2016 Brisbane Broncos Resurrection Thread

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.

Incorrect. Casino security found them, who have no law enforcement capability whatsoever. So Norman should have been afforded the same respect. I'd say it's more to do with news Ltd nor wanting to damage their own property (the Broncos)

Bren wrote: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.

You have this mentality because you're a QLDer, and by no means do I mean this in a state of origin way. QLDers from my experience always get their back up and think the whole world is against them as soon as you question anything about them that they might not like. They adopt this "us v them" mentality for no reason.

If you can tell who the player is he should be named if he's in this situation, he's clearly doing something wrong.

Or maybe the player is not being named because at this point in time it is not confirmed on what the substance is. So rather then damage a players reputation in case of a mistake they have given the player benefit of the doubt (otherwise known as innocent until proven guilty) until more is known, or the player is actually found guilty which in this instance is going to hard to do considering the video could of been taken a year or two ago and the player in question has not been caught but any incriminating evidence on him in person such as the case was with Norman.

My point is not about the club. My point is giving every single player benefit of the doubt such as I did with Radradra etc.

Honeysett wrote:

You have this mentality because you're a QLDer, and by no means do I mean this in a state of origin way. QLDers from my experience always get their back up and think the whole world is against them as soon as you question anything about them that they might not like. They adopt this "us v them" mentality for no reason.

If you can tell who the player is he should be named if he's in this situation, he's clearly doing something wrong.

Stop being a dickhead for once and have some common sense. This has NOTHING to do with being a QLDer. NOTHING.

Bren wrote: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.

I dont care its a bronco's player.
Thats the fact tho! Thats all we have been told.
If it was "sharks player" I would be saying sharks player.

You're the one getting defensive over the detail.

If they said "rugby league player", we would be saying "rugby league player".
They said bronco's player, its the only fact we have besides something dodgy happening.

Pieman wrote:

I dont care its a bronco's player.
Thats the fact tho! Thats all we have been told.
If it was "sharks player" I would be saying sharks player.

You're the one getting defensive over the detail.

If they said "rugby league player", we would be saying "rugby league player".
They said bronco's player, its the only fact we have besides something dodgy happening.

You are misreading my intentions. My intentions are not about getting defensive over anything Broncos, rather to ensure that benefit of the doubt is given especially considering there has been no timeframe on when the video was taken. Simple.

There is no time frame on the other tapes. You can name a player and say that the substance is unknown. Your excuses are bull

Bren wrote:

Stop being a dickhead for once and have some common sense. This has NOTHING to do with being a QLDer. NOTHING.

It's your mentality. You don't know what substance it is? What you think he's snorting jelly crystals? For fuck sake. Naive as fuck or protecting a Broncos player? You get the presumption of innocence if you're not in a situation like this where he's been caught doing it. Presumption of innocence is if he's been accused of something and not filmed doing it.

Regardless to when the video was taken if it comes up something should happen, but it won't because of the club he plays for.

Honeysett wrote:
It's your mentality.

So my mentality is based purely on where I currently live? Please. I have lived in NSW longer then I have in QLD. Your previous experience with QLDers may have more to do with your behavior and attitude toward them rather then their birth place.

Anyway like I said this has NOTHING to do with being a QLDer so we can move on from that bullshit right now.

Honeysett wrote:
Regardless to when the video was taken if it comes up something should happen, but it won't because of the club he plays for.

The club is irrelevant. The video could well have been taken of the player while he was employed by another club. The incident is 100% on the player as a person rather then the club. The only way the club should be involved is in handing down of the punishment if the player is found guilty of committing an illegal act.

May be the player was diabetic and snorting sugar off a toilet seat so he didn't have a hypo.

Has anyone snorted anything off a toilet seat other than drugs in the history of mankind ?

Bren wrote:

So my mentality is based purely on where I currently live? Please. I have lived in NSW longer then I have in QLD. Your previous experience with QLDers may have more to do with your behavior and attitude toward them rather then their birth place.

Anyway like I said this has NOTHING to do with being a QLDer so we can move on from that bullshit right now.

You're misunderstanding my point so I'll move on because I don't think you'll grasp what I'm trying to say.

Fact is you were wrong about Norman being picked up by police and your flimsy thin excuses about why the player shouldn't be named are see through. You're clearly defending a Broncos player because that's your team, which is fair enough if you'd only understand that's what you're doing. The player should be named because he's caught in an act that isn't deserving of a presumption of innocence

Shanbon wrote:There is no time frame on the other tapes. You can name a player and say that the substance is unknown. Your excuses are bull

So the sex tape did show Norman and Seggy committing an illegal act? (I haven't seen the video) If so that is poor form on the media's behalf. I thought they were named in the media because they didn't committ an illegal act rather they were just doing something incredibly stupid.

Honeysett wrote:

You're misunderstanding my point so I'll move on because I don't think you'll grasp what I'm trying to say.

Fact is you were wrong about Norman being picked up by police and your flimsy thin excuses about why the player shouldn't be named are see through. You're clearly defending a Broncos player because that's your team, which is fair enough if you'd only understand that's what you're doing. The player should be named because he's caught in an act that isn't deserving of a presumption of innocence

No you are wrong. Go back through and read all my comments and you will see I am right.

Norman was picked up by Police with the drugs on him in person. The random player in the video (of which there is no time frame) has not been found in the possession of drugs such as Norman was. I am not defending any club whatsoever so move on from that bullshit (that is just your assumption - never assume anything). Rather I am not throwing an NRL player under the bus until he has been proven guilty or there is sufficient evidence like the player being arrested for possession(such in Normans case). I gave Radradra the EXACT same treatment.

If any NRL player from any club is found to commit an illegal act (such as drug possession in Normans case) I suspect the club would stand down that player immediately and with good cause. If a player from the Broncos is found guilty of committing an illegal act then name and shame them and stand them down from playing footy. Simple.

Bren wrote:

No you are wrong. Go back through and read all my comments and you will see I am right.

Norman was picked up by Police with the drugs on him in person. The random player in the video (of which there is no time frame) has not been found in the possession of drugs such as Norman was. I am not defending any club whatsoever so move on from that bullshit (that is just your assumption - never assume anything). Rather I am not throwing an NRL player under the bus until he has been proven guilty or there is sufficient evidence like the player being arrested for possession(such in Normans case). I gave Radradra the EXACT same treatment.

1. Security guards found the pills on Norman not the police - you're wrong.
2. Norman wasnt arrested at all in possession - you're wrong

You're making shit up and you're wrong. If you're going to argue at least get your facts right. You're saying it's alright Norman to be named based of your incorrect assumptions.

Honeysett wrote:

1. Security guards found the pills on Norman not the police - you're wrong.
2. Norman wasnt arrested at all in possession - you're wrong

You're making shit up and you're wrong. If you're going to argue at least get your facts right. You're saying it's alright Norman to be named based of your incorrect assumptions.

Norman was found guilty of drug possession and was charged with drug possession by Police. Fact. I'm right, you are wrong.

Bren wrote:

Norman was found guilty of drug possession and was charged with drug possession by Police. Fact. I'm right, you are wrong.

I didn't say he wasn't. The argument is the player should be named for what he's done if there's found to have video evidence of him doing it. You're wanting to keep your cake and eat it too. You're fine with Norman being named (because you've made up your own facts) and then claiming the Broncos player shouldn't be (because of time frame, why the fuck that matters no one knows) you're either an idiot or biased. I'll let you decide.

There's really only 2-3 players it could be.

No Worries wrote:There's really only 2-3 players it could be.

Roberts, Milford, Wallace, Pangai Jnr


are the only blokes who could be considered future origin players from the Dogs game