News Beattie and Greenberg under threat if they mishandle De Belin incident. - UPDATE: P6 JDB Stood Down

Heckler

Kennel Addict
Premium Member
Gilded
Joined
Oct 13, 2014
Messages
6,332
Reaction score
9,045
Excellent point.

I’m actually torn in this.

Innocent until proven guilty needs to apply.

And the game needs to uphold standards

It’s a no win situation for anyone.

I really don’t know the answer
Answer is the cases should be pushed ahead of others in the court system. rather than months lets say 2 to 3 weeks. Stand them down on that basis. But this WON'T happen as nobody jumps the queue in our society.
 

cookieman909

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
May 30, 2010
Messages
4,230
Reaction score
8,328
I’m in two minds about this.

I feel like he shouldn’t be stood down and he gets his case heard in court. He should be presumed innocent until proven guilty. And he’s entightled to a fair trial.

But at the same time I can’t help but feel he doesn’t deserve it. He might not have done it. But he put himself in this situation. He had a 20 week pregnant partner at home. Why’s he out trying to take birds back to his cousins place? I’m no legal expert but the police would have to have some telling evidence if they have charged him? Imagine if he won a Como this year, played origin, then got found guilty? Imagine the uproar and damage it would of done.

In this situation there was going to be no winner. The NRL have taken a hard stance, and I applaud it. Had they taken a soft stance. Shit would of been given to them.
 

Chrisaaar

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Nov 15, 2011
Messages
1,908
Reaction score
2,483
I can’t help but think what would happen if it was a dogs player.

I’m picturing the player having already been stood down (the following day, no deliberation or debate about it).

Club given a ‘please explain’ and threatened by the NRL for the ‘culture’ and brining the game into disrepute.

100k Fine and competition points deducted if found guilty.

What else have I missed?
 

Alan79

Kennel Legend
Joined
Mar 10, 2007
Messages
13,200
Reaction score
18,943
I think the stand-down is completely justified. If he's proven innocent he got a free holiday on a wage most people dream of. This is a massive black eye for the game. It would be even worse if he played on and eventually got convicted.

At the end of the day the players might start getting the message that behaving like decent humans is part of their contractual obligations. It's been a long wait for them to realise it
 

Mr Invisible

Banned
Joined
Apr 26, 2008
Messages
0
Reaction score
47
People need to understand, there are 3 type of ways a case generally goes:
a) Not guilty - accused was never guilty of a crime in the first place.
b) Not guilty - due to lack of evidence, despite a clear indication of guilt.
c) Guilty - evidence shows the person is guilty.

More on this, is that the NRL Integrity Unit are given more evidence than you, I, or anyone else has access to (except those involved in the case).

In some instance they speak with the witness / victim to ascertain the severity of the situation.

Based on these new rules Musgrove and Hayne will never play again.

It's not that black and white is it? Did Brett Stewart commit a crime? I don't know the %'s of charges vs. convictions for the police on indictable offences - but i'd be surprised if it's not lower than 90%
False allegations have the potential to ruin a career, even more so under the new policy, a couple of friends as "witnesses" and you could get a nice payday, or have an important player suspended.
You can still be found not guilty, even if you are guilty of an action. Depends how good your lawyers are at manipulating witness testimonies and the jury.
 

BDPScarface

Kennel Established
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
599
Reaction score
603
People need to understand, there are 3 type of ways a case generally goes:
a) Not guilty - accused was never guilty of a crime in the first place.
b) Not guilty - due to lack of evidence, despite a clear indication of guilt.
c) Guilty - evidence shows the person is guilty.

More on this, is that the NRL Integrity Unit are given more evidence than you, I, or anyone else has access to (except those involved in the case).

In some instance they speak with the witness / victim to ascertain the severity of the situation.

Based on these new rules Musgrove and Hayne will never play again.


You can still be found not guilty, even if you are guilty of an action. Depends how good your lawyers are at manipulating witness testimonies and the jury.
There is only guilty or not guilty. The lack of evidence thing is not a thing. Lack of evidence is what police say when they decide not to prosecute someone who they have charged. If they prosecute and the defendant is judged not guilty, the evidence prosecuters submitted has been judged as not evidence of guilt.
 

dekepefc

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
2,206
Reaction score
3,714
There is only guilty or not guilty. The lack of evidence thing is not a thing. Lack of evidence is what police say when they decide not to prosecute someone who they have charged. If they prosecute and the defendant is judged not guilty, the evidence prosecuters submitted has been judged as not evidence of guilt.
No, I think mr I was pointing out how someone can be found not guilty... theres two reasons... they either didnt do it, or the jury/magistrate found insufficient evidence or accepted a reasonable defence to the charge. In the second case they may have done what they're accused of but were still unable to be found guilty.
 

JayBee

Kennel Legend
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
10,782
Reaction score
4,017
After watching the press conference - my stance has changed a little.

I absolutely despite Greenberg, and don't have much of an opinion on Beattie. Having said that, I think the way they have gone about this is to be commended. It was never going to be easy. They handled themselves well, and provided some logic to what they are bringing forward.

