There are many unanswered questions in rugby league. One that didn’t appear to be asked in all of the controversy over the NRL’s fining of Paul Gallen for his Twitter rant was why the league had paid the legal fees for him and other Cronulla players involved in the ASADA investigation.
It wasn’t obliged to. It could have left the players to fend for themselves, but obviously felt compelled for some reason to support them on the financial front.
I asked the NRL why it had acted so and was told by a spokesperson there were several reasons.
“We felt it was important that the players were properly represented,” the spokesperson said.
“Some players were probably not in a financial position to represent themselves properly unless they received assistance.
“It occurred as part of a club-based supplement program (as distinct from a player who might do it on his own volition).”
The third reason would appear to be the key one, with its obvious link to the NRL’s determination that when it came to the involvement of the players there were mitigating circumstances.
That was the NRL’s stance going right back to December 17 last year, when it issued a media release announcing it had completed a review of governance issues at the Cronulla club.
The release said “preliminary findings have identified serious failures on the part of the club and certain individuals who had a responsibility to safeguard the health and welfare of its players”.
News that the NRL had paid the players’ legal fees leaked out in the wake of the league fining Gallen $50,000 for using the “c” word to describe it on the social media forum.
There was huge debate over whether the league had penalised Gallen too harshly.
He had time in which to show cause why he should not face such a penalty and took that option, with the result that the league responded by suspending $15,000 of the fine due to mitigating circumstances about which it declined to be specific.
But it had been reported Gallen had been treated for depression, and NRL chief executive Dave Smith, in announcing the amended penalty, was quoted as saying: “We recognise that Paul has been through a lot over the last two years, but that does not excuse such a serious breach of the code. We must protect our brand and ensure we set a good example to children and other fans.”
Whatever reaction the league may or may not have anticipated to its amendment of the Gallen punishment, it was swamped by coverage of the Kirisome Auva’a matter.
Last Friday, in a Melbourne court, South Sydney grand final player Auva’a avoided a conviction but received a two-year good behaviour bond and a $3000 fine for recklessly causing injury and criminal damage.
The matter involved an assault by Auva’a on his then girlfriend, in January. He pleaded guilty in May.
Debate over the issue centres on whether the NRL should have slammed Auva’a with what it considered an appropriate penalty when he pleaded guilty, as opposed to waiting until the court case had finished.
Smith, in defending the league’s decision to wait, said it had to be careful to observe the “balance between the criminal procedure, the individual’s rights and our desire and obligation to the game to make sure we stamp hard on anything to do with domestic violence”.
He added that “we are very clear what the findings of the court were and the findings of the judge, but the detail beneath that is quite important to the deliberation and we are still awaiting some information from the Victorian court”.
Auva’a will obviously be punished by the league, but, inevitably, there have been comparisons drawn between the league’s decision to wait until the end of the court case in this matter and its willingness to act immediately in response to some previous off-field matters involving players.
That is where the inconsistency lies and that is what the NRL has got to fix.
Jay C
Roar Guru
That's what I mean. Why would they be getting sued by players if nothing shady went down. The players would know whats up and what went on....
SuperEel22
Roar Guru
Because Cronulla employed Dank and oversaw the doping program. The players trusted the club to have the right staff employed and the players believe that the club failed in it's duty of care.
Muzz
Guest
I love it when someone has a difference of opinion it's called (words to the effect of) "angst" or you get the good old "haters will be haters" line
Renegade
Roar Guru
Muzz, You need to take your angst out on the court system then.... they delayed the hearing - NRL followed the process and got it right.
Jay C
Roar Guru
No athlete on Earth would sign a doping confession without having doped. It is a HUGE deal. ASADA may not have had enough evidence but it is plainly clear that the doping took place. Why is Cronulla being sued by ex-players?
Muzz
Guest
Packer was still innocent and awaiting his trail.Auva'a, was GUILTY by his own admission.His actions, which you've agreed on, bought the game in to disrepute! The inconsistencies that i've tried to bring to your attention are - Both players poor decisions tarnished the game and by all accounts, there's MORE than "enough evidence of behavioural breaches" by BOTH of them. Packer's punishment by the NRL was pretty much effective immediately yet Auva'a went on to play till the seasons end.This to me Will is double standards.An oversight? No way! more like vested interests. Have you wondered why someone as talented as Auva'a was released by the Storm?I find that most unusual.
William Dalton Davis
Roar Rookie
Let's keep in mind packers family were looked after by the NRL and Newcastle knights. Now on your first paragraph. Yes that is a horrible thing but remember Packer was the one to blame for his legal predicament, which led to him being unable to secure a job with the knights. However for the NRL to be consistent they did not need to register his contract due to no prior instances where a player facing severe legal trouble being given an NRL contract in the middle of a trial. If another similar issue were to arise and the NRL admin registered that players contract mid trial then we would have an inconsistency. However packer as far as I know was a fairly unique situation. With that said Auva'a was judged by the NRL as an employee who had every right to keep showing up to work until he was sentenced unless the NRL (his employer) stood him down. Whereas Packer was not an employee of the NRL and the NRL had no legal obligation to allow his employment into their business. If anyone is to blame for the packer case it would be the judge who gave him an unfair sentence of two years for an offence that usually warrants 6-12 months suspended which is what ultimately denied him employment. I hope that all made sense because I'm on my last legs here lol. I'll reply to any further comments after work tomorrow but it looks like we may not be able to agree with each other on this one.
