NRL EMAIL RESPONSE

[davohan123]

Hey guys thought i like to share this response i got back from the NRL

Dear Sir,

Thanks for your email. We appreciate you taking the time to write in to us.
We  are sorry that you feel the way you do and we understand your feelings on this issue.

Every case was looked at on its merits and we believe there were differences between the cases. The penalty in this case we feel is appropriate.

Players need to be accountable. Drink driving is a crime and the courts will deal with that. On the other hand the circumstance of this offence are at the lower end of any such scale. We do come back then to Todd's record. It has been made clear to him in no uncertain terms that he needs to either get back on the road he was on last year or risk being put out of the game. He faces in short an enormous penalty if he gets it wrong. To inflict that penalty on the basis of this action however is something that we did not think was justified.

You are perfectly entitled to disagree with our decision and I will ensure that your thoughts are recorded.

Kind Regards Emma

My original message was simply


I am writing to want to get a response to the following



1. Why did Brett stewart get 4 weeks suspension and not Todd Carney  for bringing the game into disrepute?



As Pauline Hanson said " Please Explain"

 

[Jatz Crackers]

Sounds just like a government department wrote that.

 

[mudgeagle]

whats the email address , i might send one myself to see what reply i can get .

 

[davohan123]

whats the email address , i might send one myself to see what reply i can get .

Hang on here are the details
Reception
T: +612 9339 8500
F: +612 9339 8509
E: [email protected]

National Rugby League Limited
The Entertainment Quarter
Level 2, 215 Bent Street
Moore Park NSW 1363
GPO Box 3498, Sydney NSW 2001
www.nrl.com

 

[MadMarcus]

It is a notable omission that there is no justification put forward for Stewart's suspension and that the email focuses entirely on Carey. I suspect it is because the NRL knows they got the Stewart case wrong. They will never admit it of course.

 

[mudgeagle]

many thanks just sent a email asking what the difference is /was in the two cases and why the different punishment .

 

[Berkeley_Eagle]

Mine was a simple request

to whom it may concern
can you ask David Gallop to please not apply for the IC ceo job
thanks
John

I don't expect a response

 

[Garts]

Nice one BE. Mudeagle, do you really expect them to take you seriously when your question is what is the difference between sexual assault on a minor and drink driving?

True.  But the NRL still maintain that Stewart was suspended for being drunk at a official club function.

 

[Koudini]

The fact that he was drunk which during court was actually proven to be wrong was the reason for his suspension.

So what did he get suspended for?????

 

[mudgeagle]

no he was suspended for bring the game into disrepute , which was my question what is the difference in the cases of bringing the game into disrepute , i also asked the difference in the clubs records hence the 100,000 fine  for a 1 off incident or a club with a history over the last few years

---

Post  automatically merged: [time]1299198807[/time]

---

well jatz just got the exact same email back as the one you got to a total different question ,as above that is the broad outline of my question , ??? the nrl are not going to say they where wrong or even made a mistake for fear of ending up in court , just my guess

 

[Rex]

Here's my question posted to the NRL.  What's the betting I get the same form response?

Mr Gallop,

Please note that I am not asking about your reasons for not suspending Todd Carney, or for any justification of that decision.  I am solely asking about the gross inconsistency between his treatment and the treatment of Brett Stewart. 

Carney has a long history of breaking the law, driving DUI, risking other people's lives, disrepecting others.  Probably the worst history of any player in the NRL.  And he is caught once again risking other people's lives, driving DUI, admitting guilt, and the NRL response is 0 weeks suspension and inclusion of his face in NRL ads.

In contrast Stewart was a total cleanskin, first alleged "offence" and according to you did nothing more than have a few drinks and peacefully and responsibly catch a cab home.  Even the allegation that he was intoxicated is very much disputable and unproven.  The under-oath testimony of both the prosecution and defence witnesses was that Stewart was in control at the launch - which directly contradicts your allegations of intoxication.  Cleanskin, disputable allegation, no law breaking or anti-social behaviour, yet he received an unprecedented 4 weeks suspension.

