Walker fined 10% of salary and dropped from Roosters team

[dice]

To be fair,

I believe that he should be stood down pending the court case. No penalties.

If found guilty he should have his NRL contract torn up.

If found not guilty, obviously no penalties.

Unfortunately fair didn't enter into it with the NRL precedent. So, to be consistent however,

I would expect a very heavy fine on the Roosters for a Rooster player bringing the game into disrepute.

This is a situation where someone has actually been charged with assaulting a police officer .

I can't believe the audacity of a bulldogs supporter that would question the Roosters ethics on such matters. Like your shit doesn't smell.

 

[ibeme]

His, and again the club would have acted responsibly like they did this time - but this was an official function and camp - different story...even the QLD coaches said the curfew was 1.15am or something like that - does their responsibilty stop there?? NO...he was in camp - sorry but your wrong if you are implying its the Roosters fault..

The Roosters have him on the books sure but sometimes you guys can't see the forrest for the trees -

also what would be your story if it was Mason - would it be the club's fault when he was in the NSW camp??

I wasn't implying that it was the Roosters fault. It's ridiculous to suggest it's anyone's fault other than the individual in any of these cases.

What I was getting at is the argument that he's in an origin camp, therefore it's their responsibility. The Roosters made it their responsibility the minute they imposed a penalty. To wash hands of responsibility should rule them ineligble to impose any penalties. The penalties should only be able to come from the QRL or the ARL.

 

[ozzie]

I apologise to you - but reading your thread it seemed like you were blaming the Roosters ....forgive me.

However, the QRL are at fault here..however, the club has acted quickly and responsibly IMO, councelling, fining the player for bringing the game into disrepute etc...has the QRL have the power to ban a player froman NRL game - we will hear more no doubt from the NRL -

 

[DJ1]

excuse me - but the player was under the QLD SOO side control - again you are showing your immaturity.

Are club officials suppose to go to the QLD SOO camp too DJ1 & STidiotman - grow up a bit and think before you write...all you are doing is showing your hatred for a good club...something one day you may find out about..

Maybe the Roosters ought to sue the organisers of the camp!!! oh dear me - then that would show you who was in charge of Walker at the time of the offence...

It certainly wasn't the Roosters

No ozzie,

He is a paid employee of the Roosters not the QRL. He has a contract with the Roosters endorsed by the NRL. His responsibilities do not stop after the 80th minute of a Roosters game.

This ridiculous precedent was set by the NRL not me. Walker does not need a baby sitter, however the NRL has set the new rule the club is totally responsible for the actions of a player as a player is a paid employee of the club in it's justification of the $500K penalty to the Dogs.

Was the unsubstantiated report of an unnamed source alleged to be a Bulldogs player who was interviewed and made the comment regarding " a bun" under the direct supervision of Bulldog management at the time?

No, but we were still fined for it!

 

[DJ1]

Please understand I am not blaming the Roosters for what happened.

I am demonstrating the ridiculous precedent that the NRL has set in place.

The NRL needs to either fine the Roosters a substantial amount or reverse the penalty against the Dogs.

Anything else will once again show inconsistency and favouritism.

 

[Kaz]

http://www.nrl.com/news.cfm?id=8534

NRL supports action against Walker

3 May 2004


The National Rugby League has supported the actions of the Queensland Rugby League and the Sydney Roosters following charges being laid today against Roosters winger Chris Walker.

"The vast majority of players know that their behaviour must be of the highest standard or they will face penalties from a variety of sources," NRL Chief Executive Mr David Gallop said.

"The NRL supports the action that has been taken by both the Queensland Rugby League and the Club.

"As with the Penrith players who are facing police charges, the NRL will consider if there is a need for further action against the player when the police matter is concluded.

"Certainly if Chris had been under the Roosters' supervision action against the club would have been considered."

Brought to you by NRL

 

[rossy]

Anything else will once again show inconsistency and favouritism.

See sig

 

[dice]

"Certainly if Chris had been under the Roosters' supervision action against the club would have been considered."

IMO, the NRL was only ever going to take action against the Roosters if the punishment handed down to the player was insufficient, regardless of who was supervising the player at the time. The Bulldogs got fined for failing to punish their players and effectively failing to acknowledge any wrong doing on the players behalf.

 

[DJ1]

http://www.nrl.com/news.cfm?id=8534

NRL supports action against Walker


"Certainly if Chris had been under the Roosters' supervision action against the club would have been considered."

Brought to you by NRL

As expected the rule changes again to favour the Roosters.

Whilst the Bulldogs are fined for unsubstantiated actions outside a club supervised activity the Roosters are exonerated due to this very aspect.

The only consistent aspect of the NRL is inconsistency.

