AFL players probed over fight

[statsman74]

Going back to my earlier posts, I agree that they are not guilty of anything before the law as yet. However, AFL clubs have issues with brand and "role models" that take certain actions way beyond the mere legal status.

Ben Cousins was punished BEFORE he was guilty before the courts (and even then his guilt was of a minor traffic offence). He was punished because he was stupid and because what he did looked bad. Gardiner similarly was punished before his guilt was proved before a court and even then he was guilty of DUI - most of us would NOT be suspended from employment or risk job loss for that offence!

The reasons for their punishment was in large part that is was a "bad look" for the Eagles.

If the police and the DPP are convinced that there is sufficent evidence to charge them with say assault - a much more serious offence under the law than regulation traffic offences - then surely they must, at least, be stood down until the matters are resolved?

While they are innocent until proven guilty under the law, surely the brand and role model issues would prevent the Pies from playing them?

Again, we dont know enough at this stage. They were there, that has been confirmed. But what role did they play?

With Ben and Gardy, there wasnt any doubt about their involvement, even though Ben denied at the restaurant that he was Ben Cousins. It didnt help that they didnt exactly have clean histories. (eg nightclub incident)

Cousins is the captain of the club, so he is expected to behave at a higher standard.

What if they are stood down and the charges are dropped at a later stage?
(That can happen a lot more often in this kind of scenario as opposed to a DUI.) Sorry Pies but you were without two of your better players for x weeks, too bad, so sad.

I dont think that is an equitable result.

 

[campbell]

Its Collingwood, of course they will play

If it was a Eagles player theyd of been hanged by now.

I can but imagine if it was a Brisbane player, what the club would do let alone the media.

 

[The Dice Man]

Gardiner similarly was punished before his guilt was proved before a court and even then he was guilty of DUI - most of us would NOT be suspended from employment or risk job loss for that offence!

Most of us would get a hell of a lot more than 4 months loss of licence for destroying 2 cars(or was it 3?) in a drunken driving incident though.

I blew .057 and lost my licence for 12 months and an $1,100 fine... I didnt hit a thing and didnt even incure a traffic offence. I was merely random breath tested.

And yes, my last employer would've sacked me for ANY drink Driving offence.

 

[jezza]

Loving the spin doctor work being attempted by Murray and MarkT, you guys should go work for Howard

 

[campbell]

Apparently there is security tape and police are still looking for other witnesses to tie up any loose ends. Given its high profile you would expect them to be cautious

me thinks they are in it up to their eyeballs.

 

[Palmer Stoat]

Jeez, don't be so defensive!

Statsman74 and Stumpy Peter took deep breaths and did a pretty good job.

I thought I was just stating the obvious.

 

[statsman74]

Its Collingwood, of course they will play

If it was a Eagles player theyd of been hanged by now.

Yep, West Coast players are all victims of the media.

I mean, Cousins, Gardiner, Sampi, Kerr, etc etc havent been found guilty of anything have they?

Oh, wait...

 

[Qsaint]

me thinks they are in it up to their eyeballs.

Appartantly they have been interviewed more than once, they don't seem to be bystanders

 

[statsman74]

Appartantly they have been interviewed more than once, they don't seem to be bystanders

So being interviewed = being guilty?

That god you're not a judge.

 

[MarkT]

Loving the spin doctor work being attempted by...MarkT...

Such as?

 

[The Dice Man]

me thinks they are in it up to their eyeballs.

It certainly appears that way but we must remember the police aren't exactly known for treating footballers like the rest of the general public.

 

[campbell]

Appartantly they have been interviewed more than once, they don't seem to be bystanders

Thats not good.
Are they in custody or still being interveiwed.or at home.

 

[Qsaint]

So being interviewed = being guilty?

That god you're not a judge.

Where did i infer that?

 

[Eagle87]

Most of us would get a hell of a lot more than 4 months loss of licence for destroying 2 cars(or was it 3?) in a drunken driving incident though.

I blew .057 and lost my licence for 12 months and an $1,100 fine... I didnt hit a thing and didnt even incure a traffic offence. I was merely random breath tested.

And yes, my last employer would've sacked me for ANY drink Driving offence.

Well under WA Law there are stautory penalties for drink driving offences. For a first offence in WA between .05 and .08 the penalty is merely a loss of demerit points (5 from memory) and a fine of a few hundred dollars. For an offence between .08 there is a set penalty (I think 3 months) and then there is a higher set of offences for DUI (over .15 again from memory).

Gardiner got the sort of penalty you or I would have got for that offence if committed in WA.

There were 3 cars damaged including his own and obviously his insurer will walk away due to the drink drive offence - so that will cost him between $80 and $100k!!!

Gardiner received no preferential treatment. In addition, I maintain that it is unlikely that MOST of us would suffer a loss of a job for a drink driving offence.

 

[darren forssman]

remember the lower plenty hotel!!!!

 

[Demonic Ascent]

Again, we dont know enough at this stage. They were there, that has been confirmed. But what role did they play?

While nothing official has been announced re their involvement, you can pretty much read between the lines. Would they be getting scrutinised like this if they had no involvement in sending the bloke to hospital? Tarrant has a history of this sort of stuff.

 

[Eagle87]

So being interviewed = being guilty?

... and yet in your earlier post you refer to the "nightclub incident" with Cousins & Gardiner. An incident in which they did not particpate, where not even there (Cuz was in Melbourne) and all that happened is that they were interviewed by police because they received phone calls from someone who was alleged to be involved in said incident but was ultimately found not guilty!!!

But no double standards from you or other Pies supporters

 

[Cabbie]

why was the Tarrant just as bad as gardiner thread deleted (I thought it was a very reasonable thread to be honest)...me thinks Eastern states bias once again...when it Aker or its Cousins or Gardiner its fair game when its a PROTECTED SPECIES of Victorian players the threads get delted ....poor form Mods......really poor form Tarrant is an ****** (here I'll draw the ** for you!) we all know it

poor form mods really poor form one that reeks of bias...geez are the owners of this site Pies members or something???

 

[Zeke]

Tarrant has a history of this sort of stuff.

You mean a history of internet rumours?

 

[Zeke]

geez are the owners of this site Pies members or something???

lol.

 

[Cabbie]

You mean a history of internet rumours?

punched a guy in the face at a pub.....it wasnt rumour

 

[Bugz]

You mean a history of internet rumours?

Yes, Interent Rumours.

Do you reckon Brodie Holland was watching the whole incident in his car, from a distance?


I think its important that any further posts contain at least one "culture".

 

[Zeke]

punched a guy in the face at a pub.....it wasnt rumour

Show me the source of your claim.

 

[The Dice Man]

remember the lower plenty hotel!!!!

Nope.. please remind me.




One thing that I havent considered up until now, is the circumstances. For instance Tarrant being such a pathetic footballer would attract alot of criticism and baiting from the general public... I know I'd probably find that hard to ignore.

It is possible that if Tarrant and Johnson are involved in some kind of gangbashing that they weren't the instigators, but perhaps the victims.

The guy in Hospital could've set upon one of them, and have been attacked out of defence.

 

[statsman74]

Where did i infer that?

"Appartantly they have been interviewed more than once, they don't seem to be bystanders"

This is your quote. You are suggesting that seeing as though they have been interviewed more than once that they were more than bystanders, ie involved.