NRL EMAIL RESPONSE
- Thread starter davohan123
- Start date
Jatz Crackers
First Grader
Ryan link said:
For gods sake Ryan. Please tell me this was an off the cuff comment.
Dan does Des's public criticism change your view at all?
MadMarcus
Toovey for NRL CEO
I really thought I was over all this until I read Gallop's reponse to Des. Email below just sent to NRL.
Dear Mr Gallop
I refer to your comments in the News Ltd media in relation to the Court's findings in the Brett Stewart case. You are quoted as saying "Des is seriously confused about what the court found in the Brett Stewart case. The court did not find that Brett was not intoxicated" (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/nrl/furious-hasler-attacks-gallop/story-e6frfgbo-1226016163774). It is of course true that the Court did not find that Brett was not intoxicated. However, by the same token it is also true that the Court did not find that Brett was intoxicated.Â
Brett was not charged with "being intoxicated" so the question of whether or not Brett was intoxicated was not determined by the Court. However my understanding is that the evidence presented by the prosecution was clearly insufficient to establish the proposition that Brett was intoxicated, which was a critical element of the prosecution's case. This, combined with Brett Stewart's testimony that he was not intoxicated has led me to conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that Brett Stewart was not intoxicated.
You and the NRL of course reached a different conclusion. I would be very grateful if you could answer the following questions:
1. What evidence did the NRL consider and what process did the NRL follow to to reach its determination?
2. Based on all of the information available to you at this point in time, do you think there is any possibility that Brett Stewart was actually not intoxicated?
3. In hindsight, do you think there is anything the NRL could have done better in its response to the situation?
I look forward to receiving your response.
Kind regards
Marcus
Dear Mr Gallop
I refer to your comments in the News Ltd media in relation to the Court's findings in the Brett Stewart case. You are quoted as saying "Des is seriously confused about what the court found in the Brett Stewart case. The court did not find that Brett was not intoxicated" (http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/nrl/furious-hasler-attacks-gallop/story-e6frfgbo-1226016163774). It is of course true that the Court did not find that Brett was not intoxicated. However, by the same token it is also true that the Court did not find that Brett was intoxicated.Â
Brett was not charged with "being intoxicated" so the question of whether or not Brett was intoxicated was not determined by the Court. However my understanding is that the evidence presented by the prosecution was clearly insufficient to establish the proposition that Brett was intoxicated, which was a critical element of the prosecution's case. This, combined with Brett Stewart's testimony that he was not intoxicated has led me to conclude, on the balance of probabilities, that Brett Stewart was not intoxicated.
You and the NRL of course reached a different conclusion. I would be very grateful if you could answer the following questions:
1. What evidence did the NRL consider and what process did the NRL follow to to reach its determination?
2. Based on all of the information available to you at this point in time, do you think there is any possibility that Brett Stewart was actually not intoxicated?
3. In hindsight, do you think there is anything the NRL could have done better in its response to the situation?
I look forward to receiving your response.
Kind regards
Marcus
MadMarcus
Toovey for NRL CEO
I received a slightly amended version of the NRL's press release in response (rather than an actual answer to my questions)...
I won't be responding. I'm glad the fight has now been taken up by the club, who are in a position to publicly demand answers.
Dear Marcus,
Thanks for your email. We appreciate the time you have taken to give us your feedback.
We understand you may not agree with the decisions that have been made but we hope the details below will explain the process we follow and why those decisions have been made the way they have.
In relation to the questions you have asked, Manly’s own report of the incident revealed that Brett Stewart was asked to leave the main bar due to intoxication. This report was confirmed by the NRL’s own inquiries.
In addressing the issue of the fine imposed on the club, the club admitted at the time that its alcohol management procedures were inadequate. The club accepted the NRL’s breach notice in 2009 without appeal.
While some may wish to use specific court evidence in relation to Brett’s state of intoxication to draw inferences from a jury decision, these inferences can only be the result of speculation.
What is not in question is that events at the Manly launch function in 2009 reflected poorly on the club and the game and that Manly’s own report detailed that Brett Stewart was asked to leave the main bar due to intoxication.
In regard to other matters, the NRL has established clear precedents in relation to matters that are subject to determination by the courts.
In the case of matters where the events relating to a player being charged are in dispute and need to be determined by the court, and where there are no other allegations of serious misconduct, the NRL will await the court’s findings. Examples of this include Sandor Earl and Jake Friend, who faced an assault charge in 2009, and Anthony Laffranchi, who faced serious charges in 2006. Each was found not guilty and no further action was taken.
In the case of matters where the NRL finds a player’s behaviour has breached the NRL or the club’s code of conduct prior to him being charged, particularly in relation to alcohol abuse, the NRL reserves the right to act in regard to those matters that are not subject to dispute in the court. In the Brett Stewart case, the NRL publicly stated that it was suspending the player over conduct earlier in the evening and that it made no judgment in relation to the charge which was later to result in a ‘not guilty’ verdict. The jury made no finding in relation to events other than the sexual assault allegations.
