Fonz, we both know Gallop is a lawyer, not a manager, not even a manager's bootstraps. Â A lawyer's existence depends on looking through fine print looking for anything, however ludicrous or non-sensical, that supports - or could be twisted to support - their predetermined outcome. Â You've quoted Gallop's.
If you believe Brett Stewart received four weeks suspension, and Manly $100k fine, based on that clause, can you explain to me:
1. Â Why not one other player at Manly's season launch received four weeks suspension? Note the $100k fine to Manly was supposedly made on the basis of Stewart not being the only Manly player refused service and/or intoxicated. Where was say Watmough's 4 weeks, eh?
2. Why this clause has never before, and never after, been invoked for any other player given alcohol has been freely served at virtually all NRL functions. Â No one has ever been refused service before or after? The Freddy Fittlers and Todd Carneys of this world have always said "No just one beer" when it is free on tap?
3. Â How Gallop determined that Brett Stewart was intoxicated, given the allegation was denied, and evidence under oath given and accepted in court was that he was in control - not drunk - that night. Â In fact the prosecution was so desperate to establish that he was drunk that night, that they showed video footage of Brett tripping at the launch, yet could not provide one witness at the launch to establish he was drunk, not even the bar tender who allegedly refused service. Â So now Gallop doesn't believe in due process to establish the truth of allegations? He just makes up his own mind based on newspaper rumours?
4. Â How Gallop established that the bartender who allegedly refused service of alcohol - if this happened - was not simply mistaken? There was no objective testing of alcohol levels. Â Brett Stewart has a condition (type 1 diabetes) that is known to give symptoms mimicking drunkenness when blood sugar levels are out.
I could go on, but there's a start for you.