Canterbury players Corey Harawira-Naera and Jayden Okunbor have been stood down for the opening round of the NRL.
Canterbury have stood down NRL players Corey Harawira-Naera and Jayden Okunbor just days before the season begins, with the club yet to explain what they had done.
The Bulldogs sent an email to members on Tuesday afternoon confirming the pair were unavailable for selection, but claimed neither were the subject of a criminal investigation.
The full statement from Bulldogs CEO Andrew Hill reads as follows.
“Corey Harawira-Naera and Jayden Okunbor have been stood down by the Bulldogs after each was issued a show cause notice by the NRL as to why they shouldn’t face further disciplinary action for alleged breaches of the Game’s Code of Conduct
Both players have been provisionally suspended by the NRL and neither player is available for selection for Thursday night’s NRL season opener against Parramatta.
The Bulldogs referred the matter to the NRL Integrity Unit after receiving concerning reports of alleged misconduct by the two players. The Club also initiated its own internal review.
While neither player is the subject of a criminal investigation, the Club is treating the matter very seriously. The allegations are that each player engaged in behaviour that represents a serious breach of the NRL Rules and the Bulldogs’ Code of Conduct, resulting in the NRL notice.
The Club supports the NRL’s decision to issue the breach notices and will continue to work with the NRL to conclude the process.
Both players have an opportunity to respond to the matters alleged in the breach notice before any final decision is made.”
Christo the Daddyo
Roar Rookie
I know what you stated - I'm asking you to provide some evidence.
kersed
Roar Rookie
If you had read what I wrote, I stated that the redactions and apologies were published for the Coffs Harbour beat up as it was announced as untrue, though you insinuated that this forms part of an apparent history of sexual abuse at the Dogs. None of which has occurred.
Christo the Daddyo
Roar Rookie
I haven't actually seen any "media redactions and apologies for their beat up" - can you provide a link? The most recent info I can find is that the players have been granted show cause extensions. That's as of yesterday.
kersed
Roar Rookie
Hmm let's see.. In the last ~12 months alone; Panthers, St George. While they were not travelling as a team, two or more players gathering together during pre-season can constitute as a work social event (Sanctioned by the club or not). Their 'alleged' actions to me are FAR, FAR worse than anything two bulldogs players have done. And if you are making reference to the sensationalised media garbage of Coffs Harbour, you should be aware that this was determined to be not true - Media had to publish redactions and apologies for their beat up. So, all said, one LEGAL sexual encounter (Albeit immoral and wrong), where ZERO sexual abuse took place would rank lower than many clubs I would say. See yourself out.
Christo the Daddyo
Roar Rookie
No, it's not normal for men in the 20s to pick up schoolgirls while 'at work'.
Christo the Daddyo
Roar Rookie
Which clubs have a worse history of sexual abuse while on official club duties than the Bulldogs?
kersed
Roar Rookie
So your point is redundant. May be better to say that there is 'something fundamentally wrong with the culture in the NRL', rather than singling a club out that hasn't been as bad as some others...
Christo the Daddyo
Roar Rookie
I don't think that at all.
kersed
Roar Rookie
If you think the dogs are the only team to have a history of players behaving poorly then you need to wake up.
Pffft.
Insider
Roar Rookie
No your gonna need it when you meet these two
Get some help mate. You need it.
Insider
Roar Rookie
Zozza meet Mushi, Moose , Mushi, Moose this is Zozza Take it away fellas
Without what? What was the "crime" here? DingDingDing...correct , there wasn't one. There was a breach of team "protocol" for having a person of the opposite sex in your room. Whoopty doo daa. This fake outrage because adults of consensual age agreed to have consensual activity in the bed room. Again -- whoopty dee.
Monorchid
Roar Rookie
Spot on TWAS. The Courier-Mail has a report today (March 13) that both girls were 17 year old school girls, and the age of consent in NSW is 16. None of this detracts from any of your points though. It reinforces them. "These type of unsavoury actions" also turn parents off too.
The Barry
Roar Guru
You also need to learn the definition of the words wholly and solely...
The Barry
Roar Guru
You don’t understand anything about it Your analogy is one of the most ridiculous things I’ve ever had the misfortune of reading - The driver of the car hasn’t done anything illegal OR immoral - The cop doesn’t have any evidence to charge the driver with anything - Theres evidence that the driver was under the limit - There’s no agreement between the cop and the driver to adhere to a code of conduct - The cop has no authority to sack the driver from his job There’s literally no similarity between your analogy and what actually happened It’s completely irrelevant “I thought you were concerned about the safety of the consenting adults in question“ Nope. Never said this was about safety. The girls are absolutely able to give their consent and there’s no dispute about that. I don’t know what to say to you if you can’t see the problem with adults coming into a high school and using it as an opportunity to pick up school girls. “I see that you are wholely & solely concerned about sponsorship dollars” Wrong again...the financial impact of their abhorrent, antisocial behaviour is a side effect. It’s mentioned three times because it impacts on several different levels I didn’t even start on that other schools and parents that are going to be reviewing ever having rugby league clubs attend their school again because of this incident and the potential impact that will have I’ve never claimed the players broke the law. But they absolutely destroyed the covenant they had with that school, it’s students, their parents and the community. If you can’t see a problem here with what they did, we can’t even have a discussion. 24 year olds preying on 16 year olds is shady at the best of times. Doing it when you’re presented to them in a position of authority and trust is dirty If you think it’s ok you’re a grrrruuuub
damo
Roar Rookie
My apologies- I just re-read your post & realised the most pertinent point was: My club lost current sponsorship dollars & will struggle to attract future sponsorship dollars. I thought you were concerned about the safety of the consenting adults in question, & their actual ability to be so. Now I see that you are wholely & solely concerned about sponsorship dollars as your comments mention money on three occasions but the consensual age of the adults concerned only once & not at all in relation to the 'girls' ability to administer their own consent. I feel I clearly understand the problem.
damo
Roar Rookie
Consensual with willingness? Consensual is "yes" & willingness is "yes please". They're degrees of the same thing. I believe I understand what you mean to say though- and I understand that you think that a person of 16 years of age is not old enough to truly appreciate the decision they are making. For sure, but the age of consent in NSW is 16 years of age & the judicial system deals with that on a factual basis rather than what some people think on an ad hoc basis. By this I mean, survey 100 people on a question & see how many answers you get.
damo
Roar Rookie
I wrote a pretty long- winded post but decided to delete it & write this instead: You've had a couple of shandies at your local while you watch the Doggies thump the Eels in the season opener. You get pulled over in an RBT bay- you blow 0.03, which is under the legal limit to operate your vehicle. The copper that conducts the RBT is a person who has had a family member killed by a drunk driver in an accident. They think you exhibit signs of inebriation, impairing your ability to drive, despite the fact that you committed no traffic offences prior to being randomly pulled over. Despite the fact that you have adhered to the letter of the law, said copper imposes their own moral code upon you & issues you an infringement notice. Do you think you've been fairly dealt with? Do you think you have grounds to contest the issue? Would you be happy to lose your job over this? Personally the answers are No, Yes & No.