2016 Brisbane Broncos Resurrection Thread

Shanbon wrote:

That has absolutely nothing to do with the "sex tape" they named him in.

Norman wasn't stood down for the sex tape. He was stood down for being found guilty of being in the possession of illegal drugs. The fact that he was named regarding the sex tape has NOTHING to do with the Broncos. You are just acting like a typical Eels supporter - whinging to no end.

I dont get how you missed my point here. This has nothing to do with his conviction. I simply pointed out how players at other clubs (like Norman and Seggy) get named for being in a tape(showing nothing illegal) that was trying to be sold while a Broncos player doing something illegal in a tape isnt named.

How you can ague with a pure fact beats me.

Shanbon wrote:I dont get how you missed my point here. This has nothing to do with his conviction. I simply pointed out how players at other clubs (like Norman and Seggy) get named for being in a tape(showing nothing illegal) that was trying to be sold while a Broncos player doing something illegal in a tape isnt named.

How you can ague with a pure fact beats me.

So you want a player (the club is irrelevant) supposedly doing an illegal activity to be named, when that player in question is still innocent as they have yet to be convicted of anything. How can you argue that? Take your Broncos hatred cap off for a second and apply some common sense.

Norman and Seggy were named because they did something incredibly stupid that wasn't illegal.

Yes if there is a video of any player thats allegedly doing drugs and the media have identified the player (as posted the link earlier by Weidler) name him, just like they named and showed Pearces and named Norman and Seggy. They name everyone else for doing something dodgy and a video cant prove they are drugs maybe he is doing lines of icing sugar but they can prove which player it is so why not name him like everyone else was.

Bren wrote:

So you want a player (the club is irrelevant) supposedly doing an illegal activity to be named, when that player in question is still innocent as they have yet to be convicted of anything. How can you argue that? Take your Broncos hatred cap off for a second and apply some common sense.

Norman and Seggy were named because they did something incredibly stupid that wasn't illegal.

His point is, why were Seg and Norman even named, yet the bronco's player hasnt been.
As far as we know, the sex tape has nothing illegal in it so why were they even named at all. Actually, from memory, they said that someone was doing drugs in the sex video so there is ur direct link with the sex tape/bronco player drug video.
This bronco's player drugs thing may very well be nothing, by why were Norman and Seg named and this brono's player has not been.

Where there is smoke there is fire, and I would say this is a genuine video of a bronco's player racking up.
What will happen tho, is any of:

The broncos will pay the person off for the video
They look at the video and you cant see who it is, so they will not do anything

Either way, it will never come out IMO because the bronco's are very good at covering this sort of thing up.

Shanbon wrote:Yes if there is a video of any player thats allegedly doing drugs and the media have identified the player (as posted the link earlier by Weidler) name him, just like they named and showed Pearces and named Norman and Seggy. They name everyone else for doing something dodgy and a video cant prove they are drugs maybe he is doing lines of icing sugar but they can prove which player it is so why not name him like everyone else was.  

Exactly right. They name and shame everyone else when they do stupid shit, illegal or not.

Shanbon wrote:Yes if there is a video of any player thats allegedly doing drugs and the media have identified the player (as posted the link earlier by Weidler) name him, just like they named and showed Pearces and named Norman and Seggy. They name everyone else for doing something dodgy and a video cant prove they are drugs maybe he is doing lines of icing sugar but they can prove which player it is so why not name him like everyone else was.  

The point remains that what Pearce, Norman and Seggy did was not illegal therefore there is no harm in naming them.

The difference is naming a person supposedly partaking in an illegal activity before being proven of doing so is just downright stupid and reckless. If the player (as I said the club is irrelevant) is charged with doing something illegal then by all means name them.

Pieman wrote:

His point is, why were Seg and Norman even named, yet the bronco's player hasnt been.
As far as we know, the sex tape has nothing illegal in it so why were they even named at all. Actually, from memory, they said that someone was doing drugs in the sex video so there is ur direct link with the sex tape/bronco player drug video.
This bronco's player drugs thing may very well be nothing, by why were Norman and Seg named and this brono's player has not been.

Where there is smoke there is fire, and I would say this is a genuine video of a bronco's player racking up.
What will happen tho, is any of:

The broncos will pay the person off for the video
They look at the video and you cant see who it is, so they will not do anything

Either way, it will never come out IMO because the bronco's are very good at covering this sort of thing up.

Never change, Piehole!

Pieman wrote:

Exactly right. They name and shame everyone else when they do stupid shit, illegal or not.

My point exactly. Name and shame players for doing incredibly stupid shit that has no legal consequences whatsoever is fine. Naming someone of an illegal activity before they are proven guilty is idiotic.

Norman was caught with drugs so there is sufficient evidence there to prove him as guilty.

