Consistency with Stewie's case aside, it was always problematic suspending Inglis for even one game as it indicates a presumption of guilt. Â Perhaps even prejudicial to his case as it may be used against him, or subconsciously influence those making judicial decisions to conclude there must have been truth to the allegations for a suspension to occur. Â Unlike some, Manly's stance remains "innocent until proven guilty":
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25990364-2722,00.html
The decision to allow Inglis to resume playing after a two-week ban sat well with other clubs that have had players suspended this season for off-field incidents.
Manly officials, who lost Stewart for the first four weeks of the premiership, said they were comfortable with the process.
"You've got to judge these things on a case-by-case scenario and only his legal counsel and the police know the intricacies of the case," Sea Eagles chairman Scott Penn said.
"Our opinion is he's innocent until proven guilty and in those circumstances they're eligible to play him so there's no drama from our end."