He can't be serious

[silvertail]

However, one of the game's biggest stars, Benji Marshall, was in court last week, successfully defending himself against an assault charge, while Manly fullback Brett Stewart was found not guilty of sexual assault by a jury less than 12 months ago.

The four-match ban imposed by the NRL on Stewart has been the cause of much resentment towards Gallop and he explained why other players, such as Marshall, had not received similar stiff penalties.
Quote from today:


''Brett Stewart was a player who was handed a position of responsibility in our game, to be the face of our advertising campaign,'' Gallop said.

''We took the view that he let us down by being asked to leave a hotel for being intoxicated at the club's season launch. We penalised the club $100,000 for not properly handling alcohol at that function.

''We just saw Benji Marshall go through a court issue. This was a case where everything was in dispute and we didn't act … because we knew that all the facts were up for dispute and we thought we would leave it to the court system.''

 

[Brookie Brawler]

Where do you start? Its obviously just way too much to expect any consistency or contrition from this bloke. I give up. The only place we can win is on the field.

 

[Darren]

and here we go again

 

[lismore_fan]

Perhaps David has learened a valuable lesson.

He's learned that you can't believe everything written in the press from the initial outburst!
He's learned that civil actions must be attended in a civil manner.
He's learned you should not punish before ALL the facts are given and accepted.
He's learned that consistency must be adhered to.

"Gosh I'm a duffa. Oh well.... it's only Manly and I don't really like them anyway!"

 

[Schooner]

Benji's a FIBRO so he can do no wrong..........:dodgy:

 

[Canteen Worker]

The Daily Telegraph paid massive damages for printing that Brett was intoxicated etc etc and yet that defamation persists.

How many times do people have to say that testimony at his court case categorically stated he was not intoxicated on that night? The lack of integrity and absence of balance leads one to the conclusion that these fools are not suitable to run a national competition and ought to get out and allow someone with ethics and principles to do the job.

 

[mickqld]

Funny how this years face of the game can get done DUi as well as various other substance abuse misdemeanours and not spend any time under NRL sanctioned suspension. ****ing Bondi hypocrite.

 

[Rex]

Some questions for Mr Gallop that I can only assume the media are too afraid to ask:

"Can you be certain that someone being asked to leave a hotel for being intoxicated absolutely proves that person is intoxicated? If you can't be certain, then isn't the penalty for Brett Stewart based on speculation and unsupported opinion, rather than fact?

"Are you aware that in the trial, two witness under oath, reported that Brett Stewart was not intoxicated at the function? And are you aware that the prosecution sought to prove intoxication, yet was unable to provide a single witness to say, under oath, that he was intoxicated at the function?" Does that give you pause for reflection on your judgement and penalty?

"Are you aware that Laurie Daley and others have reported how they have been asked to leave the premises by staff for being intoxicated when they report they hadn't even had a single drink."

"Could you be wrong in totally relying on the opinion of a single unqualified person as to Brett's intoxication, especially as that person did not carry out any blood testing or breath testing or comparable objective testing"

"You must agree that the standard in this country and all other civilised countries is that even the Police cannot assume apparent intoxication is actual intoxication, and that they need to get objective blood tests and breath before taking any action against a person. And you must agree that the standard in this country is innocent until proven guilty. So why do you feel qualified to not only judge, but sentence a person as intoxicated on the basis of a single untested and unqualified opinion?"

"Despite the alleged opinion of a single hotel employee that you seem to have relied on as gospel, is there any possibility that Brett Stewart was not intoxicated on the evening?"

"Anyone who has had even a single sip of alcohol can be said to be intoxicated. Where do you draw the line, who makes the call as to whether it is acceptable intoxication or unacceptable intoxication?"

Have you ever had an alcoholic drink at an official function?

Why has not a single person before or after Brett Stewart, in the entire history of rugby league, been suspended for even one week for being intoxicated at an official function. Are you claiming that no-one has ever been intoxicated?

etc

 

[Jethro]

Some questions for Mr Gallop that I can only assume the media are too afraid to ask:

"Can you be certain that someone being asked to leave a hotel for being intoxicated absolutely proves that person is intoxicated? If you can't be certain, then isn't the penalty for Brett Stewart based on speculation and unsupported opinion, rather than fact?

"Are you aware that in the trial, two witness under oath, reported that Brett Stewart was not intoxicated at the function? And are you aware that the prosecution sought to prove intoxication, yet was unable to provide a single witness to say, under oath, that he was intoxicated at the function?" Does that give you pause for reflection on your judgement and penalty?