Bren wrote:
My point exactly. Name and shame players for doing incredibly stupid shit that has no legal consequences whatsoever is fine. Naming someone of an illegal activity before they are proven guilty is idiotic.

Norman was caught with drugs so there is sufficient evidence there to prove him as guilty.

Going by your logic though they shouldn't have named Norman until he was trialed. He's in possession of the drugs, like the Broncos player. Norman was named and the Broncos player isn't. Norman wasn't being charged at that stage when he was named, that came later.

Honeysett wrote:

Going by your logic though they shouldn't have named Norman until he was trialed. He's in possession of the drugs, like the Broncos player. Norman was named and the Broncos player isn't. Norman wasn't being charged at that stage when he was named, that came later.

My logic stands as common sense.

Norman was caught by Police in possession of drugs. Random player (club is irrelevant) on video supposedly doing drugs - not caught by Police in actual possession.

Bren wrote:
My point exactly.

sooo... yeh?

Norman was named before he was charged with anything.
Youre saying that because there was some evidence, he is basically guilty its ok to name Norman.
There is evidence with the bronco's thing, so why have they not named the bronco's player?

Your therpy is absolutely junk mate, sorry.
Also, whenever there are legal implications - media always just use the word Allegedly. That seems to cover their asses in case the person is found not guilty.

Bren wrote:
My logic stands as common sense.

Norman was caught by Police in possession of drugs. Random player (club is irrelevant) on video supposedly doing drugs - not caught by Police in actual possession.

Well its not random player (club is irrelevant). Its Bronco's player. Because thats all we actually know so far.
Just because someone is questioned by police or what ever does not make them guilty. Just because someone is charged, does not make them guilty.

The fact they are protecting this guy's name is ridiculous considering they name everyone else for stupid shit, illegal or not.

For example, Joel Moners was named and shamed when he let a dog lick his balls and there was a photo.
Thats illegal.

Bronco's player does lines off the toilet, there is footage - why has the bronco's guy not named?

Pieman wrote:

sooo... yeh?

Norman was named before he was charged with anything.
Youre saying that because there was some evidence, he is basically guilty its ok to name Norman.
There is evidence with the bronco's thing, so why have they not named the bronco's player?

Your therpy is absolutely junk mate, sorry.
Also, whenever there are legal implications - media always just use the word Allegedly. That seems to cover their asses in case the person is found not guilty.

Norman was caught with drugs on him in person, by police. Are you suggesting that is not enough evidence there to print someones name in the media? If not what is enough evidence to print someones name in the media?

Nobody knows when the video of this random player was taken (is there a date in the video?) also there is no actual evidence at hand aside from a video to proof it was actually drugs. You could go into the kitchen and make a video of yourself sniffing icing sugar, going by your logic that means we could print your name in the media as taking drugs and committing a crime.

Pieman wrote:

Well its not random player (club is irrelevant). Its Bronco's player. Because thats all we actually know so far.
Just because someone is questioned by police or what ever does not make them guilty. Just because someone is charged, does not make them guilty.

The fact they are protecting this guy's name is ridiculous considering they name everyone else for stupid shit, illegal or not.

For example, Joel Moners was named and shamed when he let a dog lick his balls and there was a photo.
Thats illegal.

Bronco's player does lines off the toilet, there is footage - why has the bronco's guy not named?

If the club is irrelevant then why did you feel the need to list a club?

Bren wrote:
My point exactly. Name and shame players for doing incredibly stupid shit that has no legal consequences whatsoever is fine. Naming someone of an illegal activity before they are proven guilty is idiotic.

Norman was caught with drugs so there is sufficient evidence there to prove him as guilty.

JWH
G.Bird
B.Barba

Bren wrote:

If the club is irrelevant then why did you feel the need to list a club?

Because, in this situation, that is the only fact we know.
1. Bronco's player
2. Footage doing lines

The way I see this blokes like Shanbon, Pieman, Honeyset etc are only concerned with the fact that it is allegedly a Broncos player (like I said the club is irrelevant) so they can start running their memes and shit slinging as per their usual program rather then the fact that the random player is still innocent at this point in time.

No Worries wrote:

JWH
G.Bird
B.Barba

You do realize that I don't work in the media? I do not condone stories printed by Booze Rothfield and co naming and shaming players before they are found guilty of an illegal offence. Something like the Pearce situation is different as it was not illegal therefore it is okay to name and shame them after their incredible stupidity.

Youre saying we are only going on like this because it is a broncos player and yes thats the whole point. Its a Broncos player and therefor he is being protected by the club and media.

Ok so we dont know its drugs so the Media could just name the player and say he appears to be sniffing an unkown substance off the back of a toilet.

There's absolutely no doubt in my mind that if the player was Jack Bird or Bryce Cartwright or some other up and coming Sydney based player he would have been named by name.