In the case of an incident where a player is charged but where there are clearly established facts that breach the NRL or the club’s code of conduct, clubs and the NRL reserve the right to act without awaiting the determination of a court. This may or may not require further investigation depending on the severity of the matter and the complexity of its circumstance. Todd Carney’s recent penalty for driving with a low range ‘Prescribed Concentration of Alcohol’ would be such an example.
The NRL will intervene where it believes the club has not acted appropriately and impose further sanction against the player or the club.
Thank you again for your feedback.
Kind regards
Elke Smith NRL
I won't be responding. I'm glad the fight has now been taken up by the club, who are in a position to publicly demand answers.
Dear Marcus,
Thanks for your email. We appreciate the time you have taken to give us your feedback.
We understand you may not agree with the decisions that have been made but we hope the details below will explain the process we follow and why those decisions have been made the way they have.
In relation to the questions you have asked, Manly’s own report of the incident revealed that Brett Stewart was asked to leave the main bar due to intoxication. This report was confirmed by the NRL’s own inquiries.
In addressing the issue of the fine imposed on the club, the club admitted at the time that its alcohol management procedures were inadequate. The club accepted the NRL’s breach notice in 2009 without appeal.
While some may wish to use specific court evidence in relation to Brett’s state of intoxication to draw inferences from a jury decision, these inferences can only be the result of speculation.
What is not in question is that events at the Manly launch function in 2009 reflected poorly on the club and the game and that Manly’s own report detailed that Brett Stewart was asked to leave the main bar due to intoxication.
In regard to other matters, the NRL has established clear precedents in relation to matters that are subject to determination by the courts.
In the case of matters where the events relating to a player being charged are in dispute and need to be determined by the court, and where there are no other allegations of serious misconduct, the NRL will await the court’s findings. Examples of this include Sandor Earl and Jake Friend, who faced an assault charge in 2009, and Anthony Laffranchi, who faced serious charges in 2006. Each was found not guilty and no further action was taken.
In the case of matters where the NRL finds a player’s behaviour has breached the NRL or the club’s code of conduct prior to him being charged, particularly in relation to alcohol abuse, the NRL reserves the right to act in regard to those matters that are not subject to dispute in the court. In the Brett Stewart case, the NRL publicly stated that it was suspending the player over conduct earlier in the evening and that it made no judgment in relation to the charge which was later to result in a ‘not guilty’ verdict. The jury made no finding in relation to events other than the sexual assault allegations.
In the case of an incident where a player is charged but where there are clearly established facts that breach the NRL or the club’s code of conduct, clubs and the NRL reserve the right to act without awaiting the determination of a court. This may or may not require further investigation depending on the severity of the matter and the complexity of its circumstance. Todd Carney’s recent penalty for driving with a low range ‘Prescribed Concentration of Alcohol’ would be such an example.
The NRL will intervene where it believes the club has not acted appropriately and impose further sanction against the player or the club.
Thank you again for your feedback.
Kind regards
Elke Smith NRL
ManlyBacker
Winging it
Well the NRL has certainly bunkered down. I guess my question for now is why the current face of the game, who has admitted to snotting a member of the public in front of a crowd of people at 3.00 am in the morning, is suddenly immune?
Yes, there is a huge difference.Daniel said:
One is a genocidal meglomaniac, with no regard for human life and an obsessive desire to destroy everything in his path which does not conform to his own warped, bigoted beliefs.
The other was the Chancellor of Germany between 1933-1945... 😀
fLIP
UFO Hunter
It's fairly evident that Brett was intoxicated, if in fact it was in the clubs official report to the NRL; disproven in court or not. I very much doubt they would lie during such a serious investigation.
The real issue here is having Gallop admit Stewarts suspension was not for excessive drinking, but was based on media speculation of an alleged sexual assault. Lets also keep in mind that 4 weeks suspension for the things the media alleged against Brett Stewart are damn light in anybodys book.
This is why I believe Gallop and the NRL, whilst over reacting, were also erring on the side of caution at the same time. Trying to satisfy the parties on both sides of the fence whether right or wrong.
Its pointless that we continue to email and question the NRL as to why current alcohol misdemeanors since the 09 season launch are being viewed from an entirely different set of standards. In my opinion and I would say in the minds of many, the way current issues are being handled by the NRL are exactly the way we would have wanted in 2009. A lesson learned, as unfortunate as it has been, is better than none at all.
In the luxury of hindsight the NRL and David Gallop should have let the law be the judge and given a penalty based only on what factual knowledge they had, something that I know the NRL has taken onboard.
Knowing why Brett was really suspended, forget about trying to compare Gallop's overreaction to his inaction with similar events and keep in mind there has not been a similar event to the one Brett was accused of since.
Intoxication - A lesson learnt
Sexual Assault - Time will tell
All this stalemate really needs is one of two outcomes.
David Gallop realises that a mans reputation is at stake by his organisations blatant mishandling of a very public matter and he appologises unreservedly to the Stewart family, setting the record straight so that his demons about the public's perception and the constant cloud over his reputation (held by the news limited misinformed public) are put to rest.
Or Brett Stewart holds his head high, knowing he has nothing to prove to anybody but himself and realises it takes a bigger man to accept no apology than to fight and hear words not meant.
