Would you consider this evidence of anti-tampering breach?

[DJ1]

I find all the latest anti-tampering stuff frustrating. As you all know, the Bulldogs experienced an interesting situation last year with Nigel Vagana leaving to the Sharks whilst 3 players were signed by the Rabbitohs on the morning of July 1.

In my opinion if any situation called for the NRL to investigate it was the Rabbitoh situation. Anyway, we now have the NRL coming out and asking for clubs to provide them with any proof of any anti-tampering breach activity if they want the NRL to investigate it.

I attempted to contact the NRL a number of times through their website last year in regards to the following issue. I stated that I believed that I was in possession of possible evidence that potentially suggested a breach of the anti-tampering deadline and could they contact me to discuss how they wish me to send it to them. I never received a response from the NRL despite repeated attempts to request contact. As the NRL did not follow up on this request, to date they have not seen the following correspondence. Nigel Vagana subsequently signed with the Sharks shortly after.


The situation arose for me when an article appeared on the NRL website on 27/06/03. This article is still accessable through the archive.

Anderson slams ARL judiciary system

27 June 2003


Australian coach Chris Anderson has criticised the Australian Rugby League's judicial system as too harsh after Ben Kennedy was rubbed out of next month's Test against New Zealand.

Newcastle second-rower Kennedy was suspended for four matches on a grade one reckless high tackle after failing to have the charge downgraded at Thursday night's hearing.

However, his suspension was effectively extended to six matches after the judiciary decided the third Origin game on July 16 and the Test against the Kiwis nine days later would not count.

Kennedy received a penalty of 416 points for his 25th minute high shot on Queensland prop Steve Price in Wednesday's night second Origin match.

It included a base penalty of 300 points, 56 carry-over from a previous offence and another 60 loading for having committed that offence in the past two years.

The system in which NRL offences are applied to representative games only came into force this year.

"I just think this loading system is way too tough," said Anderson from Townsville, where Cronulla is preparing to take on North Queensland on Saturday.

"I appreciate they're trying to rub out repeat offenders but this is part of the game.

"He (Kennedy) is obviously not a dirty tackler, it's just every now and again that happens."

Knights chief executive Ken Conway said there were no grounds to appeal the decision and the club had accepted Kennedy would not play again until a round 21 NRL match against Manly in early August.

The rules state that Kennedy could not include the Origin game or the Test in his suspension because he had not been picked in either side, despite being a certainty for both. A round 18 bye for the Knights pushed his suspension further forward.

Anderson noted in the past the judiciary system had been more lenient towards players charged with offences resulting from Origin matches.

"It's a fairly harsh punishment," said Anderson, who added he was disappointed to lose Australia's chief strike weapon for what should be a tough Test against a strong Kiwi outfit.

"They've always applied separate rules to State of Origin so it's pretty hard to call it back to a normal game. I think the stakes are a bit higher."

ARL chief executive Geoff Carr said he sympathised with Kennedy's plight but added no one had formulated a better system.

"Everyone's played around with it but at the end of the day if you get a suspension you must serve it out in games you're eligible for and the rep game stuff makes it hard for BK," said Carr.
"I appreciate that but no one's come up with a system that works any better."

Meanwhile, Wigan chairman Maurice Lindsay laughed off as "typical Aussie speculation" a rumour St George Illawarra centre Mark Gasnier had signed a three-year deal with the English glamour club.

"We're certainly looking for an international three-quarter," Lindsay told AAP.

"We've had discussions about (Bulldogs centre) Nigel Vagana but his agent (Gavin Orr) hasn't come back to us.

"I don't know whether we're out of the running or not. We're looking for a top class centre, whether we're successful or not I don't know.

"I can honestly and categorically say that we have not signed Mark (Gasnier) on a three-year contract."

Gasnier's manager George Mimis, who's in London on business, rang Lindsay on Thursday but the pair are yet to meet while Dragons chief executive Peter Doust also dismissed the claim.

"I'd be enormously surprised if Gasnier has signed with Wigan without George or Gasnier telling me and I spoke to Gaz today," said Doust.

"He told me quote, unquote `Dousty I don't know what they're talking about'.

"I heard on Wednesday night at State of Origin that Maurice Lindsay had said they've already signed him."

Gasnier has been ruled out of Saturday night's clash with Manly at Brookvale Oval due to a troublesome knee injury which has sidelined him for the past six weeks.


