My email to the NRL

[mosto]

Just thought I'd share with you all my email sent off to NRL HQ this afternoon:

If at all possible, could this enquiry please be passed on to Mr  David Gallop.

Mr Gallop,
I was pleased to see the official NRL press release welcoming today's 'not guilty' verdict in Brett Stewart's sexual assault trial. However, I note with interest your comment of "everyone is entitled to a proper legal process and the presumption of innocence." It is of my belief that Brett Stewart was not afforded this entitlement by yourself and the NRL when he was forced to stand down from his playing commitments at the beginning of the 2009 NRL season. If I recall, the official line from yourself and the NRL, with regards to the suspension, was that it was being imposed, not because of the allegations, but rather that he was intoxicated in public. One of the key points of the prosecutions case in this trial was that Mr Stewart was intoxicated and 'not in control'. An argument that was largely discredited on the way to him being found innocent. All I ask, Mr Gallop, is that you show some true leadership and admit that the NRL made a mistake by suspending Mr Stewart. I would ask that this be done in the form of an official apology to Mr Stewart and the Manly-Warringah Club. Thank you and I look forward to your reply.

 

[Stevo]

Nice

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

Great e-mail, won't get a response

The view will be if an apology is made perhaps legal recompense could be sought

Bit like the famous Rudd "apology to the Stolen Generation".

But nice e-mail

 

[The Wheel]

Excellent Mosto - can you post the reply if you happen to get one

 

[mosto]

I don't expect a reply, or Gallop to even see it, but will post if I get one.

 

[manlywarringah]

Don't forget Australia Post who removed Brett from the 2009 Stamp Collection because of the charges.

I'm emailing them too!

 

[Jethro]

Your e-mail mosto, would most likely go straight into their junk e-mail folder and then deleted so I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for a reply from them if I were you.

 

[The Who]

Great letter. You have summed up the feelings of many of us perfectly.

 

[MadMarcus]

Great email - the only thing I would add is to ask for a refund of the $100K fine!! 

 

[paski_10]

I would have driven home the point that Brett's suspension, not because of the sexual assault allegations, but for public intoxication holds little to no credibility considering other players, who have been intoxicated in public since Brett's incident, have not been suspended... most recently Johnathan Thurston.

Apart from that, couldn't have said it better myself. Great Email... clear and concise.

 

[Rex]

Here is my email:

I note your response to the Brett Stewart court decision, including your statement about the importance of ensuring that everyone is entitled to a presumption of innocence.  Where was your presumption of innocence for Brett Stewart 18 months ago? Where is it now?  The apparent suggestion that he got 4 weeks suspension for appearing intoxicated at an official function as the face of the game is ludicrous, and an insult to the intelligence of league fans.  The inconsistencies in your treatment of intoxicated and extremely high profile players, both before and after, is extreme.

The allegation of Brett Stewart being drunk was made and successfully challenged in court.  Someone assuming another person is intoxicated, and that person being intoxicated are two very different things.  Police rely on positive results in BOTH breath testing and blood testing before seeking prosecutions - a dramatic difference to your stance of presuming guilt based on unsubstantiated and inexpert opinion.

Being personally impacted by Type 1 diabetes, I have watched how sufferers can appear drunk without consumption of any alcohol at all.  You would no doubt be aware of this.  Unless you can definitively rule out Brett Stewart suffering diabetic symptoms, then even if he appeared intoxicated to 1000 people, there is no sound ground for you treating him as being intoxicated.  Therefore, I can only assume you are content to punish diabetic symptoms as if they were symptoms of intoxication. 

If you are sincere about presumption of innocence, and sincere in not discriminating against diabetics, then I would expect a public apology and admission that the 4 weeks suspension was not appropriate in this instance.

 

[mosto]

Nice one Rex. Who knows, if this clown gets enough emails he may just have to respond.

 

[lsz]

I would be very surprised if he responds

rule 101 of crisis / pr management. No comment means the story can die - any comment adds fuel to the fire

 

[Dan]

very very good Rex and mosto