Why Brett Stewart is the real victim in the NRL war

Not that I'm casting aspersions on any party, but one of the underlying bedrocks of our society is Blackstone's formulation which states: "better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"

Spot on mike. Everytime I here his name, I think of what happened to him and how poorly he was treated by NRL and that that joker Gallop. What Manly did to support him then and again now has actually made me admire the club ( not easy for an ex Western Suburbs supporter). And even if some of the public do forget, there wont be a day goes by that he doesn't re-live that nightmare. Holding some of those responsible to account for their actions only seems fair to me.

"Gallop did not wait for for the courts to deal with the matter either, he was in first." Disappointingly, that is not unique to Gallop. Too many sporting administrators rush headlong in before waiting to see how the courts deal with particular issues. Brisbane's rection after Fevola was charged with exposing himself last year is another example of this.

Roger, if you're suggesting the NRL wanting to protect the image of the game is a bigger conflict of interest than a club disciplining its own players, then I would suggest you need to stop smoking the funny stuff. Clubs suspend their players all the time? Firstly, I don’t think that statement is true at all. And secondly, I can assure you that in most cases the only reason clubs ever suspend a player is when they know that if they don't, the NRL will. As it should, as the governing body. Clubs and coaches are judged on winning, and will therefore do all they can not to suspend a player. It's why you need a governing body - to govern. The issue is that there is no consistency in their decisions for off-field incidents. Mainly because they don't have a system in place to grade them. If they did, there would be complete transparency and every player would know the punishment they're going to receive if they step out of line (or are proven guilty). There would be no whinging from players, coaches, bosses, fans, etc, about unfair or inconsistent rulings/suspensions, because everything would be clearer. Do the crime, do the time. Do you want clubs to be responsible for suspensions due to on-field incidents too? Shall we just let the clubs run the game? That will work great.

Two points - there was a secondary investigation as to whether the Manly Wharf Hotel breached their RSA requirements by serving a drunk patron in Stewart - there was no evidence on CCTV footage that this was the case. It wasn't related to the court case at all, and no one at Manly ever claimed it was, but there was still an investigation of sorts. Secondly - whilst what you say is technically correct in that he was found 'not guilty' and not 'innocent', the principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' still applies. Hence, as it could not be established that he was guilty of an offence, he must be considered innocent. That principle extends beyond the trial itself.

When you step into 1.5 tonnes or so of fast moving metal, you become potentially dangerous to a lot of people. Brett Stewart was unlikely to harm anyone but himself, if indeed he was particularly drunk that night. From what I understand, the function ended at 6pm and the manager wanted to clear everyone out of the bar anyway. Hence, Manly are more than justified in being miffed at the glaring inconsistency here. If Gallop truly was suspending players for being asked to leave a bar, within a few weeks the Wagga Kangaroo Panthers under 13's would be lining up in the NRL. When you take the fact that at the time Stewart had an unblemished record makes the decision all the more galling. Carney needs help and I do hope he gets it; but that does not mean he should not face the consequences and necessary punishment for his actions.

Nice way to condone drink driving there Josh. You should use that argument with the parents of children killed by drink drivers.

The point is consistency, not policy on the run. Gallop's shambolic handling of the Stewart incident essentially prevented Manly from getting thier season off the ground in 2009, the year of their title defence. We have now seen another incident with Carney where he has been charged with drink driving, which if proven, is a far more serious offence than the worst of what was ever proven with Stewart, namely simply being refused entry to a licenced premises. Again, I would simply ask the shambolic Mr. Gallop why was Stewart suspended and Carney not?

Glad somebody knows the law. Was O J Simpson found innocent? No. Innocence is never proven in the British Legal System, it is presumed.

'prescriptive' Of course there's a conflict of interest when a club is asked to discipline players, but perhaps it's best option in an imperfect world. The NRL also has a conflict of interest in these sorts of matters - it wants to be seen to take action to protect its brand, with seemingly nothing more than passing regard to what is fair and proportionate. And it's ridiculous to suggest no one would ever get punished. Clubs fine and suspend players all the time for things that are of no concern to the NRL (eg. being late to training, breaking curfew when travelling, etc). Why would it be any different for other matters the club viewed as serious? There is a natural incentive for clubs to take fair and appropriate action against players for serious breaches its standards of conduct. Obviously there would be times when the club might find it convenient to take no action, but a club that continually turned a blind eye to errant players would do so at the expense of a positive and disciplined club culture. It's a variation of the same dilema every business faces when dealing with personnel issues. At the end of a day, a club will live and die by its decisions. I'm not saying the NRL doesn't have a role in setting expectations of conduct, but that involvement should be at a high level. And giving something the name "Independent Commission" doesn't make its actions anymore independent of the clubs than an action of the current NRL is independent of the clubs. The IC will not be a silver bullet for this sort of thing.

Stewart was not "proved innocent" at all, and it wasn't in the Supreme Court. He faced trial on charges of sexual assault without consent in the District Court. He pleaded not guilty and was presumed innocent at all times throughout the trial. What did the verdict of not guilty mean? Only one thing: that the jury could not be satisfied to the criminal standard, i.e. beyond reasonable doubt, that he had committed the offence charged. This is called an acquittal, and simply means that the prosecution did not prove its' case to the very high standard the law requires. A jury verdict does deliver any finding on whether a person is innocent of the charge. That's why the verdict is called 'not guilty' and not 'innocent'. A jury could even have thought it was more likely than not he did commit the offence, but in that case, would still have been required to enter a not guilty verdict if it was not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. Brett Stewart has not been found innocent by the jury, and certainly there can be no assumption at all the jury concluded he was not drunk. Manly are talking out of their rear ends on this point. The jury were not asked for a verdict on whether he was drunk. They may have thought he was blind drunk on the night, but still acquitted him on the only charge they were asked to rule on, being sexual intercourse without consent.

