While I thoroughly support Todd Greenberg’s line in the sand in regard to player behaviour, I am very worried that it could have the consequence of attacking the civil liberties and rights of players.
I believe that they need to rethink Jack De Belin’s stand down as a matter of urgency.
The longer I’ve been alive the more evidence I’ve seen that people suck.
Having been closely associated with the game of rugby league for three decades now I can say that can especially applies to league players. I’ve seen that many degenerate, nasty and mean footy players in my time. Blokes I wouldn’t invite to a barbecue if I had to get rid of 20 kilos of sausages in an hour.
I’ve witnessed them being awful. I’ve heard countless more tales of horror of their activities.
But what do you expect? If you give a young bloke a large amount of money, fame and adulation, lots of free time and a bunch of mates in the same circumstances, there is more than a good chance that stupid things will happen. In a sub culture where toxic masculinity can be prevalent, these stupid things can be downright horrible.
Now everyone carries an HD camera capable of capturing and widely disseminating things immediately. I had the picture of Todd Carney in the toilets at Northies within an hour of it happening.
That means more of the players indiscretions are being displayed than ever before. Sam Burgess was right when he said that player behaviour was about the same as it always had been.
The problem is there is so much of it coming out that it is belittling the game of rugby league and compromising what integrity it has. When Todd Greenberg came out last week and started introducing big bans and stand downs he did so to resounding support.
NRL CEO Todd Greenberg. (Photo: Matt King/Getty Images)
However, how it has been enacted is fraught with risk.
This is especially highlighted by the case of De Belin. His indefinite standing down is an attack on his rights, pure and simple.
NRL HQ can call it a ‘no-fault stand down’ as much as they want, but standing De Belin down before he has his day in court – even on full pay – absolutely confers fault onto him in my opinion.
His coach, Paul McGregor agrees.
“The Commission governs the game, and no doubt they have the greater good of the game at heart. But my thoughts are Jack is the first NRL player in history to be denied the presumption of innocence without a witness or video evidence… Jack maintains his innocence and draws strength from this. He also recognises that he will have his opportunity to defend himself in court.”
Our legal system has at its basis the concept of those brought before the courts being innocent until proven guilty. Anything else is unacceptable in a civilised society.
This measure stops witch hunts punishing innocent people for crimes they didn’t commit.
(AAP Image/Darren Pateman)
Yet the NRL – I truly believe with the best of intentions – has effectively declared De Belin guilty through their standing him down, in spite of him denying and challenging the charges.
These charges could take 18 months to be heard and have a verdict handed down. In an NRL player’s career – especially a representative player like De Belin is – that constitutes a huge part of his time.
The charges laid against Jack De Belin do make for some horrible reading. As a father of two daughters, the idea of something like what is alleged to have occurred happening to them is appalling. If the charges against De Belin are proven, then the courts are sure to deal with him harshly – and I hope they do.
But his guilt is only an ‘if’ at this point and it must remain so. We must presume him innocent as he has proclaimed he is. By standing him down the NRL has effectively pre-empted the court’s decision before the trial has even begun.
What if he is innocent? Put yourself in his shoes.
I know he is an NRL player so most of us are automatically predisposed to believing the worst the instant we hear it. But that isn’t even vaguely a reasonable approach.
After an horrific off season of seemingly endless scandals and incidents involving NRL players, I do understand that NRL HQ felt the need to take a strong stance to demonstrate to the public that they were no longer going to stand for poor player behaviour.
Todd Greenberg, Peter Beattie and co. felt the need to draw a line in the sand. I am in complete support of that line being drawn.
Beattie’s words will garner lots of support from the NRL public, no question.
“What we are doing is to set a benchmark and a standard to defend the game of rugby league… Our aim is to rebuild the game. This is about a standard that is expected from players who wish to play in the NRL competition.”
Peter Beattie. (Photo by Matt King/Getty Images)
I’m fine with the NRL doing that by standing down and banning players but not at the expense of effectively pre-empting a guilty verdict for a man who may very well be innocent and must be presumed so.
Sure, there are cases like Jack Wighton’s where there was clear video evidence of his actions. Even if there were mitigating circumstances, those actions did bring the game into disrepute. Standing Wighton down before his verdict was delivered had more credence.
But in cases like De Belin’s – even though the charges are far more serious that Wighton’s – we have no such clear cut evidence.
The case of Brett Stewart in 2009 is a better guide for the NRL in relation to how to deal with these matters.
Stewart was accused of assaulting a 17-year-old girl following the Manly Warringah Sea Eagles’ season launch on 6 March 2009.
Stewart was charged with sexual assault on 10 March 2009 but denied the allegation.
