Gallop on talking sport now
- Thread starter swoop
- Start date
-
We had an issue with background services between march 10th and 15th or there about. This meant the payment services were not linking to automatic upgrades. If you paid for premium membership and are still seeing ads please let me know and the email you used against PayPal and I cam manually verify and upgrade your account.
David "let me finish" Gallop keeps saying his decisions are justified by manly not appealing at the time the suspension handed out to brett.
The douche bag is forgetting the part where manly copped it sweet because they thought that this kind of punishment was going to be the norm from now on for players getting into s**t at the start of a season.
We're only mentioning it now, David, because you've failed to continue on this kind of punishment.
He sounded pathetic in that interview. Like he didn't have a leg to stand on. Brett may never get his apology, but atleast now the rugby league world know and agree with us that he deserves one and also that Gallop is a goose that has news limited interests at heart and not his players.
Oh and the **** about carney getting leniency because he has an on going battle with the drink is a pile of ****. Normally its the opposite isnt it? A repeat offender gets firmer treatment?
If only Brett got asked to leave pubs every weekend, he might have gotten leniency and a meeting with gallop to chat about bettering himself.
Its simple really.
2 years ago Gallop was out for blood, to the point where he was determind to hand out massive punishments and fines.
Now for some reason he's gone the other way with it and is pussy footing around because he doesnt want to punish the particular people involved in the latest incidents. I GUARANTEE that if it had of been someone like watmough or willie mason getting into something like this they would have gotten suspended.
Gallop thiks its better for the game not to punish 2 of its biggest heros all of a sudden.
The douche bag is forgetting the part where manly copped it sweet because they thought that this kind of punishment was going to be the norm from now on for players getting into s**t at the start of a season.
We're only mentioning it now, David, because you've failed to continue on this kind of punishment.
He sounded pathetic in that interview. Like he didn't have a leg to stand on. Brett may never get his apology, but atleast now the rugby league world know and agree with us that he deserves one and also that Gallop is a goose that has news limited interests at heart and not his players.
Oh and the **** about carney getting leniency because he has an on going battle with the drink is a pile of ****. Normally its the opposite isnt it? A repeat offender gets firmer treatment?
If only Brett got asked to leave pubs every weekend, he might have gotten leniency and a meeting with gallop to chat about bettering himself.
Its simple really.
2 years ago Gallop was out for blood, to the point where he was determind to hand out massive punishments and fines.
Now for some reason he's gone the other way with it and is pussy footing around because he doesnt want to punish the particular people involved in the latest incidents. I GUARANTEE that if it had of been someone like watmough or willie mason getting into something like this they would have gotten suspended.
Gallop thiks its better for the game not to punish 2 of its biggest heros all of a sudden.
Rex
Bencher
Fantastic interview. Hats off to Graeme Hughes. 7.30 Report hang your heads in shame. I appreciate Manly was looking to move on, but IMO this interview adds good opportunities to really tighten the screws on Gallop. Siphoning through all the Gallop double-speak and diversions, here's my understanding of what emerged:
1. The ONLY evidence Gallop had suggesting Brett Stewart may have done anything at the official function unacceptable to him was a report that Brett was asked to leave the main bar due to (assumed) intoxication. Gallop admitted that he didn't know to what level Brett Stewart was intoxicated, only that it was (presumably) enough for him to be asked to leave the main bar, in the judgement of the barman. Hughes said he'd been to Star City and been asked to leave the bar and that he hadn't even had a drink. Clearly the evidence is insufficient to establish a particular level of (unacceptable) intoxication. Interestingly Gallop gave no indication of any separate NRL investigation to establish any facts at all. If you believe what he said as relatively complete, he seems to have only had rumours, and Manly's report. That's it.
