The reply i got from the NRL..........

[Mybludog]

This was in reply to an email sent to the NRL earlier today. I had posted it on another thread..............

Hi Russell,

Thanks for your email. We understand the emotion that has surrounded this case and it is why at all times the NRL has acted based on facts.

It was stated clearly at the time and remains the case that the actions taken by the NRL related to matters outside those which have been determined by the court today.

The NRL at the time refused to bow to a number of public calls that Brett be stood down indefinitely until the court case was determined.

It refused at all time to pass judgment on the matters that were subject of the police charges.

We are glad that Brett has been able to have his day in court and to be proven not guilty.

We respect that decision and wish him well in the future as we always have.

I am sure that he appreciates your support.

Please also see Media Release that the NRL issued on Wednesday regarding the NSW District Court verdict.

 

[Dan]

its a form letter that is going out to all replies

 

[jbb/james]

what was the official reason the NRL gave to bretts suspension. There seems to be a lot of double talk, doubled with my fading memory. Im confused.........................Is it just me

 

[Ron E. Gibbs]

what was the official reason the NRL gave to bretts suspension. There seems to be a lot of double talk, doubled with my fading memory. Im confused.........................Is it just me

Because he was drunk (which he wasn't, apparently) and asked to leave licensed premises (not sure if this was true or not). I'm guessing they got their "facts" from the newspapers . . .

 

[Dan]

what was the official reason the NRL gave to bretts suspension. There seems to be a lot of double talk, doubled with my fading memory. Im confused.........................Is it just me

That he was drunk and refused service etc therefore bringing the game into disrepute. I think, however I may be wrong

 

[jbb/james]

wow, how inconsistent are they. thats terrible if that is the reason. Thanks guys

 

[Dan]

wow, how inconsistent are they. thats terrible if that is the reason. Thanks guys

sorry drunk at an official NRL function

 

[MadMarcus]

Very carefully worded.

It needed to be, because the NRL certainly passed judgment in relation to one key aspect of the Crown's case - namely, whether Brett was intoxicated or not.

 

[Brissie Kid]

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/new-evidence--police-seize-neighbours-video-of-stewart-ruckus-20091123-izvc.html

"The NRL boss, David Gallop, was careful not to prejudice legal proceedings but recognised there had been a significant backlash against the club's initial decision to allow Stewart to play in round one this Saturday.

He said Stewart was banned not because of the charge but because he ignored his duty to the game when he was refused service and later thrown out of the Manly Wharf Hotel two days after launching the new season."

 

[Ron E. Gibbs]

because he ignored his duty to the game when he was refused service and later thrown out of the Manly Wharf Hotel[/color] two days after launching the new season.\"[/i]

Yes, but was he in fact refused service and thrown out of the Manly Wharf Hotel? It wasn't mentioned in court (and you'd think it'd be something the prosecutor would have brought up if he had any facts to back it up) . . .

 

[Fluffy]

it does appear from the court case that the only thing close to "refused sevice" was when the group were asked to leave. However unless Brett himself was refused service there definatly is a gap.

 

[Matabele]

Very carefully worded.

It needed to be, because the NRL certainly passed judgment in relation to one key aspect of the Crown's case - namely, whether Brett was intoxicated or not.

  Something the Crown failed to establish.  In fact the testimony at court suggested the opposite.  So how do the NRL contend something the Crown with all its resources and witness statements could not?

Weasel words from the NRL, as I suggested would happen in my article last night.

 

[brookiegreg]

Is there any hard evidence that Brett was either:

1. "refused service" or

2. "thrown out" of the Manly Wharf Hotel on the day in question?

Maybe this is the fact of the matter, but maybe the NRL relied too much on media reports that were flawed in their reporting accuracy.

Has anyone ever checked with the proprietors of the Manly Wharf Hotel about these matters? One would assume the NRL would have done that as priority no 1 the day after this unfortunate issue occured in March 2009.

Did the NRL ever state that they had obtained independent evidence of this situation, or did they just rely on what was reported in the media? One would hope that they had done their 'due diligence' in this case.......

 

[Fluffy]

look we all know it was the later and unless Stewy decides to take them to town the will never have any reason to prove their reasoning.

 

[MadMarcus]

it does appear from the court case that the only thing close to \"refused sevice\" was when the group were asked to leave. However unless Brett himself was refused service there definatly is a gap.

We should count ourselves lucky the whole group didn't cop four weeks.

The NRL are just lucky that no other players ever drink alcohol.

Where's the sarcasm button on this thing?????

 

[jbb/james]

refused service and asked to leave. Wow. This is so hard to quantify. Are we now saying that bouncers hold the fate of the NRL in there hands.Will the next betting scandal involve doorman from the parramatta RSL who ask 8 players to leave on a Thursday night before a team plays of Friday.

