Stewart banned till rnd 5

[Shorty]

I think Manly should have stood him down until an initial hearing. If he pleads not guilty at this hearing then the presumption of innocence stands until his trial has been resolved and he can play until then. If he pleads guilty he should be rubbed out for good.

This has been a reaction to circumstances but obviously one of the new faces of the NRL in the week before the season kicks off being accused of sexual assault is not the image the NRL or any of its fans want presented. Manly could have prevented this drama by dealing with it in house but IMO they left the NRL no choice.

Thank you.
Why is this so hard to believe?

Am I going insane, this makes perfect sense to me!

 

[Pass the Ball]

The one thing now that would make me feel more comfortable with their decision would be to retract their previous statement that the ban had nothing to do with the charges and announce from now on all players facing criminal charges will be stood down until at least their initial court hearing. Otherwise who is to say they won't change the 'precedent' tomorrow?

To do that, would be removing the innocent until proven guilty notion and would leave the NRL liable to a damages claim in the future..

I don't think people understand how carefully people like Gallop have to chose their words..As i said in a previous post, Gallop and many other solicitors had been working night and day to come up with the best and safest outcome...

I believe they were acting in the best interests of Rugby League by making the decision they did...

 

[bartman]

Your points all hinge on whether the NRL are consistent with their decision in the future. I stand by my original point that the NRL should have cracked down on unruly behaviour by players long before now by changing their laws/rules/policies (same thing) to be uniform across the board, not in reaction to the one that has received the most media scrutiny.

I agree with you there. But they have to start somewhere. All of last year's incidents combined mean thhe game simply has to address this now, starting in 2009.

What's done is done I suppose, but I have serious doubts they will be consistent with this ruling.

The NRL have shown that where a club is unwilling to act and follow the principles of upholding some standards and a commion process, it will step in. I have every confidence any player charged with a sexual assault will be stood down (by club or NRL) for bringing the game into disrepute, by choosing to allow themselves to be in those circumstances.

The one thing now that would make me feel more comfortable with their decision would be to retract their previous statement that the ban had nothing to do with the charges and announce from now on all players facing criminal charges will be stood down until at least their initial court hearing. Otherwise who is to say they won't change the 'precedent' tomorrow?

The wording (or reporting) of why Stewart was banned was a bit sloppy to us. I believe the league couldn't (or chose not to) make any reference to the charges in handing down its suspesion, because it didn't want to risk its action being prejudicial to Stewart's defence of his case.

Instead of the focus on Stewart being suspended because he was drunk (or for being the face of the league), the wording should have emphasised that Stewart was suspended "for bringing the game into disrepute", which obviously includes his actions being drunk at and in the hours following an official season launch - plus ending up in a position where sexual assualt charges had been laid (but they can't risk saying the last bit, for Stewart's sake).

I agree with you that they need to come up with a common category of crimes (serious, sexual, drugs, extortion, armed robbery etc) where they can say that the league's policy is that players facing thiose charges (and not speeding fines etc) will be stood down until their day in court. make it part of the Code of Conduct/common contracts, and make sure it's stated that it has nothing to do with presumption of innocence or guilt. Lot sof workplaces/industries operate in the same way - standing down workers on full pay while any complaints are investigated and resolved.

However, by the reaction of the Manly club, some fans of the game, and the RLPA it seems that the league has some way to go before it can achieve that. So in the meantime we have to accept the new common precedent occuring "by stealth", and without the full explanations that we'd prefer - especially where there are specific players with charges yet to be dealt with in court.

 

[HevyDevy]

Your points all hinge on whether the NRL are consistent with their decision in the future. I stand by my original point that the NRL should have cracked down on unruly behaviour by players long before now by changing their laws/rules/policies (same thing) to be uniform across the board, not in reaction to the one that has received the most media scrutiny. What's done is done I suppose, but I have serious doubts they will be consistent with this ruling. The one thing now that would make me feel more comfortable with their decision would be to retract their previous statement that the ban had nothing to do with the charges and announce from now on all players facing criminal charges will be stood down until at least their initial court hearing. Otherwise who is to say they won't change the 'precedent' tomorrow?

I do agree that they should have cracked down harder on players in previous instances, however, the fact that they didn't does not mean that they should therefore do the same with Stewart.

I wouldn't call Stewart unlucky for being the 'precedent' player, I would call the others lucky that they weren't.

 

[Spuddicus]

I thought Stewart was suspended for being excessively drunk at an Official NRL Function, correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[sneagle]

I agree with you there. But they have to start somewhere. All of last year's incidents combined mean thhe game simply has to address this now, starting in 2009.


T
I agree with you that they need to come up with a common category of crimes (serious, sexual, drugs, extortion, armed robbery etc) where they can say that the league's policy is that players facing thiose charges (and not speeding fines etc) will be stood down until their day in court. make it part of the Code of Conduct/common contracts, and make sure it's stated that it has nothing to do with presumption of innocence or guilt. Lot sof workplaces/industries operate in the same way - standing down workers on full pay while any complaints are investigated and resolved.