NRL

of particular note is the quote

"We've had discussions about (Bulldogs centre) Nigel Vagana but his agent (Gavin Orr) hasn't come back to us.

"I don't know whether we're out of the running or not. We're looking for a top class centre, whether we're successful or not I don't know.

This clearly states that the Sharks have had contact with Gavin Orr the manager of Nigel Vagana (and Chris Anderson).

I may be wrong but to me this indicated a possible breach of the anti-tampering deadline.


I then sent of an e-mail to the Sharks and received this reply.

From: [email protected]
Sent: Mon 30/06/2003 11:36 AM
To: email withheld
Subject: Football Media

Hi Danny

No this does not put Cronulla in breach. All clubs are allowed to talk to players management but are not allowed to talk to the player directly before the June 30 deadline.

Regards

Brooke Johnston
Football P.A

-----Original Message-----
From: email withheld
Sent: Saturday, 28 June 2003 9:40 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Football Media



You have received a contact from the Cronulla Sharks website:


E-mail: email withheld
Subject: Football Media

Comment:
Hi All,



Could I get some clarification regarding Chris Andersons comments in the following article on the NRL website 27/6?



http://www.nrl.com.au/news.cfm?ArticleID=6095



Chris stated "We've had discussions about (Bulldogs centre) Nigel Vagana but his agent (Gavin Orr) hasn't come back to us.

I don't know whether we're out of the running or not. We're looking for a top class centre, whether we're successful or not I don't know."



Does this put Cronulla in breach of the June 30 deadline? If not, why not?



DJ



Note: A reply to this email is required

The original copy of this email is available on request to the NRL, the media or the admin of this site to confirm authenticity. Please contact me at [email protected]

It is clear in the documentation above that all of this occurred prior to the cessation of the anti tampering deadline.
I am in no way suggesting that the above media report and email correspondence is evidence of a breach of the anti-tampering deadline as I have not seen the actual wording of the rules and regulations which govern what is and isn't a breach.

However, as a member of the public and a rugby league fanatic I would like an explanation as to,

Why this would not be considered a breach?

Why was there no follow up by the NRL when someone did come forward and suggest that they may be in possession of evidence which could potentially indicate a possible breach?

When will there be a program to regulate the actions of player managers?

If the entire anti-tampering situation is unworkable, why have it at all?

 

[DJ1]

I am unable to edit my posts, but I left out a key component.

As I had copy/pasted the original quote to the email from the original article,

Chris stated "We've had discussions about (Bulldogs centre) Nigel Vagana but his agent (Gavin Orr) hasn't come back to us.

I don't know whether we're out of the running or not. We're looking for a top class centre, whether we're successful or not I don't know."

You should be able to see a variance to the article now residing on NRL archive. You now need to compare this to the updated article which has removed the "Chris Stated" and the quote is now residing in the Maurice Lindsay section as opposed to the Chris Anderson section.

 

[dice]

David Gallop made it clear that the Roosters were not allow to discuss Darren Lockyer with his agent. So I would say that if your email is authentic then either the Sharks or David Gallop has got it very wrong.

I would send a copy of your complaint to the 2KY Big Sports Breakfast program. They usually make the relevant enquiries if they believe it is authentic.


BTW, Daniel Jarmon if you get any prank calls from Roosters supporters it wasn't me ;-) :badgrin:

 

[Chook]

I know it's splitting hairs DJ1 but the quote does state "We've had discussions" as in the Sharks have had discussions about Vagana within the club. However the last part of that statement I find bemusing "but his agent (Gavin Orr) hasn't come back to us."

"hasn't come back" denotes he's been there before and THAT would definately indicate discussions have taken place which is a breach!

Chook.

 

[DJ1]

It's all water under the bridge now anyway.

It is frustrating when you see comments along the lines of ".....if you have any evidence let us know and we'll investigate it....."

This clearly wasn't an example of that type of follow through.

It may be better to get rid of the entire anti-tampering guidelines if they are not going to be policed effectively.

 

[dice]

DJ1,

Think about the number of emails the NRL receive which would have no substance. It is no wonder they would ignore any valid emails.

In all seriousness, send the info to [email protected] . They often read out emails like yours and ring up the NRL big cheeses for an explanation. Put a brief summary at the top of the email.

 

[DJ1]

Sent

 

[dice]

I'll let you know if I hear anything.

If you go to their website you can listen online. It is on between 6am-9am. They usually read out emails between 7:30am-8:00am

 

[DJ1]

If they are going to confirm authenticity first it may take a couple of days.