I'd prefer the former, but it just wont happen. The current situation is doing nobody any good and our persistant emails every time a player has a drink are misdirected.
The real issue here is having Gallop admit Stewarts suspension was not for excessive drinking, but was based on media speculation of an alleged sexual assault. Lets also keep in mind that 4 weeks suspension for the things the media alleged against Brett Stewart are damn light in anybodys book.
This is why I believe Gallop and the NRL, whilst over reacting, were also erring on the side of caution at the same time. Trying to satisfy the parties on both sides of the fence whether right or wrong.
Its pointless that we continue to email and question the NRL as to why current alcohol misdemeanors since the 09 season launch are being viewed from an entirely different set of standards. In my opinion and I would say in the minds of many, the way current issues are being handled by the NRL are exactly the way we would have wanted in 2009. A lesson learned, as unfortunate as it has been, is better than none at all.
In the luxury of hindsight the NRL and David Gallop should have let the law be the judge and given a penalty based only on what factual knowledge they had, something that I know the NRL has taken onboard.
Knowing why Brett was really suspended, forget about trying to compare Gallop's overreaction to his inaction with similar events and keep in mind there has not been a similar event to the one Brett was accused of since.
Intoxication - A lesson learnt
Sexual Assault - Time will tell
All this stalemate really needs is one of two outcomes.
David Gallop realises that a mans reputation is at stake by his organisations blatant mishandling of a very public matter and he appologises unreservedly to the Stewart family, setting the record straight so that his demons about the public's perception and the constant cloud over his reputation (held by the news limited misinformed public) are put to rest.
Or Brett Stewart holds his head high, knowing he has nothing to prove to anybody but himself and realises it takes a bigger man to accept no apology than to fight and hear words not meant.
I'd prefer the former, but it just wont happen. The current situation is doing nobody any good and our persistant emails every time a player has a drink are misdirected.
.
Your argument comes down to this:
But why let the bastard off the hook so easily? Was any harm done to our player? Yes. Would some form of acknowledgement of the unfair treatment help him at this time? Yes. So why glibly say, in effect, 'Bad luck Stewart, just put it behind you'?
Gallop has lost a lot of cred as this issue continues to simmer. If he was smart he would take the initiative and try to resolve it now, well before Manly makes a finals charge which has the potential to embarrass Gallop and the game at its most important time of the year.
Your argument comes down to this:
fLIP said:
But why let the bastard off the hook so easily? Was any harm done to our player? Yes. Would some form of acknowledgement of the unfair treatment help him at this time? Yes. So why glibly say, in effect, 'Bad luck Stewart, just put it behind you'?
Gallop has lost a lot of cred as this issue continues to simmer. If he was smart he would take the initiative and try to resolve it now, well before Manly makes a finals charge which has the potential to embarrass Gallop and the game at its most important time of the year.
fLIP
UFO Hunter
So you think continually emailing the NRL receptionist is going to help bring some closure for Stewart or an appology from Gallop?
Let me tell you the only people currently giving a **** about what happened 2 years ago are Manly, Stewart, Gallop and a few dozen fans.
I dont want him "let off the hook" as you so kindly twist it, however, I am being far more realistic in my views. Gallop is a lawyer, he knows when an admission is not beneficial to his cause.
Its going to take far more than emailing DG's PA asking why Todd Carney wasn't given a hard treatment to get an admission for stewart.
Let me tell you the only people currently giving a **** about what happened 2 years ago are Manly, Stewart, Gallop and a few dozen fans.
I dont want him "let off the hook" as you so kindly twist it, however, I am being far more realistic in my views. Gallop is a lawyer, he knows when an admission is not beneficial to his cause.
Its going to take far more than emailing DG's PA asking why Todd Carney wasn't given a hard treatment to get an admission for stewart.
Well, I haven't been sending any emails, though I did add my name to the petition. Also I do put in my 2 cents when I hear people talking about the issue. Which people do, each time it resurfaces in the media.
I suspect Stewart and his family have such a low opinion of Gallop that the only value if he did ever apologise would be symbolic value. What is important is public perception, as in 'mud sticks'. I suspect public opinion is moving slowly in Brett's direction each time it comes up again. And do you seriously think the issue won't get re-hashed again? Not by Manly, but by media commentators/talkback callers etc etc. For example, if Manly look like making the grand final? Or if Marshall is found guilty?
I don't think Stewart is 'fighting for an apology' but if others continue to advocate for him good luck to them. If this festering issue plays a part in Gallop departing for greener pastures then all the better.
I suspect Stewart and his family have such a low opinion of Gallop that the only value if he did ever apologise would be symbolic value. What is important is public perception, as in 'mud sticks'. I suspect public opinion is moving slowly in Brett's direction each time it comes up again. And do you seriously think the issue won't get re-hashed again? Not by Manly, but by media commentators/talkback callers etc etc. For example, if Manly look like making the grand final? Or if Marshall is found guilty?
I don't think Stewart is 'fighting for an apology' but if others continue to advocate for him good luck to them. If this festering issue plays a part in Gallop departing for greener pastures then all the better.
Users who are viewing this thread
Latest posts
| 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 |