General response only...
I can understand the reasoning behind this but I don't know how fair the standing down of players before innocence or guilt is determined.
The problem I have is if they are innocent how is that fair for them or their club.
People have been falsely accused and charged and then later found to be innocent.
It could stem from a jilted lover, ex-girlfriend or wife, second thoughts after a one night stand....
How would that be their fault for getting involved with someone who seems alright at the time and then cries wolf.
What if this were done to player during the semi's or at Grand Final time and he was a key player who in the next year was ultimately cleared of any wrong doing... I think it is a hard one..

 

[Pete Cash]

That is why the Brett Stewart incident is different to those ones. There has been no reports they even knew each other.

 

[herbert henry1908]

I think Manly should have stood him down until an initial hearing. If he pleads not guilty at this hearing then the presumption of innocence stands until his trial has been resolved and he can play until then. If he pleads guilty he should be rubbed out for good.

This has been a reaction to circumstances but obviously one of the new faces of the NRL in the week before the season kicks off being accused of sexual assault is not the image the NRL or any of its fans want presented. Manly could have prevented this drama by dealing with it in house but IMO they left the NRL no choice.

because the presumption stands from before he was charged , after he was charged and when( if) he pleads not guilty.

it doesnt all of a sudden kick in at the initial hearing.

to draw a distinction between the various stages would be very strange.

 

[Pass the Ball]

What if, what if,

What if Brett Stewart has behaved like a drunk d1ckhead and brought the game of Rugby League into disrepute...What if that happened...???

 

[sneagle]

That is why the Brett Stewart incident is different to those ones. There has been no reports they even knew each other.

But that also shouldn't automatically scream "guilty" and thus immediate suspension.

 

[Eels Dude]

I think a lot of people are missing the point that the NRL standing Stewart down is a strong message to players to pull their bloody heads in. People whingeing that Stewart is being punished by the NRL but others haven't been in the past should understand that HE is to blame for his own actions. Given the increased rate of drunken off field incidents he should have known damn well better.

If the Manly club had some balls then they would have stood them down themselves, but because he was a high profile player they refused and the NRL stepped. A lesser player would have been suspended and/ or sacked by other clubs. He can consider himself lucky his punishment wasn't more severe... And it certainly will be if he's found guilty of these charges.

 

[sneagle]

My comments were in regards to the suggestion that any player facing charges be stood down even before innocence or guilt was determined.

 

[bartman]

General response only...
I can understand the reasoning behind this but I don't know how fair the standing down of players before innocence or guilt is determined.
The problem I have is if they are innocent how is that fair for them or their club.

I kno wwhat you mean. I'm suggesting it needs to be a serious charge. There needs to be a category above which the approach to stand down (on full pay until the charge is dealt with) kicks in. Sexual assualt needs to be in that category no matter what.

People have been falsely accused and charged and then later found to be innocent.
It could stem from a jilted lover, ex-girlfriend or wife, second thoughts after a one night stand....
How would that be their fault for getting involved with someone who seems alright at the time and then cries wolf.

People aren't found innocent, they are found not guilty. Just a technicality, but not guilty doesn't automatically mean there was a false accusation. And almost always there are things the player could have considered first, that would have avoided them being in that position.

Whether they like it or not, their off-field behaviour impacts on the industry they work in, and on the employer they work for. Not so much a big deal when players were training only twice a week and having to hold down regular jobs to be able to survive. But it is a bigger deal now that league is a "business" and players earning above average community wage can impact upon that business's success and bottom line.

What if this were done to player during the semi's or at Grand Final time and he was a key player who in the next year was ultimately cleared of any wrong doing... I think it is a hard one..

Then the player should knopw their limits with alcohol, and keep his dick in his pants in the games he stands to miss are so important... at the end of the day it is their choice. And there are a lot of players who never even come close to getting in this much trouble - who can handle their drink and who are respectful to members of the public and women - and they must be getting sick of all this.

 

[bartman]

But that also shouldn't automatically scream "guilty" and thus immediate suspension.

No one saying Stewart should be stood down is screaming guilty. That's a myth that some fans looking for a reason why he should still be playing this weekend tend to latch onto, as their thoughts develop and they think about things further.

I personally hope Stewart is innocent. I hope that no illegal incident occurred, for everyone's sake. But the court will decide that according to laws of justice, and justice will be served. However I also believe it is in the game's best interest that Stewart - and any player charged with a sexual offence - be immediately stood down (on full pay) while that charge is resolved.

I would say the same if it were a player or "star" from my team facing sexual assault charges - probably would say it even stronger. Standing down a player (on full pay) for behaviour that lead to charges (while he has those charges pending) has nothing to do with guilt or innocence of the charge.

 

[bartman]

because the presumption stands from before he was charged , after he was charged and when( if) he pleads not guilty.

it doesnt all of a sudden kick in at the initial hearing.

to draw a distinction between the various stages would be very strange.

