Trouble at Manly

[Hoppy2007Dragons]

I think a lot of people are getting wires mixed up, from my interpretation Stewart has been suspended because of his abuse of alcohol at the manly function, as the face of this years nrl he was probably this years nrl role model and poster boy, yet at a function he was refused service and asked to leave. He is not been suspended because of the sexual assualt charges, that will be decided during court which could take ages after his inital april 7 court hearing, yet his suspension will end the weekend of the 7th unless furthur evidence comes to light about the alcohol abuse.

Its such a delicate situation, i agree that as he is innocent till proven guilty in the sexual assualt cause he probably should be fine to play, as ryan said in another thread, if it was you or i, we wouldn't lose our jobs, and apart from the police, judge, lawyer and yourself, no one else would have to know.

On the other hand i think alcohol abuse and poor behaviour at club/league occasions should be frowned upon and acted upon, he was representing his club and our code and behaved poorely. If it was just him at a night club i think well that reflects upon you, but this event reflects his club and our code. Heck even i would get in trouble if i made a fool of myself at a company dinner or company deal.

In regards to the function i think the fine and punishment have merit, for that matter i think watmough deserves a week or two on the sideline as well. However in regards to a sexual assualt claim, until his trial is resolved, just like Laffranchi, he should be free to play.

I just hope that the nrl continues this tough stance and maintains an effective level of consitency.

[Ryan]

I just hope that the nrl continues this tough stance and maintains an effective level of consitency.

........

[Hoppy2007Dragons]

A man cna dream can't he??????

[Coaster]

appartently the NRL have had to spend millions to change the slogan to "Thats my Teen".

[Assassin]

[QUOTE=Hoppy2007Dragons;244309]I think a lot of people are getting wires mixed up, from my interpretation Stewart has been suspended because of his abuse of alcohol at the manly function,QUOTE]


Gallop is an ex lawyer I'm pretty sure. He knows he cant dish out a punishment for a crime thats yet to be proven otherwise if he gets found not guilty stewart could come back looking for compo. In reality he was punished for the assult... however for legal reasons we all must be told its cause he got wildly pissed at a club function (probebly not to uncommon an event sadly).

In regards to consistency there is only one rule that will stick and that is that the punishments will keep getting harder every year. It was only a couple years ago that a player could go wild, get drunk punch a bunch of people up, get the sack and roll up at a new club the next day on the same pay. The only consistency I can see is the steady decrease in tollerance for this behavour.

[TITAN PETE]

Come on Pete we all know the Bonco's get what they want. Look at all the Friday Night games.

Sorry i forgot & we all know they don't work on Monday's

[titanstattman]

NRL chief executive David Gallop takes a stand on 'unprofessional' behaviour


By Josh Massoud and Iain Payten
March 12, 2009

Brett Stewart has been branded "Mr Double Demerit" as the NRL took its toughest-ever stance to save rugby league's battered image after a decade of scandal.

Making no apologies for personally intervening to have Stewart stood down for the next four weeks, NRL chief executive David Gallop said the Manly full-back had paid the ultimate price because he had failed in his role as the NRL's face of 2009.

A desire to end the annual cycle of drama that precedes each season also played a large part in Stewart becoming only the second player in NRL history forcibly benched by the game's top official.

"Players shouldn't need to be told that the last weekend before the start of the season is double demerit weekend," Gallop said.

"Brett Stewart had a big responsibility to the code and he is now Mr Double Demerit."

Gallop's stern action came as research by The Daily Telegraph laid bare the full extent of the NRL's ongoing battle with alcohol-fuelled bad behaviour.

In the last 10 years the code has been rocked by at least 80 separate incidents involving booze.

At least $500,000 in fines have been shelled out by players and clubs; over half the incidents have involved police but somehow, despite many serious offences, only one player - Wes Naiqama - ended up with jail time.

Dating back to Julian O'Neill's infamous treatment of teammate Jeremy Schloss's shoe in the 1999 pre-season, the NRL has averaged a new damaging drama on its hands every 45 days for the entire decade.

Stewart is facing a charge of sexually assaulting a 17-year-old girl. He has denied the allegations.

After lengthy deliberations that extended into the early hours of Wednesday morning, Manly's board decided the full-back should continue to play.

Gallop - who had a "robust" tele-conference with Sea Eagles directors during the meeting - was disappointed when he discovered the club had failed to act at 1am.

He spent the next three hours pacing the hallway, contemplating what to do next.

"The biggest thing on my mind was that the ball was now in our court," Gallop said. "We wanted Manly to do something and thought they were going to."

Under the NRL's Code of Conduct, Gallop is empowered with the sole discretion to overrule the clubs and suspend any player if he believes a breach has occurred.

In Stewart's case, the NRL relied on a rule that binds players to "sober, professional and courteous behaviour" while consuming alcohol to justify intervention.

There are also a number of clauses in Stewart's playing contract and registration form that oblige him to not bring the game into disrepute.

Gallop acted upon being satisfied the 24-year-old had been drunk and refused service during last Friday's now-infamous club season launch.

The term of Stewart's exile was discussed at a meeting between Gallop and top Manly administrators, CEO Grant Mayer and chairman Scott Penn, at NRL headquarters.

The ultimate four-week suspension gives both parties enough time to determine how the case is likely to pan out in the long term, with a hearing not expected for another 9-12 months.

