NRL would have "withered and died": Peter Beattie

Beattie's arrogance is utterly breathtaking. He is taking all the credit for "saving" a sport that was around 50 years before he was born and will be around a hundred years after he's long gone. I saw that same unbearable arrogance as he grinned his way through consecutive forgettable terms as Queensland's premier. But as a lawyer he'd know JDBs legal position was withdrawn, not defeated. And it was rock solid. Had it gone ahead the NRL would have been shockingly defeated with enormous costs. Beattie was praying for this outcome and now it happened, instead of being grateful, he's triumphant. Blistering arrogance. I am in favour of the stand down system in principle and understand it's motives, but it can't work in reality the way it is. No mini-legal system can trump that of it's own society, that's just idiocy and a brand of commercial fascism. Beattie knew it too and the sigh of relief when JDB pulled out must have been massive. Innocent until proven guilty was Beattie's bread and butter as a defence lawyer but it no longer serves his purpose so he's switched it completely. The hypocrisy is almost as distasteful as the arrogance.

I really think that won't happen. Gaming addiction is a recognised mental health issue. So E-sports have their own stigma attached. If anything I can see the likes of basketball and athletics going from strength to strength

The answer is 100% correct if that's what the player wants to do. Many including Stewart saw no reason why they shouldn't play when they were completely innocent. Why should he cave in to the simpletons who boo him unless he wanted to? He came back and scored a heap of tries despite the boos until a bad injury.

Agree - "journalists" need to be more responsible in their reporting. But.... They stir up the punters who abuse the player if he plays which has a terrible effect on players who are often found to be not guilty. Save the angry rants for those found guilty. So I have an idea for addressing that - stand the players down with pay and remove them from the crowds of punters who can then abuse them...?

Why can't it die?

Are you serious? After nine months of this and even the posts and comments here you still can’t work out my position? This isn’t about JDB’s guilt - that’s why it’s a no fault stand down. If you can understand that it will go a long way to clearing your confusion. It’s about controlling the damage that having an accused gang rapist playing every week does to the game. It’s really that simple. If you don’t think it does damage to the game you’re an 1d10t and you don’t deserve to be part of this discussion. If I were the NRL, I wouldn’t apply it as a blanket rule to anyone accused of anything. I’d assess the impact case by case to determine what level of exposure and risk the game could tolerate and make an individual decision from there.

What a great response. Are you still in primary school...?

That’s a pretty good analogy. I’d add “Everybody’s doing it” is never a defence.

Honestly these childish arguments going back and forth to see who can have the last say dumbs down the whole debate. C'mon guys, give it a rest. Please? It wouldn't be so bad if it was at least witty!

SUGGESTION: Take no notice of Erin Molan. Wouldn't know the difference between a ball & a goalpost.

Okay, I think your position on this is similar to my position on exceeding the speed limit - everybody does it at least occasionally, usually no big deal if done with reasonable care, but don’t complain if you get caught or crash because you knew the rules and the risks.

The Peninsula? You got something against the Peninsula?

You are quite right. Sportsmen have an immunity card down under. It is what it is. And people don’t stop following a sport because someone connected with the sport is a goose or a bad egg. As long as some (token at minimum) action is taken quickly, the quicker the goose can be welcomed back. Sort of like Australian Test Cricketers getting caught cheating while being hosted by a foreign nation.

Sorry - I didn’t answer the last part. This is why I think the matrix is a dangerous idea. Coming in and saying “well, this charge deserves this suspension” is fraught with peril. It’s one area where I do agree with 40/20. The reality is 99 times of 100 we won’t know anything about it. Good luck to them. When you play Russian roulette, five times out of six the chamber is empty. If you get the loaded one, bad luck you shouldn’t have played the game. Every time a player makes a selfish decision like this while full of sauce they’re risking the game’s reputation and finances and their own personal and professional lives. It shouldn’t be that hard a decision.

I don’t think that all. Again, it’s not that hard. Players earn their extremely high salaries, not just because they’re good at football, but because fans and sponsors are prepared to pay good money to them to do it. As a result, they’re responsible for the image of the game and they need to be accountable when they do something that damages the game’s finances or reputation. Players can go on as many pub crawls as they like and sleep with as many teenagers as they like, I couldn’t care less. But because of their position, these are high risk activities. Famous people, particularly sports stars, are vulnerable to false allegations. If you want to tell me that it shouldn’t be that way I won’t argue. But it’s the reality of the situation regardless of what’s fair or not fair. And that’s assuming the best case scenario for JDB, that it’s a false allegation. If I was a sponsor pouring revenue into the game I wouldn’t want my brand associated with someone who had been charged with aggravated sexual assault. Maybe that’s fair, maybe it’s not but my business can’t afford to take risk on him maybe not guilty in 12 or 24 months time. What if he’s not? But sponsor would want to be associated with that sort of behaviour? Fair or not fair, JDB’s irresponsible choices have created the situation where these charges, false or otherwise can be made against him. If sleeping with groupies...or whatever... is so important then do that but you can’t put your hand out at the same time for the cash and the fame when things go pear shaped.

Barry, this statement, which you repeat every time this subject comes up: I get that it’s tough on de Belin if he’s not guilty. But he should have thought of that when he took a teenager back to an empty apartment with a teammate after a 12 hour drinking session. Seems to indicate that you think an NRL player should be banned from playing for: 1. engaging in group sex; 2. With a teenager; 3. After a 12 hour drinking session. Is it your position that any of those 3 activities (which are all completely legal) on their own or a combination of the three should result in a player being banned? Because if so, how many teams would be able to even field a team each week given how many players have engaged in some combination of those activities during their professional careers? Or is it the case that a player should only face a ban if that behaviour results in a criminal charge? Or a complaint? Or is just taking the ‘risk’ by engaging in such behaviour banworthy?

If you say so it must be true.

Have you always believed that players charged with serious offences like JDB , Stewart, Radradra and others should have been stood down?

...but you pointed it out which is all anyone did with your mistakes Stop playing the victim card...you give every bit as good as you get. There’s no lynch mob or cohort

...and I don’t wish this on anyone But if someone with so much to lose is silly enough to (best case scenario) put themselves in such a high risk situation my sympathy only goes so far I respect the sacrifices every player makes for our entertainment but my loyalty is to the game and it can’t be held to ransom by player selfishness and stoopidity.