Rex link said:
[quote author=ManlyBacker link=topic=181351.msg236774#msg236774 date=1250289485]
You are dreaming Rex if you think the sole reason the way the NRL acted on Brett was for \"being caught by a bartender asking for one drink too many, without testing, and catching a cab home\". You know it, I know it, the whole world knows it. Throwing it up as justification for your outrage is beneath anyone's logic.
Your assumption that I believe what the NRL said is misplaced MB. Didn't say that. The point is that the NRL is being disingenuous and dishonest about their actions. They know they can't come clean on the real reasons for their actions because they know those reasons are unjustifiable and defamatory.Â
If presumption of innocence is accorded, then the NRL has no basis - zero - to take any action except for their pathetic excuse that Brett was refused service at an official function. And to clear-thinking people that excuse doesn't justify their actions in any way, shape or form. There is no precedent. There is no logic. It is totally implausible.
If Brett is innocent then who is actually responsible for bringing the ugly headlines to the game? Do you then put people like the false accusers and damners, including the girl, Gallop, people like Magnay and Vautin (and basically all of the media), and all people who prejudged him, ahead of Stewart in terms of genuine responsibility for the ugly headlines?Â
[/quote]
Rex, as you can see from the subsequent posts (just above) I agree with most poster’s thoughts including yours. However….
1. I never said or assumed you believed what the NRL said. I still stand by my point that your use of their statement (i.e. the reason given for his 4 weeks) as a line of justification for criticizing any other metered punishment is just plain silly.
e.g. “So according to the NRL being caught by Police on a high range DUI is worth HALF the penalty of being caught by a bartender asking for one drink too many, without testing, and catching a cab home. Explain that logic please.â€Â
2. â€œIf Brett is innocent then who is actually responsible for bringing the ugly headlines to the game?†you ask. I guess the dumb answer is that the ‘press’ is because they wrote them. But my answer is that our club is responsible. They had a launch that went off the rails as a result of an inappropriate venue where too much was drunk, where guests were abused, and where players were allowed to kick on. The ugly headlines were destined to be written when Brett showed up at the police station. I don’t like to muddy waters by semantics so here it is in a nutshell – clean Manly club season launch, clean NRL season launch, no headlines.