Another good point Tiger, imagine a sport anywhere that tells the clubs, hey you punish the players if they muck up. :) The whole system needs a overhaul under the Commission, its a complete joke. Gallop nearly always has to step in anyhow, unless they look as if they are doing the right thing, but like you said, they would rather cover it up if they could, we never heard squat about the Watt's incident from the Roosters, until the shite hit the fan. ? See what i mean. Under the Commission rules, any club not coming forward to the Commish, will be fined and shamed, simple really. Watch them scatter. :)

Good point, i also mentioned this the other day. Because the game can come under huge pressure and be dragged down by player behavior, i think the game needs a book of code. Up-dated if they already have one. The under 20's has already started the ball rolling. Maybe we need a hand-book for the players. These guys are not normal employee's, what they do reflexs on T/V deals, Sponsers, and the way the public veiw our sport. This is why they get paid more than most, and why they are under more pressure. If you dont like it, hey, try 9-5. As for Manly and Stewart, i dont beleive them for a minute, this club has struggled to pick up sponsers after this incident, which tells you something of what happened. They had also won a premiership had they not. ? Should have had sponsers falling all over them, until word got out about the mayham Stewart and Watmough caused that day. Not Gallop's fault, he has to protect the game, Manly should be blaming themselves for letting the drunks off the leash. A club run well would not have brought this up again, that is why i dont rate Manly, plus the fact they come out publicly and stated, we want people to hate us. ? Something or someone's judgement at this club is not right. The Dragons already have a new stadium going up,and sponsers are crawling over each other to be part of this well-oiled machine, what has Manly done.

The opinion of the bar staff is the only one that counts because they and the owner of the premises are liable for fines if found to have breached responsible service of alcohol laws.

Realise that charge in both the Stewart and Marshall cases can't be ruled upon until after the court case Stewart - Intoxicated at the clubs season launch - so much so that he was asked to leave at 6pm - He was fined for as the face of the game being so hammered 3 days later that he was asked to leave Marshall - Hosted a Childrens Charity event - not a official NRL or club event and then after a couple of beers went to McDOnalds Carney - His situation is different he isn't accused of being drunk anywhere officially - he is accused of being over the limit to drive when pulled over being 0.052 which according to stats is the equivalent of 3 beers although prob even 2 being a little bloke in the last hour - he wasn't behaving badly or even claimed to have been behaving badly outside of this - However he does have a history and a record and this was taken into account in fining him $10k - only after he has agreed to a plan and to deal with the disease he is facing - Alocholism is a medical condition and he is seeking treatement Houston - Escaped any punishment at all - he was let off for dealing drugs but nothing has been done about him openly taking drugs - If any case should be more harshly treated it is this one

I'm not sure what 'preseciptive' means, but I know one thing for certain: the clubs only have one focus, and that's the club winning. You can't rely on the club to hand out the punishment, or no one would ever get punished! You think my system is inappropriate, but a system where the club disciplines its own player IS appropriate? I think they have a slight conflict of interest! If it's the NRL's job to run the game, then they should definitely have jurisdiction to suspend a player. Yes, the current NRL hierarchy botched the Stewart decision, but I actually was referring to the new independent commission. The key word there being 'indepedent', as opposed to your system of leaving it up to the clubs.

They could have, that's true, but then it would have got out of hand and the carry on would have been ridiculous. Anyway, the fact is the NRL didn't bring Stewart's name into the mix. They answered a question and there the matter could have been left. Instead, Manly further fanned the flames and here we are talking about it still.

I disagree. Q. Brett Stewart, Todd Carney, Benji Marshall, what do they have in common? A. David Gallop. Gallop is the real story. Brett and Todd, same issue, different treatment. They were both pinged for "drinking." Q. Is there a rule in the NRL code of conduct against drinking? A. No there is not. Yet both got Gallop jumping all over them for drinking. Gallop did not wait for for the courts to deal with the matter either, he was in first. Benji got done for fighting. So what about the court case, Benji admitted he did hit the bloke. Q. Is there a rule in the NRL code of conduct against fighting? A. Yes there is. And Gallop lets his good buddy benji go scott free. Gallop said the courts are dealing with the matter, that's enough. Des is right, Gallop (no it's not 'the NRL,' it's Gallop) is not given fair equal treatment and making it all up as he goes.

Since there's nothing to pursue, it was 2 years ago after all, I think their best course of action definitely would have been a dignified silence.

I think this kind of system is inappropriate and far too preseciptive. The criminal code of each state imposes penalties and sentences for crimal conduct, and the court system provides for investigation and prosecution of criminal conduct in a certain manner and to a certain standard. Why is it the place of the NRL to add to this, or impose greater burden on players than other members of the public? If the clubs decide to apply a separate code of conduct to its staff and players, then fine - lots of workplaces do. It should be up to the clubs to discipline players. After all the clubs employ the players and they have to live with any decisions they make in regard to player discipline, right or wrong. The NRL can revoke a player's registration in certain circumstances, which is fine, but it should not fiddle around in every matter of alleged player indiscretion. In the Brett Stewart case in particular, the NRL has proven itself incapable of exercising fair and sensible judgement against the weight of hysterical reporting by media.