NO ACTION TAKEN AGAINST MARSHALL- WHAT A JOKE

[slickster71]

He's manlyl were fined and stewart because of mis- conduct. Stewart was found not to be drunk. 2nd marshall admitted to punching the victim in the mounth. Even that he was taunted. gallop knows he was wrong in 08 with stewart but does not want to admit it.


The NRL will not impose any further punishment on Benji Marshall after his involvement in an incident on Saturday morning, meaning the Wests Tigers star is free to play in his club's opening NRL match.

Should Benji Marshall be suspended?Should Benji Marshall be suspended?

Yes Yes, the NRL suspended Brett Stewart, didn't it?
No No, he's entitled to his day in court.
While Marshall has been charged with assault and will face court on April 20, NRL chief executive David Gallop was satisfied that there was no other behaviour or breaches of conduct on the night that warranted any further charges of misconduct, a suspension or fine from the NRL.

"Benji Marshall has been charged with assault but there is no evidence of any other misconduct on that night which would lead us to look at misconduct other than the assault charge," Gallop said.

"That puts us in the situation where the facts are in dispute.

Start of sidebar. Skip to end of sidebar.
Related ContentYour say: Should Benji Marshall be suspended? + 90 Fed up: Players tired of 'drunken yobbos' Police charges: Benji likely to avoid suspension End of sidebar. Return to start of sidebar.
"It is a matter that needs to be determined by the court.

"At this stage the club is not in a position to take any action.

"We accept that and we are in a similar situation."

Should Marshall be found when he faces court, then Gallop expects his club to take firm action.

"Clearly if an assault charge is proven aganist Benji, then we would expect his club Wests Tigers to take strong action.

"If they weren’t to do that then we would also look at action, but we are not at that point yet and the matter that is before the court is an issue where the facts are in dispute and that will be an issue determined by the court."

Gallop stressed that there was a "clear and stark difference" between Marshall’s case and the decisions behind Brett Stewart’s four-match suspension in 2009 and Todd Carney’s recent $10, 000 fine.

"We look at each one of these situations on its merits and in its own circumstances," Gallop said.

"We look at issues of commonality and we look at issues that are not common across different issues.

"Comparisons are often made but those comparisons are not often necessarily apples with apples.

"These are certainly different situations to the one we dealt with two years ago with Brett Stewart.

"In that (Stewart’s) situation there was clear evidence of misconduct on the night that was separate to the allegation of sexual assault.

"We left the allegation of sexual assault for the courts to determine, but we acted in relation to the misconduct that happened earlier on in the night.

"That’s a clear and stark difference with the situation we are dealing with now with Benji Marshall and I want to make that clear to everyone."

When comparing Marshall’s case with Carney’s, Gallop added that there were no facts in dispute in Carney’s "inadvertent mistake".

"Todd Carney’s department is clearly something where the fact is established.

"As I said last week, an inadvertent mistake by him, not a deliberate piece of conduct.

"I met with Todd because his issues are long term; they relate to some personal issues for him which the game has been involved in for some time. That is a different issue to what we are dealing with today

 

[Berkeley_Eagle]

\"These are certainly different situations to the one we dealt with two years ago with Brett Stewart.

\"In that (Stewart’s) situation there was clear evidence of misconduct on the night that was separate to the allegation of sexual assault.

\"We left the allegation of sexual assault for the courts to determine, but we acted in relation to the misconduct that happened earlier on in the night.

\"That’s a clear and stark difference with the situation we are dealing with now with Benji Marshall and I want to make that clear to everyone.\"

Again Gallop makes a goose of himself

A court of Law found that Brett Stewart was not Drunk on the Night in question

 

[Ralphie]

I hate Gallup more that I hate Harrigan...........but I still hate the purple filthy scum the most

Ahhhh, that feels better, I can feel the meds kicking in

 

[Rusty]

Honestly its a joke.

Either the Stewart punishment was right, and then Marshal should be subjected to same, or it was wrong and Gallop should stop trying to justify it.

I don't really care which anymore as long as some consistency is shown. You can't have it both ways.

 

[mickqld]

Hahahahahaha Gallop is a first class clown. So punching a guy in the face just because he called Lockyer a better player than him ( WHICH BY THE WAY IS TRUE) is apparently not conduct that brings the image of the game into disrepute yet catching a cab home after having a drink or 2 ( AND NOT BEING FOUND TO HAVE ANY EVIDENCE OF INTOXICATION) deserves 4 weeks and 100k fine for the club. **** me dead can this clown be serious. Imagine him being your defender in a serious court matter for ****sake you'd have no chance with his illogical arguments. The judge would have you in jail before you knew what was going on.

 

[mudgeagle]

OK this is getting out of hand , where was it ever established that Brett Stewart was drunk , gallop is only digging himself a bigger hole , is it me or did i miss the part where it was said by anybody other than gallop that Brett was drunk

 

[DSM5]

Just what 'misconduct' was Brett Stewart supposedly involved in?  He wasn't intoxicated, he walked to the various places and then took a taxi home, he wasn't charged with being drunk.  Just what is Gallop alluding to when he talks of 'misconduct'?    

 

[Captain Moondog]

The situation seems to be that any player will be given the benefit of the doubt if he is accused of stuffing up (except of course if he plays for Manly, then he's ****ed!)