2. Under the pressure of Hughes asking whether Brett Stewart had actually misbehaved at all to justify a 4 week suspension, Gallop made a second claim - that there was a "suggestion" that Brett was asked to leave another bar in the area - i.e. NOT at the official function. Hughes asked whether he was confirming that happened, and Gallop said he asked about it and didn't get a response. Remember Gallop made the charge under provisions solely applying to behaviour AT official functions. i.e. Gallop apparently suggested here that he relied on an unverified rumour, without corroborating evidence -and irrelevant to the actual charge - to justify his decision. This made Gallop look erratic and unprofessional, and to have judged Stewart without reasonable investigation or any fair or due process.
3. Gallop refused to say whether Todd Carney was judged under double demerits. He also refused to say whether Benji would be handled under a double demerit policy if found guilty. Wow. However Hughes finally got Gallop to admit that the policy of Double Demerits still applies, at least to the leadup to the launch. Gallop couldn't specify exactly why they wouldn't apply at other times in the season - like leading up to SOO, tests or finals - he only said lets not take this too far!
4. In defending his decision to not suspend Carney, Gallop said Carney was only just over the .05 level and that he believed it was not deliberate and a relatively inadvertent mistake given he drove in the morning, not at midnight after leaving a pub. In specifying the alcohol reading standard as .05, Gallop has shown that he either doesn't know or doesn't acknowledge the appropriate legal standard for Carney as a "P" plate driver is a zero reading. Does Gallop not respect the laws of the land, especially for a driver with a DUI conviction history?
5. Whilst Gallop openly offered up his belief that Carney's action in driving DUI was not deliberate, he refused to do likewise when directly asked whether Brett's actions were deliberate. This is another fact highlighting Gallop's ongoing inconsistency in his treatment of Stewart and Carney. In this interview Gallop again used only positive words including "Courageous" and "Brave" to describe the repeat DUI offender, and only negative descriptions of Brett. I can only recall him using negative words to describe Brett Stewart since the 2009 season launch. Another point worth highlighting about his inconsistent treatment of Stewart and Carney. Obviously Manly's message to stop slurring Stewart's character has not got through. Time for a blunt and public reminder IMO. And IMO would be worthwhile to refer the public to this link, so the public can see what Gallop actually relied on in suspending Stewart. And what his actual evidence, or lack of it, is.
6. Gallop said Manly "to their credit" admitted they could have handled the situation a lot better. And their prize for this full marks action? A $100k fine allegedly solely based on this report and in particular this statement. So if Manly did a Roosters and denied any real problem then there would be no fine? OMG
7. Gallop again relied on his mantra that Manly were given the opportunity to appeal those decisions two years ago and they didn't appeal them - so it is unreasonable to raise this two years later. A ridiculous argument given the obvious legal sensitivities at the time - and which it would be fair and reasonable to make some derogatory statement about his naivety if he actually believed that statement - especially with his coming from a legal background. However, IMO this argument is most easily rebutted by saying that now is the EXACT appropriate time to raise them because the new and unprecedented harsh standards set for Brett (and for Manly) have clearly not been equivalently applied before or after, and it is only AFTER equivalent situations arise that inconsistencies such as these become evident - and these equivalent situations happened recently.
1. The ONLY evidence Gallop had suggesting Brett Stewart may have done anything at the official function unacceptable to him was a report that Brett was asked to leave the main bar due to (assumed) intoxication. Gallop admitted that he didn't know to what level Brett Stewart was intoxicated, only that it was (presumably) enough for him to be asked to leave the main bar, in the judgement of the barman. Hughes said he'd been to Star City and been asked to leave the bar and that he hadn't even had a drink. Clearly the evidence is insufficient to establish a particular level of (unacceptable) intoxication. Interestingly Gallop gave no indication of any separate NRL investigation to establish any facts at all. If you believe what he said as relatively complete, he seems to have only had rumours, and Manly's report. That's it.
