In response to the media frenzy that was ASADA’s allegations concerning drugs in Australian sport, on 7 February 2013 the the NRL announced that it was establishing an Integrity Unit.
On 16 May 2013 the NRL appointed the head of that Unit, Mr Weeks, whom the NRL describe as a “highly respected lawyer and sports administrator” on their website.
Overseeing the Unit is James Doyle, the Chief Operating Officer of the NRL.
Now that we have the corporate tree outlined. I have three concerns:
1. Procedural fairness/prejudice
2. What rules apply?
3. What does this mean to clubs?
James Tamou
CEO David Smith told the media outlets after the James Tamou affair “Our integrity unit has reviewed the situation, we have consulted with the Cowboys and we have sent a clear message of what is expected of our players.”
The Brisbane times reported Doyle as describing the drink driving incident as “unacceptable” and also quoted him as saying “We needed to make sure that the penalty was in line with the seriousness of the event… He was four times over the limit – that’s very serious.”
All this before his court date on 2 July 2013. Before a plea has been entered.
Before a court has the opportunity to make its decision which is, frankly, far more important than NRL Integrity Unit’s.
Issue 1: Trial by media before a real trial
I am not suggesting that James Tamou escape punishment. I am suggesting that it wait until after the court date instead of publishing comments in the newspaper as to the gravity of the offence prior to a plea being entered by Tamou himself.
It is both unfair to Tamou and the arbiter in any given court. Procedural fairness and potential prejudice are real issues.
Blake Ferguson
June 2013: Blake Ferguson is charged. He is ruled out of State of Origin, Game 2 and we await further penalties, no doubt, from the new Integrity Unit.
The same issues from above apply and even moreso as we wait to see if Ferguson will contest the charges in court.
We know Ferguson is missing Origin 2, but what are the criteria that will decide the rest of his punishment? That leads to my next question…
Issue 2: What policy/rules are the Integrity Unit enforcing?
None are published on the NRL website save and except for the National Code of Conduct which apparently applies to all registered players of rugby league. Page seven seems to be on point for this latest NRL incident:
“Clubs are responsible for the conduct of their players, parents/carers of players, coaches, officials and club supporters.
Breaches of the rugby league Code of Conduct may result in
penalties, including but not limited to:
• Suspension of a match and/or
• Termination of a match (including potential forfeiture of competition points) and/or
• Monetary fines and/or
• Suspension of a participant on a temporary or permanent basis and/or
• Suspension of a club, League or Association on a temporary or permanent basis.
These penalties are in addition to any penalty which may be
imposed by the home League’s judiciary.”
If clubs are responsible and there appears to be no specific mention of penalties for individual players in this document I can only assume that there is another policy. Or else the NRL is punishing the wrong people!
Can the NRL publish these other rules so we can all see them?
Even without anything else, the above quoted policy raises another question.
Issue 3: Are clubs responsible for their players?
If the policy document cited above does apply to NRL clubs, as it seems it must, what are Mr Weeks and Mr Doyle doing about the Canberra Raiders?
This would seem to be their fourth offence. Ferguson is at the end of a list that includes Carney, Dugan and Monaghan.
Have any penalties to date been meted out to the Canberra Raiders? And does this clause in the National Policy allow the NRL to punish Manly for its supporters behaviour last week at Brookvale?
After all: “Clubs are responsible…”
…apparently.
Meesta Cool
Guest
It wouldn't make the slightest difference in Meesta Tamou's case whether the integrity unit awaited the courts deliberation, Facts are he was tested for alcohol and was found to be WELL over the limit, he was also found to be driving without a license and carrying four passengers. -- None of this is EVER going to be doubted nor thrown out of court, they are hard facts that cannot be defended. I back the integrity unit on their stance, As for Meesta Ferguson, I believe in the old adage, "Innocent until proven Guilty" - BUT, once again he is captured on CCTV and also reported by witnesses. another case where the integrity unit have no choice but to impose a ban on him, THis is totally different scenario than the Brett Stewart issue were it was merely the word of one person against another, in Meesta 'Fs' case, the proof is there for all to see. Brett was setup and The NRL had to take the word of the complainant under their own guidelines, could this happen again??... who knows.
Crosscoder
Roar Guru
Having an integrity unit ,means less chance of a club sweeping the issue under the carpet or feather dusting it.It should have been in place years ago,but Gallop's admin thought it unnecessary,so typical of an admin marking time. A club trying to do so ,could well incur a decent penalty ,and perhaps worst case scenario loss of points. Part of the players contract would include also include responsibilities to the game.Players attend schools to promote healthy living and of course the game itself. Bit hard and hypocritical if you are constantly shown in the media ,as being hit and missed on a regular basis.
Sleiman Azizi
Roar Guru
Well said. What I don't think many realise is that a rugby league player's job is not just to perform on the field but also to 'perform' outside of it. Rightly or wrongly, they work 24 hours a day. I think that is the best way to look at the job of a professional athlete.
ferret
Guest
I think you'll find that ALL NRL players have an "acceptable behaviour" clause in their contracts, so legally your employer (club and NRL) can stand you down. All workplaces have these. For example using your work computer to visit "inappropriate websites" can lead to your dismissal even though those websites are NOT illegal. It's in my contract, which I've signed. Thankfully "The Roar" doesn't count as one but it's just as irrelevant to my work as other sites. Trial by Media is hardly the NRL's issue. They're damned if they do and damned if they don't. Given that the mainstream media can scream louder than you and reach more people, they win. SO the NRL will pay more heed to their opinio not yours (or mice).
Robz
Guest
To be fair in the Tamou case, he has admitted right from the start that he is guilty and intends to plead that way. I don't see it necessary to wait for the over-burnded court system to have an official record of the plea.
reality bites
Guest
It's called making policies on the run. Clearly there is no overaching system in place. How on earth they will marry up all the different rules/ units/ policies in the future is beyond me.