts are this decision has influenced the case. The NRL would hope that all physical evidence must be pretty good so that thair decision is justifiable. Manly are clear as they have judged him not to be guilty or innocent..

I really think you dont see the bigger picture, the NRL have stood him down, not deregistered him. There is no presumption of innocence or guilt in the decision. It gets him out of the spotlight and allows him to get on with his case.

 

[CharlieF]

My god - One more time..

Innocent or guilty or evidence or privy to police info is absolutely irrelevant as the NRL has made the safest decision in standing him down for bringing the game into disrepute..

The NRL are not entering a discussion about the charges against Brett Stewart..That would leave them liable..

Do you disagree that Brett Stewart has brought the game into disrepute?

Thats up to the NRL to decide. I personally will decide after the evidence.

Once again I will bring up SBW just for hipocracy's sake.

 

[Eels Dude]

If the NRL has the power to stand players down (which they have shown they do), then they can do it. Let them be the ones to determine it, not the clubs. They obviously will overrule clubs if they think it's wrong, so just cut the decision making away from the clubs for more consistent rulings across the board. Let the governing body be under the threat of legal actions if they have jumped the gun too early. Smart move by Manly in my opinion. The NRL would be hoping and praying for a guilty verdict.

Disagree. It should be up to the club to punish the player first. They're his employers. The NRL were hoping Manly would make the right decision but they did not. I don't think we should be having a situation where the NRL should be stepping in and punishing player for every indiscretion. That is the club's responsibility. If they fail to do that however that's when the NRL should step in.