DES Rips into Gallop

[SeaEagleRock8]

True the jury did not have to answer the question 'was Brett intoxicated?'. But that is a deliberately false argument from Gallop. It was never contested that Brett and others at the launch had consumed alcohol. But there was no evidence of any bad behaviour by Brett. No aggression, no shouting, swearing or abuse, no inappropriate gestures, no damaging property, no urinating on his friends or others, no setting fire to anyone,not even any falling over or pissing his pants.

The DPP called all the evidence they could to try to establish that Brett was out of control with alcohol, in order to cast doubt on the reliability of his own evidence of the the incident. Quite simply, they failed. At the time of  the court case I followed all the reports I could find and anyone can still check DSM5's daily reports at the top of this very forum, which gave the most detail of all.

Gallop is well aware of all this, he wants to bluster and trick his way out of this controversy. In my view he is deliberately using a false argument. Classic example of intellectual dishonesty.

 

[Nthn NSW]

True the jury did not have to answer the question 'was Brett intoxicated?'. But that is a deliberately false argument from Gallop. It was never contested that Brett and others at the launch had consumed alcohol. But there was no evidence of any bad behaviour by Brett. No aggression, no shouting, swearing or abuse, no inappropriate gestures, no damaging property, no urinating on his friends or others, no setting fire to anyone,not even any falling over or pissing his pants.

The DPP called all the evidence they could to try to establish that Brett was out of control with alcohol, in order to cast doubt on the reliability of his own evidence of the the incident. Quite simply, they failed. At the time of  the court case I followed all the reports I could find and anyone can still check DSM5's daily reports at the top of this very forum, which gave the most detail of all.

Gallop is well aware of all this, he wants to bluster and trick his way out of this controversy. In my view he is deliberately using a false argument. Classic example of intellectual dishonesty.

Very well put SER8

 

[Jatz Crackers]

Well technically it is true.  The court didn't clear Brett of being intoxicated.

DSM5 might correct me on this, but I was of the belief that the prosecution did attempt to establish that he was intoxicated and that the evidence including the witness testimony indicated the opposite.

In other words that proposition failed.

 

[WAMF]

Gallop has dug an awfully big hole for himself and I can't wait to see him climb out with more, as SER8 put it so well, intellectual dishonesty.

Back to Carney v Stewart, the galloping goose' main argument was that Carney has already served a suspension for previous similar transgressions. By that reasoning, all hardened crims who have done jail time should not be punished any further, even if they commit similar crimes to the ones that saw them locked up initially, because they have already been punished once.
Gallop has completely lost the plot due to his inconsistencies and has become a major embarrassment to our sport.
He must go right away for the good of the game.

 

[cf2 is back]

WAMF and the rest of you - with all this whinging about Gallop you never actually state what you expect him to do?

The Roosters have fined Carney $10,000 and he's undergoing counselling. That's a pretty swift tough fine. How would you like to be fined $10,000 from your employer next week for the same mistake on the way to work?

Did you seriously think Gallop should fine Carney more or suspend him?

If that's the case Gallop would have to fine Watmough (hardly a clean skin) also fined and suspended by Gallop for driving recklessly at 50km over the limit.

There is no doubt whatsoever Gallop made a mistake with Brett, but that doesn't mean he's done the wrong thing here if he suspends players fro driving offences half the NRL would be missing.

 

[Ralphie]

I can't help but feel this is all counterproductive to our 2011 chances. I agree wholeheartedly with the sentiment and I have written a letter to the NRL stating my views.

That said I liken this to Bellamy & Waldron's outburst after they beat Cronulla in the 2008 preliminary final. I wasn't going to go to the GF because I thought we would get done again by Melbourne. As soon as they said what they said I hit ebay and bought my tickets. Why, because their outburst ensured every 50/50 call would go Manly's way and that is exactly what happened on the day and that's all it takes to change a game. Mark my words, we will not get a single 50/50 call in the first half of the season.

 

[Brookie4eva]

Just remembered (and whilst checking to confirm what I remembered to be true, found Danny W has written the same in todays paper) that T-Rex lost his licence last year due to DUI, and received no fines or suspensions ..............................

 

[WAMF]

cf2, I could probably cop the 10k if I was earning the 350k+ a year that Carney is.
That's a piss weak punishment in my books.
If Carney was a 60k a year player or whatever the minimum playing salary is, I would say harsh but fair punishment.

---

Post  automatically merged: [time]1299366861[/time]

---

Just remembered (and whilst checking to confirm what I remembered to be true, found Danny W has written the same in todays paper) that T-Rex lost his licence last year due to DUI, and received no fines or suspensions ..............................

He now catches the bus with Kingy.

Trex was made to undergo counselling and was also fined (unspecified amount) by the club.

 

[Ralphie]

Just remembered (and whilst checking to confirm what I remembered to be true, found Danny W has written the same in todays paper) that T-Rex lost his licence last year due to DUI, and received no fines or suspensions ..............................

His 1st offence, what did Carney get for his first offence?  NOTHIN

 

[swoop]

WAMF and the rest of you - with all this whinging about Gallop you never actually state what you expect him to do?

The Roosters have fined Carney $10,000 and he's undergoing counselling. That's a pretty swift tough fine. How would you like to be fined $10,000 from your employer next week for the same mistake on the way to work?

Did you seriously think Gallop should fine Carney more or suspend him?

If that's the case Gallop would have to fine Watmough (hardly a clean skin) also fined and suspended by Gallop for driving recklessly at 50km over the limit.

There is no doubt whatsoever Gallop made a mistake with Brett, but that doesn't mean he's done the wrong thing here if he suspends players fro driving offences half the NRL would be missing.

Watmough should of been fined by the club.

