Interesting perspective here. Does the name Darren Lockyer mean anything in this discussion? Australian Captain, denied and lied about a drunken rampage in Caxton St last year, only to be easily identified in security footage. The list of examples are unfortunately quite long too. Is this the response to clean up the 'boofhead' image of league? Oh please... Gallop and his crownies have no idea how to handle the players. They rely on reactions. You would think in a week that Gallop is going to be launching an anti-violence campaign, he would send a reminder to all clubs to keep their noses clean. Its silly a club would need to be reminded (especially Manly and Stewart ffs) however it is obvious nothing is impossible when it comes to footballers.
I'd like to see the club stand him down, not a hypocritical response from the NRL. Why didn't they do it? Will this happen the next time a player is accused of doing something stupid when drunk? Or only when it costs them a $1.5m ad campaign?
The whole handling of these situations has once again been fluffed up.
Drunken rampage? Sensationalising much? You should write for the Tele.
Your points are right, the one's you are trying to negate that is - "only when it costs them a $1.5m ad campaign - that is
directly relevant to part of why they stood him down. He'd just been given the honour of being the face of the comp, and then he shirked responsibility by consuming too much alcohol, ultimately landing himself in a situation where he became the alleged perpetrator of a serious crime.
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 because he didn't before but did now, he's a fool?
woah this thread is crazy.
how come Lafranchi played the whole time he was under a charge but Brett Stewart has been banned? anyone?
Relevance? Completely difference case. You can't just keep comparing it to previous cases because it feels right to.
That's not what I said. You have contradicted yourself, players facing sexual assault charges from now on won't have to follow the 'precedent' set by Stewart's case if "the past is redundant" will they? Furthermore, he officially isn't being stood down because of the charges so no, I don't expect players on these charges to be stood down in the future.
The problem is that the past precedents SHOULD apply until such time that the NRL introduce new laws stating what will happen in the future. Otherwise Stewart is being unfairly made an example of.
Unfairly made an example of? :lol: You make it sound like he was an angel and did nothing wrong.
He did.
The NRL, in future, should
absolutely come under fire if they don't follow this precedent. This time they have made the right decision. They've responded to the disdain of the sporting community and indeed the general public who are sick of seeing/reading/hearing stories about drunk players and unsavoury incidents.
There is constant pressure in the public forum (i.e. not the hardcore supporters here, the outside world who reads this stuff) for the code to be seen to take a hardline stance. They finally have done so and now some are taking aim at them for hypocrisy?
If they fugg up if another of these events happens in the near future and let the next guy off lightly, then have a go all you like. But the NRL is actually doing the right thing - and with business being all about perception, the standing down of this player will certainly do more for it than allowing him to play. There isn't a big outcry apart from some Manly fans on here and on some talkback radio - but you can rest assured a bigger outcry would be heard if he was allowed to take the field on Saturday.
Yeah, but players aren't sacked for DUI. Just ask SBW.
Pretty sure he was either heavily fined or stood down for a week, which one I can't remember.
I think a lot of people defending Stewart are forgetting the important things - Stewart, while not yet a convicted criminal (and may never be), has still done wrong. He's not innocent of being a goose and his actions, even if not criminal, have brought the game into disrepute. For that alone the NRL have made the right decision. As bartman has said - the past is irrelevant in this case, this is a chance for the NRL to cast a new no-tolerance image and I for one hope they stick to it - but I will be the first to give it to them if they do go back on this hard-line stance.