Plus ça change,
Plus c'est la meme chose

 

[DJ1]

IMO, the NRL was only ever going to take action against the Roosters if the punishment handed down to the player was insufficient, regardless of who was supervising the player at the time.

:lol:

The Bulldogs got fined for failing to punish their players and effectively failing to acknowledge any wrong doing on the players behalf.

The Bulldogs received the same legal advice as the NRL which advised them against any punishment until the conclusion of the police investigation. The NRL came out with a punishment within an hour of the announcement. They had obviously pre-meditated their punishment as opposed to waiting on the outcome to then look at the facts. Then again they don't usually bother waiting for police reports.

It's easy to punish quickly when there is enough evidence to lay charges immediately.

 

[_Johnsy]

Chris Walker is the only one responsible

 

[rossy]

As expected the rule changes again to favour the Roosters.

Whilst the Bulldogs are fined for unsubstantiated actions outside a club supervised activity the Roosters are exonerated due to this very aspect.

The only consistent aspect of the NRL is inconsistency.

Poor old DJ One Idea.

Looking for conspiracies wherever he can...

It's a sad life.

 

[DJ1]

Once again we see rossy attempting to push the conspiracy theory that the media and NRL treat the Roosters exactly the same as every other club.

 

[dice]

The Bulldogs received the same legal advice as the NRL which advised them against any punishment until the conclusion of the police investigation. The NRL came out with a punishment within an hour of the announcement. They had obviously pre-meditated their punishment as opposed to waiting on the outcome to then look at the facts. Then again they don't usually bother waiting for police reports.

It's easy to punish quickly when there is enough evidence to lay charges immediately.

If you honestly believe that to be the case then take it up with the NRL. It is a lot more sensible than childishly trying to turn the Bulldogs problems into the Roosters problems.

 

[DJ1]

You need to re-read my posts which are targetted at the inequalities and inconsistencies of the knee-jerk NRL decisions. If the Roosters are the beneficiaries of those inconsistent decisions good luck to them.

 

[Southernsaint]

As expected the rule changes again to favour the Roosters.

Whilst the Bulldogs are fined for unsubstantiated actions outside a club supervised activity the Roosters are exonerated due to this very aspect.

The only consistent aspect of the NRL is inconsistency.

The fact of the matter is that the Bulldogs were in Coffs Harbour on club duty, hence the action against C*nterbury.

Walkout was in Brisbane on State duty - so that makes it a matter between him & the QRL, in my opinion.

Easts have been professional in weighng in with their fine just to let him know that things like this won't be tolerated at their club. They could've left it to the QRL & NRL if they'd wanted to.

Cheers,
Ben S.

 

[supermario]

http://www.nrl.com/news.cfm?id=8534

NRL supports action against Walker


"Certainly if Chris had been under the Roosters' supervision action against the club would have been considered."

Brought to you by NRL

As expected the rule changes again to favour the Roosters.

Whilst the Bulldogs are fined for unsubstantiated actions outside a club supervised activity the Roosters are exonerated due to this very aspect.

The only consistent aspect of the NRL is inconsistency.

Plus ça change,
Plus c'est la meme chose

Your kidding right ???

If he was not in the QLD squad, he would not have been at that club and this would not have happened !

the reason why walker was up their was for the QLD squad. The roosters did not have to do anything like they have because he was not there under the roosters banner.

As for the dogs, they were in coffs for a dogs trial match, so it is the dogs responsibility for their players !

The dogs were fined for inaction on fining players for breaking their code of conduct.

in the end, what happened on sunday night was not covered up and was punished and punishment is still to come through the courts !

 

[DJ1]

The Bulldogs were not fined for anything that happened at Coffs.

 

[rossy]

Once again we see rossy attempting to push the conspiracy theory that the media and NRL treat the Roosters exactly the same as every other club.

That's it DJ1! Tell it like it is! I'm part of the conspiracy too!

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Part 6:

Discredit your detractors as part of the conspiracy
Sooner or later, you'll come up against people who aren't swayed by your argument. They might even boast of contradictory evidence, which might also be concrete fact. Do not let them or their so-called "hard data" influence your perceptions. If you find yourself wavering, restate your theory's facts and circumstantial evidence, as well as the connections between them.

Do not waste time disproving their evidence. Why not add them to the conspiracy? If they present evidence that disproves your theory, they're obviously trying to cover up your theory, so obviously they're part of the conspiracy. (When discrediting someone's facts, use the word "obvious" extensively. That will make it obvious to a reader that the person's facts are obviously fabricated to cover up the obvious truths in your theory. Make this as obvious as possible.)

 

[Southernsaint]

the Bulldogs are fined for unsubstantiated actions outside a club supervised activity

The Bulldogs were not fined for anything that happened at Coffs.

Well, enlighten us :shock:

Cheers,
Ben S.