Whilst I still stand by innocent until proven guilty, I am a little more understanding of their approach. However, the one aspect I am absolutely questioning is the "11 year" rule. It would be interesting to see a list of crimes that sit below and above that line...
 

Longtimedog

Kennel Participant
Joined
Mar 12, 2017
Messages
422
Reaction score
458
I see 2 problems with standing DeBelin down;

Innocent until proven guilty is a cornerstone of our law. If the NRL stands him down they are giving any jury a strong indication that he is guilty. It could be considered as influencing the outcome of the trial.

More importantly it sets a dangerous precedent, every player in future that is accused of any criminal offence would have to be stood down. Even if it’s a vexatious claim. For example an opposition team’s supporter claims a gun player assaulted him, the NRL has to stand the player down. Ex partners seeking revenge, blackmalers chasing a quick $ etc. The ElMasri situation is a prime example of what happens when the NRL jumps the gun.

I don’t see a winning strategy here, damned if they do and damned if they don’t.

Go Dogs
Police investigation would have to establish sufficient evidence to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Charges aren’t laid on the whim of a complainant. Many not guilty verdicts are handed down due to failings in the prosecution case. Doesn’t necessarily mean they didn’t do it.
Where there’s smoke there is usually fire.
But I hear what you r saying. Cops always reluctant to pursue public mischief charges even if established to be vexatious.
 

BDPScarface

Kennel Established
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
599
Reaction score
603
No, I think mr I was pointing out how someone can be found not guilty... theres two reasons... they either didnt do it, or the jury/magistrate found insufficient evidence or accepted a reasonable defence to the charge. In the second case they may have done what they're accused of but were still unable to be found guilty.
But that's only a perception thing. The defendants council will say "oh no, there was plenty of evidence proving he was not guilty". The prosecution themselves can't even in good faith say "there was not enough evidence to prove him guilty", because they are admitting to their own incompetence. They should not be prosecuting a case without having weighed they have enough evidence of guilty. And that was my earlier point, as a society, we accept that the prosecution are under pressure to prosecute sexual assault cases because society has accepted that women are more vulnerable, so these cases have a greater *potential* to go to court on flimsy evidence.

Just to be clear, as far as the law is concerned, there is only guilty or not guilty. Of course the OJ trial is the standout where someone was obviously guilty, but the jury judged on the evidence that they could not deliver a guilty verdict. And a civil suit demonstrated that though he was "not guilty", he did kill his wife and her boyfriend as was liable for damages. ie. society agreeing that he was really guilty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verdict

Criminal law
Further information: Criminal law
In a criminal case, the verdict, which may be either "not guilty" or "guilty"—except in Scotland where the verdict of "not proven" is also available—is handed down by the jury. Different counts in the same case may have different verdicts.
 

Scorpio

Kennel Enthusiast
Gilded
Joined
Aug 24, 2010
Messages
1,831
Reaction score
676
Not sure if this has been covered yet or this question answered -

So, De Bellin gets stood down.... he is on say $500,000
Dragons for 2019 have no wiggle room in their cap...
Dragons apply for salary cap concession and is granted by NRL.... concession granted $500,000
Dragons now have $500,000 to buy a player
Dragons buy Kasiano for $500,000
Mid year, De Bellin found not guilty and can resume playing...
Dragons now have De Bellin & Kasiano on their books and are over the cap by $500,000...
What if they sign Kasiano for 2 years, are they gonna be over the cap by his salary for 2 years, lets assume that they had already spent their cap to the entirety in 2020?
Have i missed something....
 

Noeasyday

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
2,668
Reaction score
5,298
The lunatics running the asylum have opened up a real can of worms with this decision.
Hypothetically, if Walker and De Belin are proven not guilty in court, then that surely opens the NRL up to some kind of defamation lawsuit from the players.
The 11 years is a bullshit call when you also give yourself discretionary powers to ban anyone who's alleged crime sentence would be under 11 years.
This decision is the start of the end for Greenburg and Beattie. It's going to be enjoyable watching the slow death they suffer...
 

Scorpio

Kennel Enthusiast
Gilded
Joined
Aug 24, 2010
Messages
1,831
Reaction score
676
The lunatics running the asylum have opened up a real can of worms with this decision.
Hypothetically, if Walker and De Belin are proven not guilty in court, then that surely opens the NRL up to some kind of defamation lawsuit from the players.
The 11 years is a bullshit call when you also give yourself discretionary powers to ban anyone who's alleged crime sentence would be under 11 years.
This decision is the start of the end for Greenburg and Beattie. It's going to be enjoyable watching the slow death they suffer...
The NRL can make the players sign new playing contracts with a paragraph stating that the NRL can not be sued etc if they have been stood down and then found not guilty...
 