A 10K fine for Carney is like a weeks pay. If the fine was around the 50k mark people might of had a different view on the situation including Carney.

As I've stated before I don't care who it is but clubs have to be tough on speeding/drink driving offences. What I care about is the innocent victims they could mame or kill.

Aren't they supposed to be role models?

 

[cf2 is back]

WAMF, Swoop and co you still haven't answered the question on your anti Gallop stance - what did you expect him to do with Carney for .05?

Another fine on top of the club fine?
A suspension?
Electric chair?

As I said if Gallop starts issuing NRL fines for licence offences we'll have a joke on our hands (and Manly will already be down Watmough and T Rex)

 

[DSM5]

I just can't see how Clubs can support Gallop being involved in the game for much longer.  I think a line has to be drawn in the sand, and the NRL stay out of off field player indiscretions that don't impinge on the game.  Stuff like drug taking, match fixing do impinge on  the game, but personal issues are just that, personal.  This 'image' thing has got to stop.  Clubs can do what they like with their bad boys, but Gallop, by involving himself in these issues, gets the whole thing blown up into ridiculous proportions.  He needs to be told to pull his head in and concentrate on getting us the best TV deal in town and then to move on. 

 

[Ryan]

I just can't see how Clubs can support Gallop being involved in the game for much longer.  I think a line has to be drawn in the sand, and the NRL stay out of off field player indiscretions that don't impinge on the game.  Stuff like drug taking, match fixing do impinge on  the game, but personal issues are just that, personal.  This 'image' thing has got to stop.  Clubs can do what they like with their bad boys, but Gallop, by involving himself in these issues, gets the whole thing blown up into ridiculous proportions.  He needs to be told to pull his head in and concentrate on getting us the best TV deal in town and then to move on. 

I agree. Could there not be a written policy about these things - that would alleviate any bias?

Example -

+ Drink driving range XYZ, will be addressed as follows.
+ Players accused of sexual assault will NOT be stood down, and the NRL will ABC
+ Players found guilty of FGH will be addressed as follows.

You would have to make a pretty big list, but all the NRL clubs would be on notice, and it takes Gallop out of it.

All rules would have to be a No Exceptions type of thing.

Now, these guys are footballers, so things are going to happen. It needs to by itemised, and classes of punishment need to be instituted.

Hell, if The NRL want, a rule could be (and just an example);

+ If a sponsor has an agrievance with a club, the club itself will need to address the situation, unless the NRL group is approached by said sponsor.

 

[DSM5]

Ryan, I don't think any list of rules covers every possibility, especially dealing with young, over paid, over rated, ego driven footballers.  Just let the club deal with their personal issues, if they want to, and the NRL concentrate on the big issues.  i.e. the TV deal which is the most important issue facing the game.   

 

[swoop]

WAMF, Swoop and co you still haven't answered the question on your anti Gallop stance - what did you expect him to do with Carney for .05?

Another fine on top of the club fine?
A suspension?
Electric chair?

As I said if Gallop starts issuing NRL fines for licence offences we'll have a joke on our hands (and Manly will already be down Watmough and T Rex)

Yes he was .05 but he was also on p-plates which means he should have zero alcohol, he's a serial offender and got rubbed out of the game for a year because of it. A 10k fine is a weekly pay for Carney. He should of been fined around the 50k mark if they are serious.

On another note Carney was also involved in an incident a few months ago, but the owner of the bar didn't want to put an official complaint in because he was worried he might lose some business.

But now that he's the Dally m player of the year and all of a sudden the NRL imo failed to act accordingly.

Watmough and T-Rex should of also been fined by the club.

 

[Central Coast Eagle]

DSM The problem with solely having the clubs dish out punishment is that they have an interest in keeping the player happy as possible, they won't necessarily dish out the appropriate punisment.

I think it should be left to an independent panel to decide.

 

[Phantar]

I wonder if those rumours about Gallop and the CEO of a club located to the south of the Sydney CBD have ever really gon away?

 

[DSM5]

Central Coast Eagle, I really don't care what clubs do with their recalcitrant players.  They can be weak or strong, it's their choice.  Fans would soon show their displeasure if the administration was weak and ineffectual in dealing with them.  Look at the Cowgirls to illustrate my point.  What the NRL should be involved in is on field stuff and off field stuff that directly impacts on the game such as betting.  They should leave the personal stuff to clubs and shouldn't be concerned with 'appropriateness' of any punishment. 

 

[MadMarcus]

Why David Gallop is no longer a lawyer

Allegation:  Brett Stewart was intoxicated (and caught a cab home at 8pm) (this has nothing to do with the sexual assault allegation).
Prior offences:  Nil (this has nothing to do with the sexual assault allegation).
Evidence:  18 months after the penalty was handed down a Court did not find that he was not intoxicated (this has nothing to do with the sexual assault allegation).
Finding:  Guilty (this has nothing to do with the sexual assault allegation).
Penalty:  4 weeks suspension and $100,000 fine for Manly (this has nothing to do with the sexual assault allegation).

Allegation:  Todd Carney was intoxicated (and driving a motor vehicle at the time, which is a criminal offence).
Prior offences:  See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Todd_Carney
Evidence:  A breath test reading of 0.52 (which is 0.52 above his limit as a p-plater) and an admission of guilt by the player.
Finding:  Guilty.
Penalty:  $10,000 fine.

Allegation:  Benji Marshall assaulted a member of the public at 3am.
Evidence:  The admission of the Marshall's manager that Marshall punched the victim.
Finding: ???
Penalty: ???

 

[eggson]

Yeah, Manly copped the big fine for not doing anything to Brett when things started.  What did the Roosters do to Carney?  What will the Tigers do to Marshall?