Results from police DNA tests and further witness testimonies will give Manly and Gallop a better idea of whether Stewart should return this season.

"It's in everyone's interest - including Brett Stewart - that the player be taken from the spotlight for the time being," Gallop said.

"I paced around the hallway during the night to come to a decision - but I often do that.

"There was a concern from Manly that Brett could be stood down until the court hearing, which might take a year.

"That was never my intention."

Penn confirmed that Manly will not appeal Stewart's suspension.

The club is, however, considering its position on a $100,000 fine levelled by the NRL for bringing the game into disrepute at last Friday's function at Manly Wharf Hotel.

Gallop admitted that NRL staff had reacted to the Stewart allegations with a sense of resignation after so many dramas in recent years.

"There was a battle-hardened response - which is not where we want people who work at the NRL to be," he said.

"Something like this should come as a major shock, but unfortunately we've had a lot of experience in recent years."

The list published on these pages - which has even been heavily edited for space reasons - spells that painfully out.

Stewart is not alone in his status as a high-profile offender. Some of the game's biggest names - Brad Fittler, Willie Mason, Craig Gower and Mark Gasnier - have all been involved in trouble while out drinking.


www.foxsports.com.au

[Hoppy2007Dragons]

In reality he was punished for the assult... however for legal reasons we all must be told its cause he got wildly pissed at a club function (probebly not to uncommon an event sadly).

If it was as clear cut and simple as that then i think manly would be appealing it, however they are aware of the right Gallop has to intervene in regards to the behaviour at the club function.

[titanstattman]

If it was as clear cut and simple as that then i think manly would be appealing it, however they are aware of the right Gallop has to intervene in regards to the behaviour at the club function.

I really dont think he would be in this amount of **** by drinking or being pissed i would say 90% is from the assuilt...

[Hoppy2007Dragons]

I really dont think he would be in this amount of **** by drinking or being pissed i would say 90% is from the assuilt...

Considering he's the face of the nrl for 2009, an australian and nsw representative, and he was behaving like a tool at a club function that reflects both his club and our code, then yes i do think the amount of **** he is in because of that and not the events that proceded it. The **** he is in for the assualt is all on his and his legal teams shoulders and he will be free to play whilst the trial begins its long and ardous journey.

[Ryan]

Police DNA tests have returned no evidence to support a sexual assault charge against Manly full-back Brett Stewart
By Josh Massoud
March 12, 2009 Police
http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,...-23214,00.html


DNA tests have returned no evidence to support a sexual assault charge against Manly full-back Brett Stewart.

The Daily Telegraph understands results of all major DNA samples taken in the aftermath of last Friday's alleged incident were returned to police this afternoon, with Stewart cleared by the tests.

Police have charged the Manly full-back with sexual assault of a 17-year-old girl.

The alleged victim also underwent DNA testing and the Daily Telegraph understands that her results have also turned up no supporting evidence.

Both Stewart's manager George Mimis and barrister Geoff Bellew refused to comment.

The police charge against the NRL player stands despite the reported test results.

[Assassin]

Considering he's the face of the nrl for 2009, an australian and nsw representative, and he was behaving like a tool at a club function that reflects both his club and our code, then yes i do think the amount of **** he is in because of that and not the events that proceded it. The **** he is in for the assualt is all on his and his legal teams shoulders and he will be free to play whilst the trial begins its long and ardous journey.

Are you serious? there would be a dozen big name players every week who get pissed to that level and carry on and trust me they will never get punished. You don't cop a 5 week ban and $100,000 fine for getting pissed. Trust me its for the charges he just cant say that legally as he's not convicted yet.

[titanstattman]

Are you serious? there would be a dozen big name players every week who get pissed to that level and carry on and trust me they will never get punished. You don't cop a 5 week ban and $100,000 fine for getting pissed. Trust me its for the charges he just cant say that legally as he's not convicted yet.

Is it ture is it really ture u and i thinking the same........

Thats its i watched him on the footy show and he so wanted to just come out and say it but as u said legally he cant.....

[Hoppy2007Dragons]

Are you serious? there would be a dozen big name players every week who get pissed to that level and carry on and trust me they will never get punished. You don't cop a 5 week ban and $100,000 fine for getting pissed. Trust me its for the charges he just cant say that legally as he's not convicted yet.

The club received the 100,000 dollar fine for not putting in place proper procedures to reduce the abuse of alcohol at the function. And Brett is suspended for 5 weeks but only misses 4 weekends of football. No they don't get punished and thats a serious fault from within the clubs and the nrl, however as i stated this ad campaign cost millions and as the face his drinking behaviour should have been a whole lot better, considering that channel nine and a number of news stations were at the function to interview and photograph the new face of the nrl, he shoudl have been on his upmost behaviour. Never the less I'm hopefull that at least from the nrl perspective this hardline stance continious. Trust me if Gallop was using the drunken excuse as the punishment when its the claims against him, the ban would not stand, but it does and following legal advice, stewarts legal team and manly are not appealing as they know that the nrl have every right to enforce such a ban.

Have to love consipracy theories, Stewart is not getting a double punishment, like Laffranchi when the trial begins, stewart will be free to play, and like laffranchi's trial it could take months, and stewart will have ever right and will play througout his trial which is his entitlement to natural justice.

[jezzika]

brett stewart shouldnt have done it
also the father of the 17 yr old was in jail for fraud for 3 yrs
that goes to show alot aye
x