It is curious to me that the NRL executives have decided they are comfortable to register Michael Jennings’ contract, but then draw the line at celebration of a milestone game.
Watching him make his comeback to the NRL last Friday night, I must admit it made me uncomfortable.
He is now set to play his 300th NRL game on Thursday night for the Sydney Roosters when they take on the Knights with his club’s injury woes meaning he is likely to be selected rather than the 18th player like last week.
He is the 51st player in NRL history to reach this milestone and it is a milestone typically celebrated with the NRL CEO presenting the player with a game ball before kick-off and then the circulation of a media release where league officials play tribute to the player.
“Due to past conduct, Michael Jennings will not receive official NRL recognition on his 300th match,” NRL CEO Andrew Abdo said in a statement to AAP on Monday.
Why has the NRL decided to cancel the celebrations? Is it just because of external pressure to do so?
What does this mean for the future? How will the governing body decide which players it will celebrate and which it will not? What is the threshold for behaviours which are tolerated and those which are not?
It doesn’t have to be black and white, but some thought needs to be put into it.
Whether the NRL celebrates it or not, you can’t deny the significance of the achievement and Jennings will go down in history as a member of the ‘300’ club. The history books won’t state that Jennings did not get the game ball or a media release, he will still be recognised for the achievement.
Jennings was at my club, Parramatta, when he registered a positive test to performance-enhancing drugs. I remember the day I heard the news clearly as it was the day of the Eels’ week two finals clash against the Rabbitohs.
Perhaps that explained his outstanding form (and pace) that year. Jennings’ ban meant that Haze Dunster made his debut in the most important game of the year with my only wish being that he played well enough to not be nicknamed ‘Haze Dumpster’ going forward.
Since then Jennings has served a three-year ban. He has maintained that he did not intentionally take the banned performance-enhancing substances Ligandrol and Ibutamoren.
(Bradley Kanaris/Getty Images)
But that’s not the only negative press that the Jennings milestone has received.
Jennings is also in a legal battle with his ex-wife, Kirra Wilden. She has accused Jennings of raping her multiple times during their marriage. She has also accused him of verbal abuse, cocaine use and for regular and heavy drinking and gambling during their marriage.
As at the end of last year, Jennings still had not paid his victim the nearly $500,000 ordered at the conclusion of the civil dispute in the NSW District Court. This among other things, was for personal injuries, including post-traumatic stress disorder.
Since the ruling in this case, Jennings has since lost an appeal to clear his name and reduce the financial penalty awarded to Wilden.
I’m not necessarily of the view that these changes should preclude Jennings from ever playing the game again.
It’s tricky. It would be easy to say that any player that had committed an offence of a certain magnitude should not be able to return to the game.
However, if the NRL simply cuts that player loose, does it mean his chances of re-offending in future become greater?
I firmly believe the NRL has a responsibility to the men that are part of the competition. Does this responsibility extend to being given another chance?
The Roar League Podcast is on YouTube! Click here and subscribe to make sure you never miss an episode
What if Jennings has returned because he thinks it’s the best chance of fulfilling his financial obligations to his ex-wife?
I don’t think this is the case. Lawyers acting for Wilden have said that she is yet to receive any money from Jennings.
If Jennings was serious about paying the money he owes, would he not have at least paid something by this point or agreed to a payment plan?
Michael Jennings of Tonga (Photo by Fiona Goodall/Getty Images)
After the Roosters’ loss on Friday night, coach Trent Robinson was asked about Jennings’ contribution to the match.
“I thought he was great,” Robinson said. “He’s been playing that way, training that way and [it] was really nice to see him play, get out there and show that he’s still got gas and he’s still got effort.”
That misses the point of the discomfort that some people may have had, watching him play.
Whether the NRL recognises the milestone or not is almost irrelevant. History will remember Jennings as a player that hit that milestone.
Whether history judges the NRL harshly for re-registering that contract is another question altogether.
MGM
Roar Rookie
The Roosters can't sign him without the approval of the NRL. The NRL are not Toothless. They could have stipulated a debt repayment and would have earned some respect from all those watching this farce.
MGM
Roar Rookie
In the light of this debt avoidance and to appease all those that are rightfully opposed to his reinstatement the NRL should have made it a stipulation of his contract that his debt to his ex-wife be paid off during the term ... If it's a 3 year contract then deduct $167,000 per year. What an opportunity missed and what a terriffic precedent that could have been set ! Jennings was so desperate to get back and reach the 300 milestone , it was an opportunity gone begging.
NQR
Roar Rookie
So Jennings was signed not to win football games? I’m really confused. I believe his history is enough to forgo his need to be on anyone’s roster. So much young talent not given a go. It’s actually rewarding someone who takes drugs and treats women poorly? It’s morally pathetic from the Roosters.
Mark Ferguson
Roar Rookie
He wasn’t convicted or even charged with any crime in this regard..Not enough evidence to support the claim.
Mark Ferguson
Roar Rookie
I am sure the Roosters didn’t re sign Jennings with the view of him winning them games as he was not expected to play first grade, He was signed on a train and trial deal for approximately 1000 dollars a week just to help him out.
wilbas
Roar Rookie
So based on the civil lawyers opinion he punishes him with a max penalty of half a million...If he had sold the properties and paid the moneys elsewhere then in civil sensibilities there is no money.
wilbas
Roar Rookie
No prosecutor would push that barrow of she said he said.
