Stewart banned till rnd 5

[GC_Gladiator]

Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty???????????????????

No one is saying Brett is responsible for the sexual assault. I think we could make the inference though that whether Brett had questionable intentions or not he put himself in a stupid stupid position, and therefore should sit out the time until his trial begins.

Its got to be serious for police charges to be laid, and the game has made a serious decision in its best interests.

 

[herbert henry1908]

typical NRL.

Right decision, wrong way to get there.

thats the thing though , even if you agree with him being stood down becuase of the charges , shouldnt you then be upset he has only been stood down for 4 weeks?

this 4 week rubbish is nothing more than having a bob each way.

 

[squiddy]

I once saw Matt King drunk in Richmond at 1am on a saturday night in the middle of off-season. And he was wearing ugg boots. Should he have been suspended?

For wearing Ugg boots yes .

FWIW I think NRL has done the right thing _ I know the whole innocent until proven guilty trip but the league is suffering big time - they have to show some balls and set a hard line.

 

[BWNB]

Apparently there are a plethora of witnesses to the sponsor attacking Watmough and being ejected from the venue twice.

Really, well action should be taken against both of them Like I said before if he has hit someone he should be charged with assault, just imagine if it was Carney or Gallen who did the hitting...

 

[Timmah]

Punish stewart for being drunken ? or the alleged sexual assault ?
which do you think the NRL has done?

clubs standing players down compared to nrl standing them down.. :sarcasm:

I don't think it matters which they've done it before. Arguing semantics doesn't dismiss the fact he's misbehaved, regardless of the legal outcome.

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.

Well said.

 

[squiddy]

offcourse most here realise its becuase of the charges.

what people are annoyed at is the NRL are making things up as they go. Saying one thing but doing another, its classic NRL rubbish.

Well if he gets done his suspension is going be a lot longer than 5 weeks !

 

[Jatz Crackers]

No one is saying Brett is responsible for the sexual assault. I think we could make the inference though that whether Brett had questionable intentions or not he put himself in a stupid stupid position, and therefore should sit out the time until his trial begins.

Its got to be serious for police charges to be laid, and the game has made a serious decision in its best interests.

See now this i take issue with.

You dont know what happened.

For example, he may well have been sober. He caught a cab home. He got out of the cab. Was approached by a person who attacked him for reasons unknown. In that scenario he isnt responsible for being in that position, is he ?

Just as in the scenario you put forward, I dont know the above to be the truth and neither do you.

 

[Mr Saab]

FMD theres already talks about diabetes being a possible cause?

source:

http://www.leaguehq.com.au/news/news/diabetes-defence-for-stewart/2009/03/10/1236447217385.html

Relfux got that utter sh*t of a grub Shayne Dunley off a spitting charge

 

[squiddy]

Relfux got that utter sh*t of a grub Shayne Dunley off a spitting charge

Geeze I hope they dont use the diabetes / alcohol excuse . Take some responsibility for Farks sake

 

[aussie_q_factor]

Good decision NRL.
Hopefully they remain this consistent for all players all year round.

I am sick of these idiots dragging our great game through the mud. Lets not forget it wasn't Gallop that was apparently out drinking all afternoon - nearly one week before the season kick-off. It isn't Gallop that is claiming that he was too drunk to remember anything. The player put himself in this situation; not Gallop.

If the players don't like being in the spotlight and under public scrutiny all the time.. TOUGH BLOODY LUCK!! Choose another profession.

 

[HevyDevy]

Since you make that claim as if it was fact, show us all the evidence that he is guilty.

It is fact.

 

[HevyDevy]

I once saw Matt King drunk in Richmond at 1am on a saturday night in the middle of off-season. And he was wearing ugg boots. Should he have been suspended?

That depends - was he charged with sexual assault?

 

[Mr Saab]

Geeze I hope they dont use the diabetes / alcohol excuse . Take some responsibility for Farks sake

You would hope so. Its not like Stewart would be ignorant in regards to what alcohol can do to him.....the fact that he "couldnt remember" anything is pretty bad.
hmmmmm makes you wonder if the words "diminished responsibility" will be used in the court case.

 

[Timmah]

Some people need to realise as a code (and as sport in general), we're copping it from the outside world in relation to player behaviour. The NRL has been repeatedly accussed upon news of past indiscretions that they are too soft and need to deal with the player/s doing the wrong thing. This decision is the correct one, and should not be based on previous cases because soft punishments were issued then.

If the NRL didn't do this, they'd face outrage, if they do they face outrage. At least they've acted.

By the way, I don't see anywhere where it says they're docking his pay or stopping him training. Just no playing.

 

[Timmah]

See now this i take issue with.

You dont know what happened.

For example, he may well have been sober. He caught a cab home. He got out of the cab. Was approached by a person who attacked him for reasons unknown. In that scenario he isnt responsible for being in that position, is he ?

Just as in the scenario you put forward, I dont know the above to be the truth and neither do you.

While there have been conflicting reports about a number of matters, it is fact that he was intoxicated that night, and as much has been said in David Gallop's press release.

 

[gong_eagle]

so that clause means Gallop can suspend anyone that breaks it at his discretion , by rights Manly should have at least half the team out

 

[HevyDevy]

See now this i take issue with.

You dont know what happened.

For example, he may well have been sober. He caught a cab home. He got out of the cab. Was approached by a person who attacked him for reasons unknown. In that scenario he isnt responsible for being in that position, is he ?

:lol:

Yeah, that's what police charged him with ...

 

[1999]

i dont know why people are taking stewarts side, if he quote 'was too drunk to remember' then id say he doesnt have a leg to stand on, its her word and countless witnesses words against his whole not remembering a thing defence, which one do u think will hold up in court?

 

[herbert henry1908]

While there have been conflicting reports about a number of matters, it is fact that he was intoxicated that night, and as much has been said in David Gallop's press release.

and banning someone becuase they are intoxicated is ridiculous.

FFS , if you do that you would have to suspend scores of players every weekend.

 

[herbert henry1908]

i dont know why people are taking stewarts side, if he quote 'was too drunk to remember' then id say he doesnt have a leg to stand on, its her word and countless witnesses words against his whole not remembering a thing defence, which one do u think will hold up in court?

people are taking the side of basic rules of procedure.

just because he cant remember something doesnt mean he did it either. And who the hell are these coutless witnesses?