Past #26: Tarryn Thomas [Part III] - 18 week suspension confirmed; ineligible to play in '24 season; NMFC has officially sacked Tarryn.

[Harris 10]

Sooo, it's nearly 5 o'clock on Friday again....

It's disappointing, considering we could find out after the window for adding top up players is closed.

 

[hotchilli]

Reads like its a "workplace" policy??????

I'm still confused how private texts sent to someone outside of the industry can become a matter for the AFL? I'm just a silly old bugger I guess.

Don't worry you have made that very clear.

 

[Grogg]

Also, lol at the final stage of the appendix in that policy......"Precedent".

 

[roomagic1984]

Yep, hard to believe Xander McGuire reported this on Jan 18th...

Tarryn has basically lost a month of preseason.

True - but having said that, wasn't he recovering from an injury and wouldnt be back to full training until the end of the month?

 

[Sillygit]

Reads like its a "workplace" policy??????

I'm still confused how private texts sent to someone outside of the industry can become a matter for the AFL? I'm just a silly old bugger I guess.

you know being a footballer is a job, right?

 

[Roostorm]

Sooo, it's nearly 5 o'clock on Friday again....

 

[speedy]

you know being a footballer is a job, right?

The AFL’s first Respect and Responsibility Policy was launched in 2005 and had the objective of creating a safe and inclusive environment for women at all levels of Australian Football.

The complainant doesn't work in footy. Tarryn's actions didn't affect his work place.

 

[Grogg]

View attachment 1906566


View attachment 1906567

View attachment 1906568

 

[krakouers]

Sooo, it's nearly 5 o'clock on Friday again....

Hang on, they may get half cut to write the list of charges in time for the evening news/Saturday papers

 

[Makeshift Park]

Lets play spot the posters who don't have a clause in their contract that deals with bringing their employer into disrepute.

 

[The Law]

Actual DV was in the paper when a farmer run over his wife/partner with a slasher, actual DV is when kids grow up and their mothers are beaten senseless and they have no ability to do anything, Actual DV is when a psychopath controls their partner into a person they’re not.

There are sick people out there.

Our younger generations are text savvy. All their interactions are by text? I have almost 20 years on Tarryn, I never texted s*t. I aint writing a ****** letter to the campaigner, its here n now. This generation and whatever laws are in place need some kind of overhaul.

Is Tarryn a convicted violent offender? NO. Is he up for conviction to be prosecuted as a violent offender? NO

He’s just a dumb young campaigner.

14 years and 13k messages on big footy suggests otherwise

 

[scottywiper]

It ain't looking good...

 

[TennisPlayerAndy]

It ain't looking good...

swiper has spoken.

 

[year of the roo]

The AFL’s first Respect and Responsibility Policy was launched in 2005 and had the objective of creating a safe and inclusive environment for women at all levels of Australian Football.

The complainant doesn't work in footy. Tarryn's actions didn't affect his work place.

You need a spell.

 

[shinboner magic]

Sooo, it's nearly 5 o'clock on Friday again....

Will probably be announced during Taylor swift concert

 

[justroyal]

Honestly, if you’re considering someone with a previous conviction for a coaching role - I doubt the same organisation is going to be too ruthless on tt

 

[Orange Peanut]

It ain't looking good...

Can you elaborate on whether the alleged incident is old or new mate?

 

[gokangas]

It ain't looking good...

Like I said Scotty - all the talk is bad for TT.

 

[shiraz]

If the AFL handed down a serious punishment, and then said publically what it was for, it seems reasonable that TT could launch legal action for defamation on the grounds that the accusation was untrue. AFL would then have to prove the allegation was true under a balance of probabilities burden of proof to avoid losing. I wonder whether that is a concern for AFL.

If there's room enough for a substantial appeal when the AFL is judge and jury, it might be a concern when the shoe is on the other foot.

 

[scottywiper]

Can you elaborate on whether the alleged incident is old or new mate?

I was told same woman, but incidents that occurred after his previous punishment.

 

[gustaaf]

If the AFL handed down a serious punishment, and then said publically what it was for, it seems reasonable that TT could launch legal action for defamation on the grounds that the accusation was untrue. AFL would then have to prove the allegation was true under a balance of probabilities burden of proof to avoid losing. I wonder whether that is a concern for AFL.

If there's room enough for a substantial appeal when the AFL is judge and jury, it might be a concern when the shoe is on the other foot.

The AFL needs to publicise what TT is being punished for to justify the suspension they have arrived at. The footy world has a right to know. The AFL can't hand out a hefty suspension and then play "I've got a secret". TT has signed a contract with a behavioural clause, which should negate his right to privacy if he has breached that clause. The complainant hasn't been identified and therefore can't have her privacy breached.

 

[Shagga is all Class]

Honestly, if you’re considering someone with a previous conviction for a coaching role - I doubt the same organisation is going to be too ruthless on tt

Governing bodies are strange beasts. Trevor Hohns albeit a Shield level player at the time went on 2 rebel tours of South Africa and then ended up the Australian chairman of selectors for 15 years. No conflict of interest apparently.

So getting charged with stalking a woman with no conviction recorded is no biggie.

 

[Bojan KantKick]

Any chance this Mickey mouse organisation can resolve this in a timely fashion?

 

[danj]

Any chance this Mickey mouse organisation can resolve this in a timely fashion?

By the Opening Round OR (drumroll) Round 1?

 

[Colby Cheer Squad]

The AFL needs to publicise what TT is being punished for to justify the suspension they have arrived at. The footy world has a right to know. The AFL can't hand out a hefty suspension and then play "I've got a secret". TT has signed a contract with a behavioural clause, which should negate his right to privacy if he has breached that clause. The complainant hasn't been identified and therefore can't have her privacy breached.

I'm not normally one for agreeing that the public has a right to know because normally that's the defence of a tabloid journalist justifying going through someone's rubbish bin or hacking their phone. The public doesn't have the right to know unless the public paid for it, otherwise, mind your own ****ing business. However, in this case, if NMFC is going to be ****ed over by a lengthy suspension and possibly losing a top tier player for no compensation, then we, the members, deserve to know why.