 

[dceagle]

Perhaps a drink too much, then a cab home ( then you know what )  ...... 4 weeks suspension , brushed and then villified by Gallop and hung out to dry

Multiple offender , breaks the law , puts innocent lives at risk ..... Meets with Gallop and a  supposed $10,000 fine by club only

Belts some one , (all be it allegedly)..... Not a thing done , Gallop hides behind the skirt of letting the courts run their course,then leaves it to the club who will do likewise
 
                             ............................................

             YOU GOT IT WRONG WITH BRETT , MR GALLOP
            WHY DON'T YOU HAVE THE GUTS TO ADMIT IT !!!

 

[Jatz Crackers]

\"In that (Stewart’s) situation there was clear evidence of misconduct on the night that was separate to the allegation of sexual assault.

\"We left the allegation of sexual assault for the courts to determine, but we acted in relation to the misconduct that happened earlier on in the night.  

There are only 3 issues that can be inferenced in connection with gallops statement in bold.

Brett Stewart was suspended because of:
1) Watmoughs behaviour
2) MWSE supplying a function not in keeping with gallops interpretation of rules on how to conduct one.
3) Brett not drink driving by catching a cab (thats even if we accept gallops assertion that Brett was intoxicated which was of course shown to be disproven rather than proven)

Gallop cannot pretend Brett was suspended for 1 or 2.

Gallop/NRL will lose a judicial review if they hang their hat on point 3.

 

[Ron E. Gibbs]

OK this is getting out of hand , where was it ever established that Brett Stewart was drunk , gallop is only digging himself a bigger hole , is it me or did i miss the part where it was said by anybody other than gallop that Brett was drunk

It was never established and the facts were always in dispute. Gallop believed what he read in the newspapers and acted on that. It just suits him now to put forward the fiction of "other misconduct".
Tool.

 

[MadMarcus]

OK this is getting out of hand , where was it ever established that Brett Stewart was drunk , gallop is only digging himself a bigger hole , is it me or did i miss the part where it was said by anybody other than gallop that Brett was drunk

This is the one thing he can't justify.  See the email I wrote to the NRL yesterday in the have a winge forum http://www.silvertails.net/forums/index.php?topic=186638.50.

Gallop conveniently avoids the topic of evidence in every statement he makes about the issue.  Somebody needs to publicly call him out on it.

 

[WAMF]

[quote author=slickster71 link=topic=186685.msg320340#msg320340 date=1299477409]
\"In that (Stewart’s) situation there was clear evidence of misconduct on the night that was separate to the allegation of sexual assault.

\"We left the allegation of sexual assault for the courts to determine, but we acted in relation to the misconduct that happened earlier on in the night.  

There are only 3 issues that can be inferenced in connection with gallops statement in bold.

Brett Stewart was suspended because of:
1) Watmoughs behaviour
2) MWSE supplying a function not in keeping with gallops interpretation of rules on how to conduct one.
3) Brett not drink driving by catching a cab (thats even if we accept gallops assertion that Brett was intoxicated which was of course shown to be disproven rather than proven)

Gallop cannot pretend Brett was suspended for 1 or 2.

Gallop/NRL will lose a judicial review if they hang their hat on point 3.

[/quote]
Well put Jatz.
It's just sheer madness Gallop can't man up but would rather weasel his way out of a deep hole that he's dug.

 

[swoop]

After Carney's slap on the wrist who thought Gallop was going to take any action? The gutless wonder should be banished from the game and because of the lack of balls players do whatever they want.

 

[Phantar]

I'm sure P. Peters et al will have a response. Unfortunately, our club leadership at the managerial/operational level left the launch at Manly Wharf early, therefore not being in a position to refute the bull**** claims and meekly (in the end) accepted that something went awry and hence accepted the fine. Now the Canter feels solid in making these erroneous claims.

Look, I hate the Void Space Gallop as much as the next guy - but we have to accept that Hasler, Peters, Mayer, Penn etc ****ed up two years ago and left us in this position.

 

[KaZa]

we are making a full press release soon according to 2sm

 

[DSM5]

You have a valid point Phantar, but it doesn't let Gallop off the hook.  I'd like the Club to ask for its 100K back, an apology for Brett and also take action against News Ltd for loss of income.  I'd like to see the Club take vigorous and public action.  Put the pressure squarely where it should be, on Gallop and his stooges.    

 

[bones]

OK this is getting out of hand , where was it ever established that Brett Stewart was drunk , gallop is only digging himself a bigger hole , is it me or did i miss the part where it was said by anybody other than gallop that Brett was drunk

In the Daily Telegraph. I recall a frontpage headline that he was too drunk to remember anything. Gallop is a news limited lawyer so obviously believes anything that rag prints. He should fall on his sword. Bring back Arko.

 

[Garts]

I don't know what another whinge in the media will achieve if the reports of a press release are true. Whats done is done and things won't change.

 

[ERNIE FOR NO7]

No action has been taken and neither should there be. Two wrongs don't make a right. If anyone believes that Stewart shouldn't have been suspended how can you believe Marshall should be.

Gallop should apologise to Manly for his actions not suspend everyone else to justify his decision with Stewart.