"Are you aware that Laurie Daley and others have reported how they have been asked to leave the premises by staff for being intoxicated when they report they hadn't even had a single drink."

"Could you be wrong in totally relying on the opinion of a single unqualified person as to Brett's intoxication, especially as that person did not carry out any blood testing or breath testing or comparable objective testing"

"You must agree that the standard in this country and all other civilised countries is that even the Police cannot assume apparent intoxication is actual intoxication, and that they need to get objective blood tests and breath before taking any action against a person. And you must agree that the standard in this country is innocent until proven guilty. So why do you feel qualified to not only judge, but sentence a person as intoxicated on the basis of a single untested and unqualified opinion?"

"Despite the alleged opinion of a single hotel employee that you seem to have relied on as gospel, is there any possibility that Brett Stewart was not intoxicated on the evening?"

"Anyone who has had even a single sip of alcohol can be said to be intoxicated. Where do you draw the line, who makes the call as to whether it is acceptable intoxication or unacceptable intoxication?"

Have you ever had an alcoholic drink at an official function?

Why has not a single person before or after Brett Stewart, in the entire history of rugby league, been suspended for even one week for being intoxicated at an official function. Are you claiming that no-one has ever been intoxicated?

etc

He will only come back with what was supposedly written in our own report to the NRL like he did the last time this subject was put to him

 

[Darren]

shoreley u can't be serious!! lol great line !!!

 

[jjai]

However, one of the game's biggest stars, Benji Marshall, was in court last week, successfully defending himself against an assault charge, while Manly fullback Brett Stewart was found not guilty of sexual assault by a jury less than 12 months ago.

The four-match ban imposed by the NRL on Stewart has been the cause of much resentment towards Gallop and he explained why other players, such as Marshall, had not received similar stiff penalties.
Quote from today:


''Brett Stewart was a player who was handed a position of responsibility in our game, to be the face of our advertising campaign,'' Gallop said.

''We took the view that he let us down by being asked to leave a hotel for being intoxicated at the club's season launch. We penalised the club $100,000 for not properly handling alcohol at that function.

''We just saw Benji Marshall go through a court issue. This was a case where everything was in dispute and we didn't act … because we knew that all the facts were up for dispute and we thought we would leave it to the court system.''

what a wanker ..
Wish i didnt click on this thread it`s pathetic(the gallop reason)..They dont even hide it any more , they just rip & rort us right in front of our faces now they dont care.. we`re so Hated its legendary

 

[Rex]

He will only come back with what was supposedly written in our own report to the NRL like he did the last time this subject was put to him

And Manly's report simply stated the reported action and opinion of the bartender. Nothing more. Nothing less.

A half decent reporter would shut down that fob off by Gallop and expose it for the word game it is.

What has happened to the standard of investigative journalism?

 

[jjai]

He will only come back with what was supposedly written in our own report to the NRL like he did the last time this subject was put to him

And Manly's report simply stated the reported action and opinion of the bartender. Nothing more. Nothing less.

A half decent reporter would shut down that fob off by Gallop and expose it for the word game it is.

What has happened to the standard of investigative journalism?

They have all been exiled had to leave the country(asked too many wrong question,investigated where they shouldn`t have) , we have had some good ones too see John Pilger to name one

---

Not to mention how many News Limited journos there are its like 10 to 1

 

[conanu]

It beggars belief how this guy can dictate suspensions and fines without having any yardstick or guide as to how he comes up with length's or amounts. When asked on NRL on fox how did you come up with the 50,000 figure for the brawl? he said we just thought it seemed like the right amount. Double what the last fight was fined. He is so thoroughly unprofessional it is beyond a joke. He is so arrogant and ignorant and he is obviously a News Ltd Stooge and Puppet.
I also had to laugh when he said we do what ever we want to do with the fines sometimes we will give it back if clubs can come up with a program they want to implement (like the two book program run by melbourne)

This whole incident has only hardened my belief that NEWS Ltd want Melbourne (Tarnished Image to Repair) and Brisbane (Lockyer Finale) in the Final.

The extent of Media beat up this week on us is absolutely over the top and they have done everything possible to de-stabilise our club because we threaten to make them look stupid when we win the final.

FOX is News Ltd (Biased and Spun Negative TV Shows and Website reporting)
Daily Telegraph is News Ltd (Same as Above)
Melbourne is News Ltd (We beat them 18-4 they hadnt been beaten like that all year)
Brisbane is News Ltd (We play them this weekend and it is thier golden boys last game)

It is all so rigged i cant believe i watch any of it.

I am sick of it.