I know this sounds extreme but when you make a rule, you have to think about the end result

Bouncers can knock you back if your dressed incorrectly, Bar tenders are reactive just as the NRL is. They get training courses and agendas just like everyone else and change there tune to suit there moods, impending crackdowns etc

Look another thing to add to the mix. I went on the wcc and landed just before this happened. Its a crap flight. The players only landed 2 days earlier from memory. They had gone to the other side of the world in a NRL sanctioned competition, taken the prize, had one night to get over the bumps and bruises, jet back to Oz on a 30 hour flight and front up 2 days later to a season launch

It took me almost 2 weeks to adjust. I walked around in Disney land for the first 4 days. It was a big ask from the players. Stewart looked dishevelled, no **** it took me 4 days to find my suitcase. If you want to see dishevelled look at my facebook photos of the trip.

They are just people , super fit but people.There itinerary was jam packed and i really feel sorry for them . This team is a great bunch of blokes, open, warm and accepting. and a couple of funny bastards to boot

 

[Mark from Brisbane]

Quite correct Jbb....in my job I have done  a gazillion flights, so many to Europe and back I have probably lost count. Going over is fine, you git the ground running, coming back is hell on wheels....I have never once come back and just "settled back in feeling fine"...takes me about 4 or 5 days to get sleep patterns right and dead set your head is "spinning"....add just a couple of drinks to the mix....and would look and feel like absolute ****.

 

[Duff]

Is it really the NRL we should be going after here?
They've been quite careful with their wording etc, we know their motives but can't prove anything.

In my mind it's the media who are the real criminals in all this. They're the ones who printed lies. They're the ones who carried out a charachter assassination. The names of the guilty parties have been printed in threads on this board.

I have no ideas myself but any suggestions on how to publicly humiliate and where possible have journos either lose their jobs or be brought before the justice system should be printed.

Gallop will not admit he was wrong.

 

[SeaEagleRock8]

Interesting question Duff.

I signed the petition and also told the club I hope they oppose Gallop sticking aropund very much longer.

The journos can be got to in a small fashion through Media Watch, so I'm pleased we've contacted them.

From Brett's point of view, I expect the worst thing is that a lot of ignorant people all over the place still consider him guilty. My suggestion is that we can make a difference by chipping away at that, for example see the 'Daily Telegrah blog' thread. Take the chance to enter these public forums, and use the fact that we have logic and the evidence on our side, and the views we are trying to expose are invariably based on ignorance or false reasoning.

 

[Rex]

Email posted today to NRL:

Dear Mr Gallop

Perhaps my prior email posted on Thursday via the NRL website has been lost because, whilst others apparently received same-day responses, I have not received any acknowledgement or response.

I am writing to express major concerns over both your treatment of Brett Stewart, and your apparent discriminatory attitudes towards, and treatment of, diabetics.

As you are aware, Brett Stewart is a type 1 diabetic.  And as you are aware, a symptom of low blood sugar in diabetics may be the person giving the appearance of intoxication when in fact that person is not intoxicated.  I am personally touched by type 1 diabetes and have watched this phenomenon of low blood sugar causing a person with type 1 diabetes, to appear intoxicated when they had consumed no alcohol or drugs (aside from insulin).

Brett Stewart has clearly advised he was not intoxicated on that day, testimony that was tested and accepted in court. Your selection of Brett Stewart as the “face of the game”, his prior clean-skin public image, and his prior clean record, are evidence that he is more than entitled to the benefit of the doubt when any accusations of intoxication are leveled at him.  When the police wish to assert a person is driving intoxicated, they do not rely on mere appearances or subjective opinion.  They routinely obtain objective medical evidence in the form of BOTH a breath test and a blood test.

It appears the only evidence you may have suggesting intoxication is inexpert, subjective and unreliable opinion.  Any such “evidence” of intoxication is disputed by other witnesses, some under oath, including Brett Stewart himself.  Particularly in Brett Stewart’s case, even if you had 1000 people testifying that he “appeared” intoxicated, you must agree that this evidence simply could not be relied upon for the purposes of any punishment.

You simply cannot rule out that a diabetic who appears intoxicated is in fact simply displaying a symptom of his diabetic condition.  Therefore to simply assume a diabetic appearing intoxicated is intoxicated is inherently discriminatory against all diabetics.

I ask you to revisit your punishments of Brett Stewart and the club who rightly and prudently stood by him in the circumstances.  Brett Stewart has stated he had done nothing wrong on that day and there is no conclusive evidence that proves the contrary. In my view, until you publicly retract your accusations, publicly apologise to him and publicly reverse the penalties, the NRL will appear to be discriminatory towards all diabetics and to have denied Brett Stewart, a diabetic, natural or fair justice.

I look forward to your response,

Kind regards