DJ1
Juniors
- Messages
- 1,710
Chook said:DJ1 said:Walker was charged with criminal offences, the Bulldogs were not. As such the naming of players is then governed by the OH&S agreement.
Grasping at straws here DJ1. The players were under the direct supervision of your club at the time. Your club chose not to act by making the players names public they then accept the penalty for the players and then in turn dish out their own punishment to the players. And FYI, occupational health and safety has got nothing whatsoever to do with this.
All players have a confidentiality clause as part of their standard contract. As Walker was charged with a criminal offence it became public knowledge and thus outside any HR / OH&S confidentiality clauses.
DJ1 said:The inconsistency is rampant. You were able to act immediately as the charges were immediate, we were not and are still attempting to gain access to evidence.
Evidence of what exactly?
The club is still in the process of gaining access to all available evidence. In particular the security camera footage.
DJ1 said:The club has not had the opportunity to defend as yet.
Defend what exactly? Your club took these players away for a club endorsed trip and failed to adequately provide supervision to ensure they didn't break club rules. Who is at fault?
The club has not yet had the opportunity to defend the issues outlined in the NRL justification at the appeal for the fine of $500K
DJ1 said:Even when it is unproven? Do you simply take the journalist's word for it like the other reports which have since been proven wrong?
What reports have been proven wrong? I hate the media more than your DJ1, believe me. But if they presented to the NRL what they had and the NRL chose to act, surely that tells you there was some truth to the claims? Unless you have evidence to the contrary?
Are you suggesting that the NRL took no action until the media brought forth all their evidence which was then weighed up by the NRL board who then unanomously agreed that based on the evidence in front of them a $500K fine was justified. lol
DJ1 said:What evidence brought to the NRL? Even their own investigators said that the media reports were inaccurate.
Well we'll soon see won't we. Your clubs' actions in dishing out punishment will determine how much "evidence" there really was!
Making an assumption of guilt is vastly different to proving it.
DJ1 said:Other way round. If guilty they can be named.
Incorrect! If no charges have been laid there is no reason to deny the players a public rebuttal. Unless there is something to hide for the impending civil case?
Rubbish
DJ1 said:and the latest evidence now seems to support his original statement.
Does it? Obviously the investigating police have a different view.
Seems the DPP view differs from the investigating police too doesn't it.
DJ1 said:Do you mean the only one scheme that was investigated?
Arh yes the age old adage of the dogs. Blame everyone else!!
You still didn't answer my question? Do those cheating, lying whores still enjoy membership priveralges?
Chook.
I hope so. I'd love to run into them at a game.