Muzz
Guest
re punishment - There isn't too many things i can think of that are worse than not allowing someone to put food on the table for their family.Footy, was the only thing Packer knew So if the NRL were "consistent" they would've registered Packers contract and waited to see what the outcome of his hearing was before further action.It would then, be up to the Knights to decide if he was worth the investment. With that said, he wasn't afforded the same rights as Auva'a who also brought the game into disrepute and by his own admission, pleaded guilty back in May.Auva'a continued on playing. Only, to further put the spotlight on the game when the right thing to do was stand him down once he pleaded guilty and was charge.
William Dalton Davis
Roar Rookie
I wouldn't call that a punishment. I'd call that business sense. Would you allow your company to hire someone who in a couple months time could be sitting in jail while you pay him 200,000 a year? I'm kinda out on my feet here just to let you know. If I fall asleep I'll be happy to reply tomorrow. You're much more fun to debate with than Greg.
Muzz
Guest
Your second paragraph, Will. About "consistency". Was Packer being punished by not being registered and therefore able to earn a living before he was sentenced?
peeeko
Guest
Robz, i agree.
William Dalton Davis
Roar Rookie
In my honest opinion? Yes, and I agree that if a player is pleading guilty he should be punished by the NRL then, not 6 or 7 months later. However the name of the game here seems to be consistency, and it would be inconsistent of the NRL to punish players for indiscretions before the conclusion of the trial regardless of what the players plea was. In my opinion any player involved in serious legal matters with the possibility of jail time should be stood down automatically until the end of the trial, and, if found guilty, have the nature of their case reviewed and an appropriate punishment applied from a one week anger management course to permanent deregistration. However. There are holes in my system due to the fact that it automatically punishes players through being stood down without any regards given to the players possible innocence. It's a very tricky situation, but one I find very interesting.
Muzz
Guest
Will, In your honest opinion, IS - Pleading guilty and being charged with recklessly causing injury and criminal damage evidence of "behavioural breaches?" i.e bringing the game into disrepute. Remember Will, he pleaded guilty back in May.
William Dalton Davis
Roar Rookie
To be honest Muzz I really don't see a double standard here. Packer was an unregistered player who's contract offer was put before the NRL. Before it could be rubber stamped he landed himself in serious legal trouble. The NRL decided not to register his contract until after the legal matter was sorted. He was convicted and sent to jail for 2 years (later reduced to 12 months and then reduced to 9 for good behaviour) at which point the knights tore up the contract offer. He was in talks with the NRL about a possible return to the game with the panthers. Not sure how that's turned out since I haven't been following it. Auva'a was a south Sydney rugby league football club player. He was arrested in March on charges of assault and property damage. The NRL refused to take any action against said player until after the trial. He pleaded guilty in May and was sentenced in November. The NRL then banned him from attending a training camp with his team and then banned him from the NRL competition for 9 months. In both instances the NRL took no action until after the trials were completed, just in separate ways.
Muzz
Guest
Can you not see the double standards now Will? They should've either Registered Russell Packer and allowed him to play and earn a living until his hearing OR De-registerd Auva'a because "they had found enough evidence of behavioural breaches"
William Dalton Davis
Roar Rookie
I'm sorry muzz I'm a little lost. Are you back on Auva'a? I don't pretend to know every detail of what goes on in the NRL offices but from what I gather they wish to be extremely diligent and patient with serious criminal matters taking all known evidence and information into account before making decisions on an NRL players future. This probably isn't the best idea since no one knows how long these things may take exactly (for example pleading guilty in May and being convicted in November is an absolute joke). While I'll concede that yes someone could have died the fact is no one did. It's a flawed system however what system isn't? I personally prefer this system to Gallops firing from the hip and sweep whatever people don't notice under the carpet system.
Muzz
Guest
ferret - I get that Buzz's ego was bruised and his motive etc but i don't care about that. I'd raised this months ago and how it should've been investigated by the integrity unit.Could you imagine how the victim felt knowing it was business as usual for her attacker.She would've felt like she was worthless!
Muzz
Guest
Will - Someone could of died and they basically didn't have the decency to investigate it.They turned a blind eye. Why?
ferret
Guest
@ Muzz, as David Smith said "each incident needs to be treated on a case by case basis". Obviously the Victorian criminal court felt there was something left to consider because they waited from March to November to hand down their sentence. But hey!, maybe their all part of the NRL incompetence; bowing to LimitedNews Corp journos push, web-posters pressure conspiracy as well. Hmm, worth considering. For mine, as I'm not in possession of all the information, timing, mitigating circumstances involved (cos it's not my job) I just ask myself, "Who do I trust more David Smith or someone like Buzz?" Well that's a bit of a no-brainer. Worse case scenario;- maybe the NRL did act late but IMO the punishment is appropriate. If some NewsCorpse journo wants to claim all the glory for themselves, sure why not? Who am I to spoil their fun?
William Dalton Davis
Roar Rookie
I get your point and it's very well argued, but I think in Packers case where he wasn't actually a registered league player at the time the NRL had every right not to register his contract as someone awaiting/going through a trial for assault. Compared to Auva'a and Lui who were both registered players. You're right though. The NRL shouldn't have to/want to be waiting until after a verdict (which in some cases can take up to two years) to deal out a punishment to someone who's pleaded guilty. However they have been rather consistent in this matter besides the technicality they had in the Packer case.