Brett Stewart celebrates after he scoring his 73rd try for Manly – AAP Image/Action Photographics, Grant Trouville
As a life long Parramatta Eels supporter, it takes a significant amount of off-season reflection, goodwill and pathos for me to feel much sympathy for anyone wearing Manly colours.
But the start of Brett Stewart’s alleged sexual assault trial has got me thinking about the way our sports administrators and media tend to act as Judge Judy and Executioner (with thanks to H. Simpson) whilst a legal case remains very much alleged and a player very much innocent until proven guilty.
Of particular interest is the length of time associated with the start of the Stewart case and what authorities are to do in the interim.
It was roughly 12 months ago that the alleged incident was said to have occurred, and whilst evidence gathered by the media against Stewart seemed highly damning, the fact remains that the player had not yet been convicted by a court of law.
Nevertheless, the Manly club came under significant pressure to suspend the player based on alleged activity and when no action was forthcoming (likely given the importance of Stewart to Manly’s chances of winning football games), the NRL took matters into its own hands and imposed its own suspension, albeit under the guise of bringing the sport into disrepute.
It is fairly standard for it to take months or even years between an accusation and a possible conviction.
So what is the right and fair thing for the NRL to do, given the obvious urge to take an immediate position on an undoubtedly damaging situation for their sporting code?
Should the need to win hearts and minds by responding strongly to moral outrage on talkback radio contravene due process in a free society and the right of any of us to continue to work and earn an income whilst still innocent until proven otherwise?
There is no doubt that the NRL needed to react strongly to news that the key personality of the sport’s multi-million dollar marketing campaign was being significantly called to account.
As an aside, I’ve often thought that the NRL would be very wise to consider basing their advertising campaigns around older, wiser and more experienced players, who have spent years in the spotlight and have taken success and fame in their stride without committing public misdemeanors.
Anointing the likes of Stewart and another alleged offender Greg Inglis before these players have reached a level of maturity and comfort with their newfound success that would protect them from themselves is flirting with danger.
But back to the NRL’s response to the Stewart incident, in my view, the NRL acted appropriately in finding that Stewart brought the game into disrepute because crime or no crime, he got himself into a bad situation due to drinking way too much alcohol at too late an hour in a very public place.
Mutterings by some in the media for Stewart to be re-suspended whilst the trial is underway seem completely ridiculous however. Stewart did his time for bringing the game into disrepute and he has not yet been charged with anything else.
If he is found guilty of any other crime, then let the courts, and subsequently the NRL enforce further penalties.
Stewart’s case is clearly not an isolated incident and current news around the codes point to some interesting times for this legal vs moral quandary that sporting administrators seem to be juggling.
The AFL, at this very moment, are faced with a similar challenge given St Kilda’s indefinite suspension of Andrew Lovett whilst that player’s legal trial awaits.
Lovett has taken his case to the ever-strengthening AFL Players Association, and I anticipate a real test case for future situations such as the one the NRL has faced with Stewart as well as other alleged rugby league sporting criminals like Greg Bird, Greg Inglis and a series of others who might be far less appealing to the editors of back pages, but are no less worthy of protection by the laws of our land.
Bradley A Smith
Roar Rookie
I agree with you 100%. I tried very hard in my article to take a more emotion-less position of judicial impartiality, but in reality scenes like the one at Brookvale on that first game back for Stewart did him no favours in winning the hearts and minds of the public. Its just common sense and common decency that the player himself take a very low profile both on and off the field if and when he does actually return to action. To think that there were fans actually holding up signs that discredited the alleged victim as a way of showing support for the player?!
Junior
Guest
good article. you rightly point out that there is a dilemma as to what to do when a player is accused of a serious crime. there is however no excuse for brett stewart doing a lap of honour in front of the brookie faithful on the day he returned to the game. that in itself shows a total lack of respect for the legal procedure. why not score the tries, accept the plaudits from team mates and acknowledge the crowd with a bit of humility? that would have been far more tasteful than the disgraceful exhibition that we witnessed.
Greg
Guest
I thinkthat until the player is found guilty under a court of law that no suspension should occur. But if that player is found guilty of in the Stewarts case an offence such as rape that he should no longer be able to play NRL. I think indeed that this should stand for all player that have face a criminal conviction. I was watching the Sunday Roast last year and the general consensus of the panel is that these bloke should not be taken as role models. Which is a fair point, players like Wicks, Friend, Carney, Stewart, Shillington, Gallen, Mason, Proctor, Waqa, Sa, Myles, Fitler probably are not the best role models. But 2 months later they are interviewing El Masri who is a great player and a great person off the field and saying what a great role model he has been which Im happy to say is true. Which is it? and how do we know who are the good guys and who are the baddies. They are young men, fit , agressive and usually have very large egos, its a hard line to walk. But if the NRL are serious dump the players that mess up and give those who do behave who are a credit to the game a run. It might lower the quality a little but in the long term it is good for the game. It obviously isnt impossible to be a players and to live a reasonable life with out getting drunk, fighting, arrested player have done it before.
Mr Real Australian it's called Football Man formerly known as Kurt
Guest
This is an interesting topic. Generally it does seem fairer to await the outcome of criminal proceedings before sanctioning a player BUT one of the unforeseen consequences of this is that players accused of more serious crimes are ironically less likely to to be punished than those who commit minor indiscretions. Take for example a player who goes out, gets completely drunk and involved in a minor shoving match, all of which is caught on camera. Chances are this player will end up on the sidelines for a few weeks. Then imagine the same player is accused of sexual assault later that evening. Quite rightly the criminal proceedings must assume innocence until otherwise proven, but when it comes to organisations trying to protect their images (AFL, NRL and the clubs), I'm not sure the same rules should apply. I would think that the civil standard of 'balance of probabilities' (I think that's the right wording) would be appropriate - i.e. - we're not completely sure you've broken the law, but it's clear you've been a complete idiot and embarrassed yourself, your club and your sport. So take a seat and we'll see you in 8 weeks.
Mick from Giralang
Guest
Bradley. Thoughtful article. It would be difficult for clubs to impose a suspension or other penalty on a player once the case has started in court without appearing to prejudice the proceedings. At this time, it is only a committal hearing (not before a jury) so the chances of prejudice are very much reduced --- nevertheless justice has not only to be done, it has to be seen to be done. Manly were correct to suspend him for drunken antics that brought the game into disrepute but they were careful to say the punishment was not for any perceived criminal actions on his part. That was for the courts to decide. From a legal and fairness point of view, it is nearly always the correct path to allow charges to be resolved in court before any other action is pursued by football clubs. As we've seen in the Greg Inglis case, the initial press reports to do not always tell the full story.