The NRL, led by David Gallop at that stage, decided to stop the 2009 commercial which featured Stewart until further notice and suspended him for four games for drunkenness, reportedly stating that “its decision to stop Stewart playing was not intended to reflect any judgment regarding the police investigation into the alleged assault.”
Eighteen long months later a jury acquitted Stewart of the charges. Fortunately he was not stood down that entire time. But De Belin will be.
What if it takes 18 months for De Belin to be found not guilty? How is the stand down possibly justified then?
What compensation will he be given if, after his stand down, he is found not guilty? Do we include potential NSW Origin appearances in his full pay and – if so – who pays that? The NRL standing down players in this manner also opens the real risk of deliberate entrapment.
Jack De Belin as captain of New South Wales. (Photo by Mark Kolbe/Getty Images)
By clarifying that automatic stand downs will occur where the charges would lead to eleven years or more in jail, they have basically given a guide to what sort of accusation needs to be made to stop a star player from playing.
That may seem far-fetched, but the NRL is a big money industry. When big money is involved people can get very carried away.
We cannot allow accusations and the charges that arise from them to restrain a player from plying his trade. Only a guilty verdict can be allowed to do that.
If De Belin is found guilty his court imposed punishment will probably be very severe. But if he’s found innocent what He’d be justified in suing the NRL for restraint of trade. I’d suggest challenging the validity of the stand down through the courts right now if I were him.
We cannot allow De Belin’s stand down to stand.
We can only punish players for crimes once they have been found guilty of them or we are no better than a mob encouraging the tyranny of a kangaroo court.
Don
Roar Rookie
If I’m charged with a criminal offence yes, it’s in my employment contract that, subject to investigation, the company may suspend my employment with full pay. And yes, my career would have been set back massively and my future employment and earnings impacted even after being acquitted. I don’t know why people are finding this so unusual. It’s a pretty common contract condition as you move into senior management, executive positions or very highly paid positions.
Peter
Guest
So you've assumed guilt - "he'd done all the damage to his earnings." Would you be happy to have the same process applied to you? Sorry, you're being stood down from your job as a whatever for 18 months because someone claims you've done something you say you didn't do. If you eventually go to trial and are acquitted, we promise we'll say we're really sorry we buggered your career.
Tony H
Roar Pro
Sorry gents, but you're both missing the point. In D’Arcy v AOC [2008] CAS 2008/A/1539 at [7.1], the Court of Arbitration of Sport defined bringing a person into disrepute ‘is to lower the reputation of a person in the eyes of ordinary members of the public to a significant extent. As it applies to a sporting body, this definition holds. The only defense would be, that it would be impossible to lower the reputation of the sport any further in the eyes of the general public.
Angela
Guest
Strange, in every other profession, once someone is charged of a crime, they are stood down until their court case is over and they are proven innocent or guilty. Why should NRL be any different? People here rabbiting on about 'what if he's proven innocent'. What if he keeps playing and is proven guilty? The US NFL stands players down - on full pay I understand - until their case is heard. How is it going to help NRL player behaviour if players know that - contrary to normal practice in every other field - they can continue playing with criminal charges hanging over them? I suppose one should feel a touch of something for De Belin (I'm afraid 'sympathy' chokes a bit) as, in his case, it's retrospective. The NRL should have brought this in long ago at a time when there weren't charges hanging in the air.
Steve from down south
Guest
Stirling, speaking from the lovely state down south of the border our great police force (and no doubt the same as the rest) work on statistics. Unfortunately their statistics don’t include guilty or not guilty they only apply to crime committed and arrests made.. Victoria police I’m sure have an unofficial arrest and charge em and let the courts sort it out policy. The other thing that seems to happen down here a lot is if there are two people involved in a altercation it’s a case who lodged the complaint first is the side the police take
Forty Twenty
Roar Rookie
Wrong , Kingsley , they have not stood him down because is guilty of bringing the game into disrepute. They have stood him down because he is charged with a crime which has an 11 year sentence attached to it. So many myths about this case already but that’s the norm.
Chris Love
Roar Guru
In a world where you are presumed innocent until proven guilty, why would you try and entertain some sort of grey zone between the two? Is not being found guilty, or what ever way you want to dice it, a reason to punish someone? That’s exactly what’s happening here.
Chris Love
Roar Guru
There are plenty of Crooks in the gaming industry that would consider trying this on. They’ve done worse in the past.
Chris Love
Roar Guru
My comment makes plenty of sense. The stand-down, no matter which way you want to spin it, is a punishment. To do so without even looking at the facts is unjust. That is what a jury is for. For employers (that don’t have a responsibility to protect children etc) to restrict someone’s trade before they’ve been found guilty is a very dangerous precedent. In this case the employer isn’t even doing it, it’s the overseeing body. Imagine the body that oversees the standards for say electricians, telling employers they have to suspend employees with full pay based purely on an accusation. As I stated, Police do make mistakes. Even if they don’t, compelling witness/victim statements are enough to get charges laid. Just ask Semi Radradra. If he’s an innocent man, all this is more than punishment without also screwing with his future earnings.