Blink
Roar Rookie
I think its good that Jennings can play. There must be a way to earn a living and he has been a great player. You can be pretty sure his ex is no angel but we never hear the other side of the story. He has an opportunity late and going forward to not being in the news outside of his football exploits. Lets hope he has learnt and moves forward.
Tufanooo
Roar Rookie
Oh heavens above. Stop focusing on the doping charge and focus on the power the NRL has to deny registering a contract. I'll make it clear: no player has any inherent right to play NRL. If the NRL wanted to permanently deny Xerri a return to the NRL, then that is their own decision and unchallengeable. Bronson Xerri was banned from playing rugby league (and any other sport WADA is a signatory to as they are duty bound to honour any ban imposed by a WADA affiliated body), NOT just banned from NRL. If after his ban was over and he wanted to return to the NRL, the NRL could have still blocked him entry. It wouldn't have been a restraint of trade. Why? Because he could have gone to the Super League in the UK, he could have gone to Super Rugby, he could have gone to Japan. There is no restraint of trade. He had plenty of other avenues to make a living off his abilities. There is no grounds to make a legal challenge. Which is exactly what Folau did, as you have clearly pointed out. Once it was clear that behind the scenes the NRL were never going to let Folau back in (and Abdo did indicate Folau would be unlikely to return), he went elsewhere. The NRL retain the absolute right to deny entry to anyone for any reason. I cannot fathom why you can't get this.
Good Grief
Roar Rookie
Is the NRL administration to be responsible for the grotesque failures of the court system? We talk about coaches and players “simplifying” and “knowing” their role. Maybe that approach could also apply to administrators.
Cam
Roar Rookie
Robbo throwing his support behind Jennings seems about on par after he backed Leniu's racial slur on Mam and doubled down when Dom Young punched Blake Taffe's CTE card. He had a great run there for a while and off the back of a couple of premierships, Robbo was rocking a Bellamy/Bennett vibe. But despite continually fielding a premiership roster and always starting the season as one of the bookie's favourites, there is no hiding the Roosters average form the past four years. They are outside the 8 and off the back of last week's loss to the Dogs, it's hard to see where their next win is coming from. At what point does Uncle Nick realise Robbo hasn't moved the needle one inch in the past 5 years and gives him a tap on the shoulder?
langparker
Roar Rookie
Just as a point of clarification, Lodge was a Wests Tiger on an end of season trip when he went berserk. Bennett offered him a lifeline in the Qld Cup for a season to assess his behaviour before he ended up a bronco, which I was against as a club supporter at the time.
Gamechanger
Roar Rookie
Personal Responsibility and Recidivism. “However, if the NRL simply cuts that player loose, does it mean his chances of re-offending in future become greater?”. That implies that the league and or club can be a contributor to his potential reoffending. If Jennings was to reoffend ( recidivism) that would be TOTALLY his own PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY, and nothing to do with the NRLs cutting him.
andyfnq
Roar Rookie
He could start by discussing his break-up from reality
Pat-A-Kiwi
Roar Rookie
Come on - PK telling us how to manage break-ups would be highly amusing.
Don
Roar Rookie
The Israel Folau case is completely different to a doping charge. You keep mentioning it like it is precedent - it isn't. On one hand you've got a clear breach under the black and white WADA / NRL doping rules with a set ban. There is also precedent where bans applied for doping exceeding the WADA sanctions have been applied by sporting bodies and overturned. On the other hand you've got a broad and arguable term "bringing the game into disrepute" as a reason to withhold registration. And on Folau...he never had a NRL club request to register him. The NRL wouldn't meet with him because no club had lodged a contract. Sure, the NRL talked a big game when he first lost the Wallabies gig, but they never had to back it up. Folau was toxic and no clubs were going to sign him and the NRL probably warned clubs off behind the scenes. As soon as the Dragons were mentioned as interested, fans and sponsors threatened to jump so they walked away fast. After that he was poison. When he tried to play for Southport the QRL wouldn't register him because he was still under contract to Catalans. Then he went to Rugby in Japan.
andyfnq
Roar Rookie
Tough question really, where does the responsibility to support a player stop and the responsibility to model high standards of behaviour begin? We can't just have a knee-jek reaction to every kid playing League who makes a mistake - plenty of kids in their 20's with lots of spare income and an adoring public will make mistakes. I know in my 20's my judgement was sometimes questionable. But here is a man who has made mistakes regarding his conditions of employment (drugs), and then issues involving violence and rape, and who, if the chat below the line is to believed, has made no attempts to pay damages, apologise, admit fault or commit to self-improvement. I might not be a fancy pants NRL player, but as I work in a role where I am the "face" of my employer to the community, if I have serious criminal convictions they have the right to review my suitability for employment. Not sure why that should be different for guys like Jennings.
andyfnq
Roar Rookie
If the Roosters came looking to sign my 17 year old kid tomorrow and that's the sort of senior player he is meant to learn from at the club, I'd tell them we'd wait for an offer from another club
andyfnq
Roar Rookie
Or any matter
andyfnq
Roar Rookie
Wow ok who could argue with the opinion of a random Roar commenter when stacked against a judge deciding issues of law in which the man had opportunity to present all and any evidence in his favour – a court in which he was innocent until proven guilty mind you. You are obviously one of Australia’s greatest ever legal minds, well done you