NRL take note, Stewart a cautionary tale of an innocent man

[Scorpio]

There were a number of issues involving the accuser’s father that cannot be brought up here.

Let’s just say he swam in the murk at the deepest depths of the darkest examples of the human condition.

Reference:

https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/sins-of-the-father-20120611-204wg.html

https://outline.com/EJXfKS

 

[Terry Zarsoff]

Reference:

https://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/sins-of-the-father-20120611-204wg.html

https://outline.com/EJXfKS

There you go. That imagery is what I was alluding to.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

My thoughts on this topic continue to evolve as I get more information. I’ve heard enough from people who know to accept there is a significant cultural problem in NRL clubland in which a minority of players get away with treating women with disdain, and worse. A minority but by no means an insignificant minority.

Whether this is a modern trend or merely the modern manifestation of a long-term culture hardly matters. Complaints are coming in so fast that something had to be done, or at least be seen to be done.

But under the new NRL edict Brett Stewart would automatically have been suspended for 2 years. Automatically. That makes it an unfair, fatally flawed policy as far as I’m concerned.

So, why automatic? Why an automatic 'no-fault' suspension? Surely there aren’t so many serious criminal charges being laid that they can’t be assessed on a case by case basis? 11 years is a totally arbitrary cut-off point. It may well be appropriate to suspend in some cases where the charges carry lower penalties. Or even where there are no charges. So why make a cut-off point at all? The reason is pretty clear, it is because the NRL don't have a process for evaluating these cases, so they have no way to deal with the sensitive issues thrown up by the DeBellin case.

That much is clear from the fact Greenberg himself will be the one to decide, in cases that aren’t in the ‘automatic’ category. That sort of absolute power in one person makes the NRL look amateurish. It's fraught with problems, not least being the inevitable perception of bias and favouritism when he supports some players in court and suspends others.

The NRL has an Integrity Unit comprising qualified members. That is where any such decisions should be made, and there should be a clear appeals process, signed off by the players association and league - whether to a court or tribunal or somewhere else those parties agreed. If Walker had been stood down by that process, and he had an appeal avenue to consider, then I wouldn’t be complaining.

But to have him rubbed out by Greenberg exercising his discretion, after saying Oh we’ve only made up this policy today, I need to think about this overnight, is simply total rubbish.

 

[sheridanstand78]

There is a massive conflict of interest in Greenturd being the only person who decides the future of a player who transgresses. We hae seen his inconsistency over certain players and clubs and as is rightly pointed out if these rules applied to Snake he would have been rubbed out for 2 years while the legal process took place.

The acid test for Greenturd will be when a player from one of the pet clubs transgresses and how he deals with it. There needs to be a transparent and independent process to decide this and it should be on a case by case basis where the lynch mob mentality that is driven in the media by bias against certain players and clubs is not used to crucify a potentially innocent player.

The lessons of 2009 and what they did to Snake should never be forgotten, that has permanently affected him make no mistake about that and the culprits in the media who did this got off relatively easily.

 

[Bradza]

And a biased report from media watch and the ABC with no retraction or apology.
Never...

I'm shocked!