madmax
Bencher
So why was Walkz stood down?
Drugs, Sex, Domestic Violence: Football's dark cover up
- Thread starter Mitch
- Start date
-
- Tags
- burgess nrl
Supreme Leader
Uber L77T playa
because the NRL believed the related Domestic violence accusation was putting the league into disrepute.
I get it is a very complicated assertion when most of the NRL management team did the same thing ie putting the league into disrepute, EVERY DAY?
Shoe1
Journey Man
So I gather his 300k per annum trainee admin job fell through?
Souths are so dodgy about paying out his playing contract. So he’s a juniors coach now? I bet the parents are glad he is guiding their boys.
Scorpio
Armchair Expert
See below, he was stood down at the discretion of the NRL CEO at the time.
As far as I know, Burgess hasn't been charged with anything so he is not bound by these rules (and isn't playing anyway).
Terry Zarsoff
First Grader
Absolutely.
Their shared concern will last right up until Dr Macca is disbarred from practising.
I believe the policy affects all employees of the NRL and clubs, not just players .... and I think he has been charged with something ... his lawyer was in court the other day ....
Scorpio
Armchair Expert
I couldn't find where it said the policy applies to all staff... but then again John Hopoate was prevented from coaching SG Ball a few years ago, so they could stop it from happening if they wanted to.
You are correct regarding the charge (it's even on the first page, oops). However after a quick read it looks like the matter didn't directly involve women or children, so I am not sure the NRL will apply their discretion here (yet).
Ron E. Gibbs
First Grader
Yep. They're going to have to throw someone under the bus, and Dr Macca will be first in line.
StuBoot
Bencher
The ironic thing is in this day and age of equality alleged crimes against women (and children) are deemed worse than any other crime regardless.
With the Burgess allegations, all the rhetoric is about the DV whilst the ones that are levelled at the club - drug cover-up, falsifying scripts etc - seem to be..meh.
With the Burgess allegations, all the rhetoric is about the DV whilst the ones that are levelled at the club - drug cover-up, falsifying scripts etc - seem to be..meh.
He is charged with an offence under section 13 Crimes (Domestic and Personal Violence) Act 2013 (NSW).
This is a domestic violence offence. Intimidation carries a maximum penalty of 5 years imprisonment (and incidentally is 250% more serious than common assault, according to law).
However Sam's offence is not alleged to have any connection to women or children. It's just a good clean man against man offence, in fact merely an allegation that he intimidated the father (a male) of a woman, who had told Sam to get off his property and not to intimidate his daughter (by chance, a woman). Allegedly.
So pretty easy to see why it didn't cross the Greenberg suspension threshold.
Our one great hope is that GreenTurd is no longer the "look them in the eye" bearer of the discretionary powers .... he would probably would have banned Mrs Burgess and the Melb. woman from attending NRL games for life for daring to speak ill of Sammy ...
Last edited:
Scorpio
Armchair Expert
This is a pretty interesting article, a lot of content and anecdotes:
This is a pretty interesting article, a lot of content and anecdotes:
If accurate, it'd be a surprise if that player is still alive!
The Who
Journey Man
I read that Sam Burgess' legal team has won some court 'victory' to have disclosed to them how the allegations against the player were leaked to the media.
Talk about shooting the messenger.
Why is it relevant how the allegations surfaced in the media? The only important issue is whether they are true or not.
Talk about shooting the messenger.
Why is it relevant how the allegations surfaced in the media? The only important issue is whether they are true or not.
manlyfan76
There is no A.I. Just better computers
A bit like the government persuing journalists who exposes SASR war crimes. Subterfuge.
The Who
Journey Man
A snippet from today's court hearing:
Burgess’s lawyer Phillip Boulten SC accused her of leaking documents to a media publication in order to destroy his client’s reputation.
But Ms Burgess said The Australian approached her about rumours that had been circulating and said she chose not to cover up her side of the story “which is so typical of the system I was a part of”.
Why does Burgess' defence lawyer keep on with this line of 'defence'? Forget trying to deflect the issue -- it's irrelevant how the story came to and start disputing the allegations!
Burgess’s lawyer Phillip Boulten SC accused her of leaking documents to a media publication in order to destroy his client’s reputation.
But Ms Burgess said The Australian approached her about rumours that had been circulating and said she chose not to cover up her side of the story “which is so typical of the system I was a part of”.
Why does Burgess' defence lawyer keep on with this line of 'defence'? Forget trying to deflect the issue -- it's irrelevant how the story came to and start disputing the allegations!
StuBoot
Bencher
Yep,
If true, then his client has damaged his own reputation.
How that became public knowledge shouldn't really matter too much.
Divorces and custodial matters get messy so anything that can be used to advantage generally is.
If the only dirt they can dish up on Ms Burgess is how the documents were leaked to the media then they are in trouble,
What? Not sure how you say the hearsay rule has anything to do with leaking?
Users who are viewing this thread
| Team | P | W | L | PD | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