So my question is in these circumstances, why was Stewart judged to have brought the game into disrepute, and not Carney?  It just makes no sense.

 

[Dan]

We have been over this time and time again.

Whether you feel it a correct reasoning or not, their reasoning was "being drunk at an NRL event"

 

[Matabele]

Might be time to let them know we have nearly 700 people signed up to boycott their sponsors?

 

[mudgeagle]

yeah ,Dan i know we have but just letting them know we wont forget and a little bit of **** stirring , till the bloke admits he made a mistake it will never go away even Phil rothfield (think thats his name ) was asking the question in to days tele ....

 

[Andrew..]

Deep down (and it will never be admitted) I feel Gallop was royally pissed off because he'd built the new seasons launch around Brett and Glenn.
I don't feel I'm being paranoid when I say I think he still bears a  grudge towards the club.

 

[Rex]

You are well aware, Dan, that their "reasoning" was never anything but a cheap and shallow front.  It was never about being drunk at an official function.  That was the only apparent loophole the lawyer could find to justify the unjustifiable.  The real reasoning was always Gallop's ego, to puff himself up to look in control of explosive and unfounded sexual assault allegations.

Especially when Gallop had recklessly ignored and gone directly against the expert US advice to not ever use a player as the face of the game.  Some old dogs never learn.

 

[Dan]

You are well aware, Dan, that their \"reasoning\" was never anything but a cheap and shallow front.  It was never about being drunk at an official function.  That was the only apparent loophole the lawyer could find to justify the unjustifiable.  The real reasoning was always Gallop's ego, to puff himself up to look in control of explosive and unfounded sexual assault allegations.

Especially when Gallop had recklessly ignored and gone directly against the expert US advice to not ever use a player as the face of the game.  Some old dogs never learn.

I am, Rex, well aware that it may be a thinly veiled excuse. However it is an excuse that they have been able to justify and would quite easily hold up legally too.

The faster we all move on the better, rather than going on some hollow crusade that we know will never, ever result in anything.

 

[Rex]

As expected, I got the same form letter response as the original poster.
And my response was:

Dear Emma,

You have clearly not read or understood my email and have given me a form letter response to a totally different and unrelated matter.

My opening sentence was "Please note that I am not asking about your reasons for not suspending Todd Carney, or for any justification of that decision. " And your response has solely focused on those things that I specifically excluded, and totally ignored every point I raised.  In addition, the email was addressed to David Gallop, not to a receptionist.

Could you please forward my email to David Gallop, and ask him to respond to my specific, and very different query.

Regards,

 

[Chip and Chase]

It's not a hollow crusade if everyone on here refuses to renew their membership until the Manly club publicly questions David Gallop about Brett's suspension and the justification for it in light of the Carney incident (or any of the other many incidents since Brett's). Tell the club you won't renew your membership until the publicly state whether they are supporting Gallops bid to be CEO of the new IC or not. If they are endorsing his nomination then they won't be getting any of my hard earned. I don't care if the other 15 clubs vote for him, but I don't want to be associated with a management team that are happy to be support someone who rode roughshod over them two years ago. How weak is that ? The club is the sum of it's members, you have the  power in your pocket....use it to get answers.  

 

[Rex]

I am, Rex, well aware that it may be a thinly veiled excuse. However it is an excuse that they have been able to justify and would quite easily hold up legally too.

The faster we all move on the better, rather than going on some hollow crusade that we know will never, ever result in anything.

Exactly how has Gallop been able to justify the penalty?

I can say the sky is red, but that doesn't make it true, or justified.  And just because people might not be able to take me to court to defeat me, doesn't mean that I have justified my statement about a red sky.

Your approach of dropping it may be fine for you, Dan, and may be fine for the club.  But us paying fans have the right to any thoughts we choose.  And thoughts which continue to expose Gallop's hypocrisy, illegitimacy and incompetence sit very well with this particular fan right now. That would shift if he exposed some humanness and admitted error and mistreatment of Stewart on reflection.  If his ego is too fragile to do that, then so be it.