Noeasyday

Super Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Gilded
Joined
Jun 18, 2018
Messages
2,668
Reaction score
5,298
The players surely wouldn't sign that.
The NRL won't de-register all players
 

BDPScarface

Kennel Established
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
599
Reaction score
603
What I want to understand is... if JDB is found not guilty, do the NRL reimburse St. George for payments made for no services? Because insurance sure as hell wouldn't cover their costs.
 

sgodllubsti

Kennel Addict
Joined
Dec 18, 2008
Messages
5,383
Reaction score
1,556
greenberg has reacted heavy handed with jdb all because of the recent ben barba case, it has exposed greenbergs poor handling of his alleged misbehavior when at the bulldogs, now greenberg is trying to cover his own arse by bashing everyone else
greenberg has compromised the nrl integrity department and the nrl itself by giving a personal reference for greg inglis recent drink driving charges, while handing out suspensions and fines to other players

my opinion any player charged by police should be stood down for a cooling off period 7 days to 28 days giving police, players, nrl integrity unit time to get all the facts and statements required to make a decision based on what has been presented by all involved
 

dekepefc

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Jun 18, 2008
Messages
2,206
Reaction score
3,714
But that's only a perception thing. The defendants council will say "oh no, there was plenty of evidence proving he was not guilty". The prosecution themselves can't even in good faith say "there was not enough evidence to prove him guilty", because they are admitting to their own incompetence. They should not be prosecuting a case without having weighed they have enough evidence of guilty. And that was my earlier point, as a society, we accept that the prosecution are under pressure to prosecute sexual assault cases because society has accepted that women are more vulnerable, so these cases have a greater *potential* to go to court on flimsy evidence.

Just to be clear, as far as the law is concerned, there is only guilty or not guilty. Of course the OJ trial is the standout where someone was obviously guilty, but the jury judged on the evidence that they could not deliver a guilty verdict. And a civil suit demonstrated that though he was "not guilty", he did kill his wife and her boyfriend as was liable for damages. ie. society agreeing that he was really guilty.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verdict
No because defence dont rely on evidence. They defend against it. It is the job of prosecutors to introduce sufficient evidence for a conviction. Likewise police charge when they have a prima facie criminal case and then the courts do their thing. That's nonsense about the "flimsy" evidence.. in most sex offences (between adults) the key element at trial is always consent. And consent is almost always one persons word against another's.. unless they are bashed and raped you can almost guarantee that defences arguement will be the other person wanted it, because then evidence such as DNA become almost irrelevant.
 

GrogDog

bad attitude
Joined
Jun 28, 2009
Messages
9,398
Reaction score
10,139
Not sure if this has been covered yet or this question answered -

So, De Bellin gets stood down.... he is on say $500,000
Dragons for 2019 have no wiggle room in their cap...
Dragons apply for salary cap concession and is granted by NRL.... concession granted $500,000
Dragons now have $500,000 to buy a player
Dragons buy Kasiano for $500,000
Mid year, De Bellin found not guilty and can resume playing...
Dragons now have De Bellin & Kasiano on their books and are over the cap by $500,000...
What if they sign Kasiano for 2 years, are they gonna be over the cap by his salary for 2 years, lets assume that they had already spent their cap to the entirety in 2020?
Have i missed something....
Nope sounds about right except Greenturd is making shite up as he goes and will cross that bridge when we/if we get there. Poor leadership, these blokes are muppets and need removing ASAP!
 

BDPScarface

Kennel Established
Joined
Aug 31, 2008
Messages
599
Reaction score
603
No because defence dont rely on evidence. They defend against it. It is the job of prosecutors to introduce sufficient evidence for a conviction. Likewise police charge when they have a prima facie criminal case and then the courts do their thing. That's nonsense about the "flimsy" evidence.. in most sex offences (between adults) the key element at trial is always consent. And consent is almost always one persons word against another's.. unless they are bashed and raped you can almost guarantee that defences arguement will be the other person wanted it, because then evidence such as DNA become almost irrelevant.
Hang on? Are you saying defence councils don't submit evidence that could exonerate their client?

Um... ok, maybe I've taken liberties saying flimsy... but your sentence directly after you quote it, you talk about the key element being consent, and consent always being one persons word against the other.

And that's my point. In other cases, if someone, say makes a complaint of criminal damage to the police... they are not going to prosecute that person based only on the word of the complainant. They will need some tangible evidence that the accused has a case to answer.

But in the case of sexual assault, and I'm not even saying this is wrong, they must take the woman's word and prosecute. Rightly or wrongly, prosecute only on the word of a complainant is... if flimsy is not a fair word, is less rigorously considered than other prosecutions.

https://aic.gov.au/publications/tandi/tandi288

As you wrote about the one persons word against the other:

Sexual assault cases involving adult victims often come down to the word of the victim against that of the defendant, with little or no corroborating evidence. As the probability of conviction relies on the victim's ability to articulate the events and convince a jury beyond reasonable doubt that a crime occurred, her credibility is integral to prosecutorial decisions.
Listen, I don't like the Dragons, and stuff 'em. But I know from how our club has been treated over and over and ... sweet Caroline!, that the media beat up on the clubs, the fans, the players, ... and form the narrative. Especially our club. Let him have his day in court FFS. If he is guilty, screw him completely. He does come off as a shit on the field. But this is too serious a charge to prejudice his character off it.
 
Top