Standing down a player from work (on full pay) for behaviour contravening his Code of Conduct/contract and that led to charges (while he has those charges pending, and needs to draw together his defence) has nothing to do with guilt or innocence of the charge.

 

[green eyed mike]

because the presumption stands from before he was charged , after he was charged and when( if) he pleads not guilty.

it doesnt all of a sudden kick in at the initial hearing.

to draw a distinction between the various stages would be very strange.

There were 2 similar situations in Canberra late last year and earlier this year. Bronx Goodwin was charged with assault and stood down from training and playing pending the hearing. At this hearing he plead guilty and was subsequently sacked by the club.

Joel Thompson was charged with a domestic assault and stood down from training until the initial hearing. At this hearing he plead not guilty and was allowed by the club to return to training. I am certain that if he is found to be guilty of this offence he will be sacked.

I agree that the presumption of innocence stands however, the fact that police have laid charges indicates that there is sufficient evidence to support these charges. Until the player has entered a plea there is no official statement from them professing guilt or innocence. Allowing anyone to play under these circumstances is foolish and I completely support the NRL acting where a club refused to, especially considering the seriousness of the charge.

 

[bartman]

Haven't seen thios one posted... some bits make a lot of sense.

http://www.leaguehq.com.au/news/new...1236447305494.html?page=fullpage#contentSwap1

NRL angered by Manly 'arrogance'

Greg Prichard and Andrew Stevenson | March 12, 2009

The board of the NRL punished Manly severely yesterday because of what it regarded as the club's arrogant attitude in ignoring league chief executive David Gallop's call for it to stand down star player Brett Stewart.

The NRL, in backing Gallop by suspending Stewart for the first four rounds of the competition and fining the club $100,000, was careful in considering only the incidents that preceded - and did not include - the most serious allegation, which has subsequently seen the star fullback charged with one count of sexual assault.

Those included a failure by Manly to take sufficient measures to prevent the consumption of alcohol from getting out of hand for some players at its season launch last Friday and the fact Stewart was eventually refused the service of alcohol at the premises and asked to leave.

The board was stunned that Stewart could become the subject of such a serious allegation just two days after the unveiling of his star turn in the league's season advertising campaign - particularly since his reputation was good enough for him to be handed the role in the first place.

The drinking at the club launch followed scenes of the Manly players partying enthusiastically on an apartment balcony after they won last year's grand final. The Herald understands there was a feeling at NRL board level that the club should have done more at the time to tone down those scenes.

On Tuesday night Gallop tried via telephone to convince the Manly board to stand down Stewart following his being charged by police. He was unable to do so, with the board apparently being swayed by coach Des Hasler to let Stewart play. But that was not the end of it. Manly chairman Scott Penn and chief executive Grant Mayer were called to meet Gallop and the NRL's chief operating officer, Graham Annesley, yesterday morning. After discussions with Manly, Gallop talked to the NRL board in a telephone hook-up, before meeting Manly again.

The board was right behind Gallop, and the league acted under section 20 (2) of the NRL code of conduct, which states: "Every person bound by this code shall, whether or not he is attending an official function arranged for the NRL, the NRL competition, the related competitions, representative matches, the ARL competitions or a club, conduct himself at all times in public in a sober, courteous and professional manner."

The key line from Gallop after the ban and fine had been imposed was that Manly had "undertaken to review its ongoing stance in relation to Brett playing from round five on the basis of any new information that may come to light".

In other words, the league expects Manly to make an appropriate call. If the league isn't happy with Manly's actions, expect it to again come over the top and make its own call.

The league, with its four-match ban, has effectively bought time, to see how things pan out, and Stewart's suspension should be seen as an interim one at this stage. The police investigation becomes the key point now, with the potential for the ban to be extended if further evidence is unearthed that is particularly damning for him.

Under those circumstances, Stewart's future as a player - over the course of this season, at the very least - is up in the air. He is due to appear in court on April 7.

Penn yesterday conceded the club's arrangements for what turned out to be an alcohol-fuelled season launch were not appropriate.

 

[herbert henry1908]

Standing down a player from work (on full pay) for behaviour contravening his Code of Conduct/contract and that led to charges (while he has those charges pending, and needs to draw together his defence) has nothing to do with guilt or innocence of the charge.

ah, your missing what i was responding to. I was making no claim as to whether standing him down infringes on the presumption of innocence.

greee eyed mike said this:

If he pleads not guilty at this hearing then the presumption of innocence stands until his trial has been resolved and he can play until then

I was pointing out that the presumption is with stewart before the initial hearing. Standing him down only until he pleads not guilty makes no sense as he already has the presumption.


But.......

If the NRL did indeed stand down a player becuase of the charges he was on it would infrigne on the presumption of innocence. Clearly the NRL believe this aswell as they were careful to say they make no judgments as to the charges.


It will be very interesting in the future if there is a similar charge against a player that is stone cold sober. The NRL will be under serious pressure to stand him down aswell, but on what grounds? IMO they have painted themselved into a corner.

 

[Eels Dude]

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.

 

[MSIH]

What's the relevance of a Drink Driving charge?

Idiot.