2. Under the pressure of Hughes asking whether Brett Stewart had actually misbehaved at all to justify a 4 week suspension, Gallop made a second claim - that there was a "suggestion" that Brett was asked to leave another bar in the area - i.e. NOT at the official function. Hughes asked whether he was confirming that happened, and Gallop said he asked about it and didn't get a response. Remember Gallop made the charge under provisions solely applying to behaviour AT official functions. i.e. Gallop apparently suggested here that he relied on an unverified rumour, without corroborating evidence -and irrelevant to the actual charge - to justify his decision. This made Gallop look erratic and unprofessional, and to have judged Stewart without reasonable investigation or any fair or due process.
3. Gallop refused to say whether Todd Carney was judged under double demerits. He also refused to say whether Benji would be handled under a double demerit policy if found guilty. Wow. However Hughes finally got Gallop to admit that the policy of Double Demerits still applies, at least to the leadup to the launch. Gallop couldn't specify exactly why they wouldn't apply at other times in the season - like leading up to SOO, tests or finals - he only said lets not take this too far!
4. In defending his decision to not suspend Carney, Gallop said Carney was only just over the .05 level and that he believed it was not deliberate and a relatively inadvertent mistake given he drove in the morning, not at midnight after leaving a pub. In specifying the alcohol reading standard as .05, Gallop has shown that he either doesn't know or doesn't acknowledge the appropriate legal standard for Carney as a "P" plate driver is a zero reading. Does Gallop not respect the laws of the land, especially for a driver with a DUI conviction history?
5. Whilst Gallop openly offered up his belief that Carney's action in driving DUI was not deliberate, he refused to do likewise when directly asked whether Brett's actions were deliberate. This is another fact highlighting Gallop's ongoing inconsistency in his treatment of Stewart and Carney. In this interview Gallop again used only positive words including "Courageous" and "Brave" to describe the repeat DUI offender, and only negative descriptions of Brett. I can only recall him using negative words to describe Brett Stewart since the 2009 season launch. Another point worth highlighting about his inconsistent treatment of Stewart and Carney. Obviously Manly's message to stop slurring Stewart's character has not got through. Time for a blunt and public reminder IMO. And IMO would be worthwhile to refer the public to this link, so the public can see what Gallop actually relied on in suspending Stewart. And what his actual evidence, or lack of it, is.
6. Gallop said Manly "to their credit" admitted they could have handled the situation a lot better. And their prize for this full marks action? A $100k fine allegedly solely based on this report and in particular this statement. So if Manly did a Roosters and denied any real problem then there would be no fine? OMG
7. Gallop again relied on his mantra that Manly were given the opportunity to appeal those decisions two years ago and they didn't appeal them - so it is unreasonable to raise this two years later. A ridiculous argument given the obvious legal sensitivities at the time - and which it would be fair and reasonable to make some derogatory statement about his naivety if he actually believed that statement - especially with his coming from a legal background. However, IMO this argument is most easily rebutted by saying that now is the EXACT appropriate time to raise them because the new and unprecedented harsh standards set for Brett (and for Manly) have clearly not been equivalently applied before or after, and it is only AFTER equivalent situations arise that inconsistencies such as these become evident - and these equivalent situations happened recently.
Berkeley_Eagle
Current Status: 24/7 Manly Fan
LOL Hughes like a dog with a bone on double demerits
ManlyBacker
Winging it
Great coverage Rex. Unfortunately we will have to work hard to get this interview out to other RL fans. I have spoken to a lot of different club supporters this week and most have digested what the DT dishes up each day and don't understand why Manly are still raising it. Good news is that most don't think Brett is guilty of very much but the more complex issues of Gallop's duplicity and double standards are unknown.
Maybe we have an advantage having Lowe on board here, he and Hughes are very, very good mates
Utility Player
Bencher
What Gallop does not seem to grasp (even though he grasps something else a fair bit) is that the NRL would probably not have heard anything about Brett's behaviour at the launch if the false sexual assault allegations had not been made.
