Garnsey hits out at Tandy sacking

Status
Not open for further replies.

S4Sonny

Ooh Ahh Cantona
Joined
Jul 23, 2009
Messages
12,874
Reaction score
162
Rugby League Players Association chief David Garnsey slammed Canterbury's decision to sack Ryan Tandy and called on NRL clubs to respect a player's right to remain silent when quizzed about a matter that's before a criminal court.

Tandy, who faces four charges of providing false or misleading evidence to the NSW Crime Commission, was axed by the Bulldogs last week after refusing to answer questions about the charges.

The 29-year-old prop's charges followed investigations into suspicious betting activity on last year's round 24 encounter between North Queensland and the Bulldogs.

"The NRL rules should be amended to prevent players' careers from being adversely affected before they have had a chance to defend themselves," Garnsey said in a statement on Tuesday.

"It is not an offence, as I understand it, for a person to refuse to answer questions, including questions that may tend to incriminate them, asked by persons other than investigating authorities.

"On the other hand, the privilege against self-incrimination is a long-standing cornerstone of the criminal law."

Garnsey noted that Canterbury acted on legal advice in sacking Tandy and stressed he was not seeking to enter into a debate about whether the dismissal was lawful.

"Mr Tandy has legal representation and no doubt the question of legality will be pursued by his lawyers as they see fit," he said.

"My belief ... is that the proper place to hear evidence and determine guilt or innocence is the trial of the accused, with all the safeguards that that process guarantees.

"To force an accused player to participate in a pre-trial interview or hearing, while criminal charges are pending, for the purpose of determining the facts, is effectively to usurp the trial.

"I have repeatedly said in recent weeks in relation to other matters that the presumption of innocence is paramount and the NRL itself has acted in accordance with that presumption.

"For a club to rely on a player's silencebefore he has had his day in court as grounds for dismissal, on the other hand, seems to me to be proceeding on the basis of a presumption of guilt."



http://www.nrl.com/garnsey-hits-out-at-tandy-sacking/tabid/10874/newsid/61878/default.aspx
 

Dex

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Mar 10, 2005
Messages
1,237
Reaction score
11
F@rk David Garnsey looks like Kevin Rudd

 

ThePedigree

Blue Ribbon
Joined
Mar 7, 2006
Messages
3,204
Reaction score
596
Sorry I thought Tandy was asked about a separate matter to the Cowboys game.
 

bLaQDoG..

Kennel Legend
Gilded
Joined
Sep 10, 2006
Messages
8,565
Reaction score
77
Yes. He was; and refused to answer the questions.
Well this Rudd-looking *** should get his facts right shouldn't he?

Tandy wasn't sacked due to the Cowboys betting scandal. Greenburg has stressed this already.

This clown should STFU and get his facts right. Making assumptions when he doesn't even know half the reason why Tandy was sacked!
 

Bry

Kennel Legend
Joined
May 8, 2005
Messages
8,259
Reaction score
29
"The NRL rules should be amended to prevent players' careers from being adversely affected before they have had a chance to defend themselves,"
so clubs should potentially lose sponsors and get raped by the media while they have a scumbag player bringing the reputation of everyone involved in the club down, because the poor player hasn't been to court yet? **** off! I am not just talking about Tandy's case here btw.
 

VAI

Kennel Addict
Joined
Feb 18, 2008
Messages
7,059
Reaction score
16
so clubs should potentially lose sponsors and get raped by the media while they have a scumbag player bringing the reputation of everyone involved in the club down, because the poor player hasn't been to court yet? **** off! I am not just talking about Tandy's case here btw.
and continue to pay them according to their contract too (because tandy is on small change afterall), even though they will eventually get sacked and significantly impact on the clubs ability to do its recruiting and retention of players during this time.

by all means, i agree with this guy in the article, the club should be further disadvantaged by some idiot who got himself caught up in a serious legal matter, all for the purpose of his interpretation of law

:p
 

bulldog butch

Kennel Established
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
603
Reaction score
1,067
maybe this dimwitt should put his money where his mouth is and pay tandys weekly income out of his own pocket, until he gets proven innocent, signed by another club, and then tandy can pay him back.......... YEAH RIGHT....... ****in **** head garnsey... **** off with ya bulldog bashing comments
 

Captain Kickass

Dirtbag Lifecoach
Moderator
Joined
Feb 16, 2008
Messages
11,057
Reaction score
292
What's a Garnesy anyway ???

Sounds like vegetable ...

What's for dinner Mum ?
Mashed Garnsey dear.
FFFFUUUUUUU ....... !!!
 

bulldog butch

Kennel Established
Joined
Mar 22, 2010
Messages
603
Reaction score
1,067
this garnsey fella, have a look at him... i bet ya hes never even played a game of league in his life...
 

MP4 - Eedz

C.O.T.B
Joined
Sep 11, 2005
Messages
12,848
Reaction score
43
What an outrageous claim by these people honestly

The man has lied to the NSW Crime Commission, he has brought the game into disrupte and faces JAIL time ... Bulldogs didn't even need to hold that meeting to be within there rights to dismiss him.

Furthermore, had Ryan Tandy been Reni Maitua or Willie Mason no one would say a word.

You get fired from the workplace for ALOT less
 

K E

The Bart, The
Premium Member
Gilded
Joined
Mar 5, 2005
Messages
40,982
Reaction score
1,181
Garnsey noted that Canterbury acted on legal advice in sacking Tandy and stressed he was not seeking to enter into a debate about whether the dismissal was lawful.
So what's the problem?! Bulldogs did everything legally and people still want to have a whinge? Right here, mate.
 

suiker

Top bird
Joined
Jul 27, 2010
Messages
2,211
Reaction score
45
I can see this guy's point, but for this particular case the criminal matter the Dogs asked him about was directly related to a black and white clause in his contract with the club. Players are not allowed to bet on games and they asked him if he bet on the Titans game. It's not as if he's on an assault charge that has little to do with his contract with the club.

I can also understand why Tandy didn't answer the question but hey, tough **** in this case.
 

Keefy

The Family Club
Joined
Mar 5, 2004
Messages
7,234
Reaction score
7
David Garnsey is the Chief Executive Officer of the Rugby League Players Association (RLPA), having assumed that position
in July 2009.

Prior to joining the RLPA, he practised as a Corporate Litigator and Sports Lawyer at leading Asia-Pacific law firm, Minter Ellison,
for over 21 years. While at Minter Ellison, he represented a number of clients from the world of sport and was one of the key advisors to the NRL in relation to the proceedings commenced in the Federal Court of Australia by the South Sydney Rugby League Club after that Club had not been selected to participate in the NRL Competition in 2000, a case which was ultimately determined by the High Court.

David played Rugby Union for the Sydney University Football Club from 1981-1988 and captained the Club in 1987 against
a touring team from Long Beach University. After retiring, he managed the Club’s Reserve Grade team for two seasons.
David also represented the University as a cricketer between 1981 and 2003.

David holds both a Bachelor of Arts (Hons) degree and a Bachelor of Laws degree from Sydney University, is a Fellow of the Australian Property Institute and has been a member of the Australian and New Zealand Sports Law Association since 1992.
He is married with two children, a Broncos-obsessed son and a Rabbitohs-loving daughter.
 

gazza

Kennel Enthusiast
Joined
Feb 12, 2008
Messages
1,654
Reaction score
826
As John Ducker used to say we might have to have a close look at this fellows situation.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top