Bunney
Roar Rookie
Your comment makes no sense Chris. If no weight can be attributed to a police investigation, then why have them at all? Let an accuser take their issue straight to the judge. Silliness. I am stating that an accusation, plus a police investigation that warrants the DPP charging a player with a very serious offence is sufficient - for the good of the game - to stand them down, on full pay, until resolved. That's not the same as saying he's guilty, which is completely up to the courts. They maintain a presumption of innocence, but cannot play in the NRL until resolved, just like plenty of people in other vocations when a charge is raised against them. You're conflating a process (stand down) with an outcome (guilty of crime): they are distinct. It's in the games interest that he not play, in case he is guilty, which is a much more troubling 'what if', than the 'what ifs' attached to JDB's personal freedoms (which are also troubling...)
Chris Love
Roar Guru
As soon as the answer (and you know it is) is one or above, then we must follow the presumption of innocence. Putting ANY weight into just the fact that police have done an investigation and decided to charge him. Then using that as some sort of justification for punishing a person is unfair and unjust. Why bother even having court cases otherwise. Just make police judge jury and executioners.
keith hurst
Roar Pro
It is always a shame that this matter ends up in Court. You just hope that the parties are sensible enough to reach a compromise that works until the criminal charges are determined. Keith
scrum
Roar Rookie
Every year NRL players outdo themselves with antisocial behaviour. One would have to think if they were not playing footy many would be unemployable or perhaps behind bars. Some of the media interviews with players exhibit a very low standard of literacy . If NRL clubs applied the "no dickhead" policy one suspects they would struggle to fill a roster. However historically fans have ignored this behaviour and placed no credence on their anti social behaviour & the game seemed impervious to the players attempts to drag the game into the gutter. Has something changed for the NRL to bring out the big stick finally. Have sponsors started to shy away because I doubt if most fans would give a toss as far as their allegiance to the game goes.
Bumsy
Roar Rookie
Innocent until proven guilty is for the courts, not for the NRL. It's like freedom of speech. It doesn't stretch as far as some people seem to think it does.
clipper
Roar Rookie
I don't know why this is so hard to understand. You are not proven innocent, you are found not guilty. It would be very interesting to see how many people in high profile positions (i.e. earning enough money to get top lawyers) get off with a not guilty verdict compared to people who can't afford the same and rely on legal aid.
clipper
Roar Rookie
That's right - because no guilty person would ever claim they were innocent!
Jacko
Guest
Agree but the "Stand down" policy would make it a far more attractive option. And lets face it. It wouldnt be difficult to target a player. Not that I want to deflect from what JDB may have done but people will do a lot of things for the right amount of money
Bunney
Roar Rookie
That could have been done anytime in the last 20 years Jacko...just the media attention alone would potentially upset a GF team's build-up. Hasn't happened though.
Bunney
Roar Rookie
I don't know Chris - do you have some statistics on the matter which you could share? I would hazard a guess that the police investigation into the matter is more statistically likely to be validated than invalidated. But that's a pure guess. If you have some proof on the matter, please share.
The Barry
Roar Guru
What are you talking about? The fact JDB took the girl to his cousin’s apartment is one of the few facts that are known. You’re at it again. Anyone with a different opinion to you is “ranting”, “the mob”, “the rabble”, “don’t know the facts” My comment isn’t a rant at all. I haven’t made any allegation against de Belin just commented on the direct actions he took that led to the situation where the allegations were made. How’s that a rant? Police documents tendered to Wollongong Local court and sighted by the Mercury reveal De Belin, Sinclair and the alleged victim met at Mr Crown nightclub on the evening of December 8, where they talked and danced as part of a larger group. However, it is alleged the woman accompanied De Belin and Sinclair when they decided to leave Mr Crown and head to Fever Nightclub. The trio was captured on CCTV standing at a taxi rank on Kembla Street for a short time before speaking to a group of people in the lower part of the Crown Street Mall. The trio then got into a Tuk Tuk-style taxi and headed north on Keira Street, with the two men telling the alleged victim they wanted to charge their phones before they headed out again. They went to a unit on Gipps Street, owned by De Belin’s cousin, who was not home at the time. https://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/5900155/come-on-have-a-go-new-details-of-de-belins-rape-allegation-revealed/ https://www.smh.com.au/national/nsw/dragons-star-jack-de-belin-pleads-not-guilty-to-sexual-assault-20190212-p50x62.html