Canteen Worker
First Grader
This one was not quite as black and white as suggested at the time either. Whilst I have no doubt Choc was a goose, the behaviour and belligerence of the 'sponsor' was also in question and it was swept under the carpet because he gave money to the club and also that he went to media (after he heard Mayer on the raio.) Watmough was agrieved with his media and club treatment, that was forced, due to the Stewart situation.The Wheel link said:
Utility Player
Bencher
Very much so but if not for the sexual assault allegations the focus would only have been on Choc. Brett stewart refused service (debatable) and catches cab home is not very newsworthy.The Wheel link said:
Rex link said:
Which leads to the question:Â
Is Gallop:
a) incomprehensibly stupid? or
b) simply lying about the real reason for the suspension and fine whilst treating the rugby league public as incomprehensibly stupid?
[/quote]
Good questions Rex
a) incomprehensibly stupid or...cunning as a ****house rat.
b) simply lying about the real reason for the suspension and fine whilst treating the rugby league public as incomprehensibly stupid?...Personally I'm left with little doubt that this was the truth behind his poor decision a the time.
As much as I just want to get on with the season and enjoy my footie, it's hard for me to get past the injustice served upon Brett the club and those who have supported him.
This whole affair has left a very bitter taste in my mouth in regards to the integrity of Gallop and the NRL
The basis of Gallop's defence of his reactionary punishment is that Manly didn't "appeal" the decision at the time. Did he consider that maybe Manly accepted the umpires decision (however excessive) on the basis that they were lead to believe that those standards and the "double demerit" system would apply evenly to all other players in the code. Little wonder they are blowing up now, when 2 years later we have two examples of the same "faces of the game" involved in incidents that breach the code of conduct on that same double demerit period and there is not a one week suspension between them, let a lone a minimum 4 week suspension each. By any stretch of the imagination the conduct of both Carney (driving under the influence) and Marshall (charged with assault) are worse then being refused service at a bar and catching a taxi home.
Wow, listening to this goose is cringe worthy.
It would have been hard for us to appeal 2 years ago because at the time Stewart had been hung, drawn and quartered by the NRL, media and general public. We always knew that the punishment was for the allegations, and outside of Stewart and Manly fans, everyone was happy with it and thought it was warranted. Clearly, appealing would have been useless and Manly knew this at the time.
Gallop, you were (and continue to be) wrong and have played a part in ruining 2 years of an innocent mans life. I hope that knowledge keeps you up at night pacing the hallways...
It would have been hard for us to appeal 2 years ago because at the time Stewart had been hung, drawn and quartered by the NRL, media and general public. We always knew that the punishment was for the allegations, and outside of Stewart and Manly fans, everyone was happy with it and thought it was warranted. Clearly, appealing would have been useless and Manly knew this at the time.
Gallop, you were (and continue to be) wrong and have played a part in ruining 2 years of an innocent mans life. I hope that knowledge keeps you up at night pacing the hallways...
| Team | P | W | L | PD | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
6 | 5 | 1 | 59 | 12 |
|
6 | 5 | 1 | 20 | 12 |
|
6 | 4 | 2 | 53 | 10 |
|
6 | 4 | 2 | 30 | 10 |
|
7 | 4 | 2 | 25 | 9 |
|
7 | 4 | 3 | 40 | 8 |
|
7 | 4 | 3 | 24 | 8 |
|
7 | 4 | 3 | -8 | 8 |
|
7 | 4 | 3 | -18 | 8 |
|
7 | 3 | 3 | 20 | 7 |
|
7 | 3 | 4 | 31 | 6 |
|
7 | 3 | 4 | 17 | 6 |
|
6 | 2 | 4 | -31 | 6 |
|
7 | 3 | 4 | -41 | 6 |
|
7 | 2 | 5 | -29 | 4 |
|
6 | 1 | 5 | -102 | 4 |
|
6 | 0 | 6 | -90 | 2 |
