By Justin Rodski
February 9th 2010 @ 5:34am
Related coverage
Lovett’s time at St Kilda is over before it began
St Kilda’s relationship with Andrew Lovett is surely now untenable. The club quickly distanced itself from the fallen star suspending him indefinitely while police investigate an alleged sexual assault on Christmas Eve last year. But what if Police never end up laying any charges?
What happens if it takes a year to complete the investigation? Where does that leave Lovett?
The writing is on the wall and either way St Kilda it seems has already made up its mind, they don’t want him.
Legal representatives and Lovett’s management met with the club at a meeting under the AFL Collective Bargaining Agreement’s (CBA) grievance procedure.
St Kilda coach Ross Lyon was at the grievance tribunal but says he is still unsure how long the process will take. Citing the important legal issues he then refused to make any further comment when probed by the media. Fair enough. But you have to admit it sounds like Lyon has already taken Lovett’s name off the whiteboard.
He wasn’t even included in the official St Kilda team photo in Melbourne’s Herald-sun newspaper recently, what kind of statement is that?
The 26 year old is in grave danger of becoming completely ostracised from the playing group, if he isn’t already! The word from the inner sanctum is Lovett has made several attempts to contact senior players but had little response.
Now, I understand having a teammate under a criminal investigation is serious and this is a really tough decision for any club to make, but the longer the Saints leave it, the longer the odds are Lovett will play in the red white and black.
The AFL Players Association believe the suspension to be manifestly excessive, particularly in that Lovett is unable to apply his trade whilst he is yet to be charged.
Even if he is, what happened to being innocent until proven guilty in a court of law?
What happens if he is charged, St Kilda sack him, but then he is found not guilty? It seems the court of public opinion at St Kilda has already reached its verdict. Lovett is more trouble than he’s worth and its time to cut their losses and cut him loose.
If axed, the Saints stand to lose pick 16 for nothing and possibly a lot of money as well, with Lovett signing a three year contract. But they did pick him up in trade week knowing full well he was twice suspended in 2008 for off field indiscretions at his former club Essendon.
Just six weeks after joining the Saints, he was then arrested for being drunk in a public place. After that incident, Lyon said it wasn’t “the end of the world”, although the club would not be “babysitting” its players. Again fair enough, these guys are grown men and need to take responsibility for their actions.
Adding to the frustration is the timing. St Kilda is on the march towards a first flag in 45 years, winning the minor premiership last year and narrowly losing the grand final to Geelong, never has the club been in a better position for the ultimate success.
The Saints NAB Cup campaign kicks off next week against Collingwood, this should be when the speedy recruit is learning the game plan, not waiting to learn if he’ll ever play again.
Get Australia's best AFL opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(13)
Lovett not wanted by Players said | February 9th 2010 @ 9:40am | Report comment
Justin,
just to clarify – surely you know (as a sports reporter) why Lovett will never play for the Saints? The players don’t want him – and with good reason. What he did will never be forgiven by the playing group, so of course he has no future at Seaford.
Surely you know the details of the circumstances?
Also – it is 44 years not 45 years. 1966-2010.
Interestingly the New Orleans Saints were born in November 1966 – a good year for Saints it would seem, is this year to be a repeat? Say hi to Joel for me when you see him.
J
Art Sapphire said | February 9th 2010 @ 11:35am | Report comment
Mr LNPWB – What are the “details of the circumstances”?? Why don’t the players want Lovett. How is this different from the Montagne, Milne episode where, unlike Lovett, both the players were protected by the Saints when police investgated them for similar offences a few years back.
Michael C said | February 9th 2010 @ 11:44am | Report comment
One would probably have to know the truth rather than the conjecture to establish the absolute differences.
If player group reaction tells us anything, then, there IS a difference.
Is that difference simply changing attitudes with the passing of time? (if so, that would illustrate that all the respect/responsibility education is having an impact!!!).
Gibbo said | February 9th 2010 @ 11:16am | Report comment
very hard to feel sympathy for the man.
in my book sexual assault is just so much worse than the mathew stokes situation.
Al said | February 9th 2010 @ 1:00pm | Report comment
Has Lovett been charged? Why have they tolerated Milne and Montagna for so long? The only difference is that Milne and Montagna sexually assaulted a few random, loose woman whilst Lovett apparentley did something to one of his teamates’ not so random, loose girlfriend.
Michael C said | February 9th 2010 @ 1:28pm | Report comment
Lovett has not been charged as yet.
re Montagna and Milne – - perhaps that’s it, perhaps there was some false accusation, it’s often a grey area – - with Lovett, it seems pretty black and white and the players ‘on site’ can vouch that it the ‘accusation’ is not from any potential ‘gold mining’ perspective.
Al said | February 9th 2010 @ 2:29pm | Report comment
Many St Kilda players didn’t want him at the club prior to all of this happening and he has had a public, on field confrontationwith Riewoldt in the past.I would suggest that nothing really happened and this was merely a charade orchestrated by Riewoldt to get rid of him.
Montagna and Milne are one of the boys so it’s alright, Lovett and Riewoldt have history and Riewoldt wanted him gone.
Al said | February 9th 2010 @ 2:32pm | Report comment
Plus, if the case against Lovett is so conclusive and there is ample evidence that can be gathered by those “on site”, why has it taken so long for the police to charge him?
Dandy said | February 9th 2010 @ 11:28am | Report comment
Agree, sexual assault is far worst.
The problem is, he has not even been charged, and Stokes has and admitted guilt.
Not trying to defend Lovett, but how can you suspend purely on accusation?
Justin Rodski said | February 9th 2010 @ 11:53am | Report comment
Firstly, there are only two people that know the details of the circumstances and I’m not one of them.
Lovett is yet to be charged and is under investigation, sexual assault if proven is unforgivable…BUT at this stage they are allegations. If true he deserves to be given the boot and dealt with through the courts, there is no question about that in my mind.
There was an alleged incident with Stephen Milne and Leigh Montagna involving a sexual assault in 2004. In the end there was insufficient evidence to prove rape allegations and neither faced charges. They are both still playing at St Kilda. What I’m saying is if Lovett’s charges are dropped, I think St Kilda will still sack him.
I am a sports reporter and agree with you Lovett wont play again… publicily St Kilda is stalling, while internally he’s clearly not wanted.
Tom said | February 9th 2010 @ 12:00pm | Report comment
Probably the result of some politics within the club. Perhaps there was a faction on the board set against signing him in the first place that has been strengthened by these charges.
Redb said | February 9th 2010 @ 1:08pm | Report comment
Lovett’s problem is his past history. only weeks after signing with St Kilda he was arrested for being drunk in a public place. Lovett had considerable baggage at Essendon, we failed to turn him around but St Kilda knew what they were getting.
Giving up Lovett was a tough decision, one of the most attacking players and runners through the guts. Unfortunately he is a bad egg.
As this happened in the off season it is also a much easier decision to suspend the player for a longer period of time. Look at Inglis of melb storm he missed about 2 games despite the court case being ongoing.
The first reaction by a club is suspension due to shock then adjustment as the news and impact fades away.
Redb
Richard said | February 11th 2010 @ 4:46pm | Report comment
Pity that Ross Lyons’ pig headedness has cost the Saints so much. The bungling of Luke Ball’s contract and subsequent departure; the selection of a costly dead head new recruit. For St. Kilda, the momentum carried forward from last year is beginning to look like wheels spinning in the mud. And the Premiership clock keeps on ticking past midnight. What a shame.