The bad behaviour thread

Pieman wrote:Is he stood down with pay?

If he is paid fully while standing down then what leg does he have to stand on if he is found not-guilty? rep payments or something if it stops him from getting picked?

I think its a ridiculous decision... I mean, yeah fuck him off if found guilty but standing someone down before that is insane.

Exactly Dip - they now have to stand walker down, hayne (I know i know) etc. Where does it stop? Anyone with an assault charge? anyone with a DUI charge? I mean, its all breaking the law...

I don't know enough about the legalities but it's got to affect his earning potential. If he wasn't contracted for next year how is meant to showcase his abilities to any clubs? He's gone from a rep player to someone who hasn't played a game in over 18 months if this lasts the whole season.

Pieman wrote:Where does it stop? Anyone with an assault charge? anyone with a DUI charge? I mean, its all breaking the law...

You should watch the press conference, it very clearly answers "where does it stop?"

He's pretty clear that being charged with any violent offence will see you rubbed out. So long as the offence is non-violent no matter how dangerous Greenburg will even write you a character reference to try and help with your sentencing.

Players under an NRL contract facing a serious indictable offence which carries a jail term of maximum 11 years or more will be stood down, anything lower is at the discretion of the CEO.

the ARLC and NRL were in a 'damned if they do, damned if they don't' situation here, but i think they made the right call in the end, you just can't allow some-one with that kind of criminal charge hanging over their head to publicly represent your brand, he'd have already been told to go away for a while long before today if he was a public face in any other job sector.

surmo13 wrote:Players under an NRL contract facing a serious indictable offence which carries a jail term of maximum 11 years or more will be stood down, anything lower is at the discretion of the CEO.

the ARLC and NRL were in a 'damned if they do, damned if they don't' situation here, but i think they made the right call in the end, you just can't allow some-one with that kind of criminal charge hanging over their head to publicly represent your brand, he'd have already been told to go away for a while long before today if he was a public face in any other job sector.

Sorry but they are only "dammed if they don't" because of their own inadequacies leading up to this point.

Maybe they should have invested in more training for the players, maybe they need better approaches, maybe they simply allowed a media shitstorm to stir up a frenzy they had to act on for the sake of their own job.
I'm not sure and I'm not involved in the NRL, so would only be speculating.

Regardless of where the inadequacy lies, I can't come to this being a sensible or worthwhile decision.

It jumps the gun and allows potentially innocent people to be punished while the people who are responsible (and more capable) of making the correct decision e.g. the judges, do just that.

It doesn't damage the NRL or the clubs or the sponsors because they can and should be distancing themselves from what is essentially an individual matter.

Any comparisons to professions where continuing in the same role would be compromised (e.g. policeman, politician, teacher) are simply moronic.

What it also doesn't do is serve a purpose.
Do you really think being stood down from the NRL while a case is heard has any impact on decision making, compared to facing 11+ years behind bars??

So basically following this 'stance' the small percentage of shitbags in the comp will still offend and the blokes that are genuinely innocent will be punished.

Well said OSM.

What an amazingly passive aggressive time we live in where a person can anonymously put out there their dislike of an opinion for the world to see with absolutely no reasoning:rollinglaugh:

"Dragons CEO Brian Johnston spoke to the media before Greenberg announced the move to say his club was supportive of the NRL's stance about player misbehaviour.

He said the club was "very, very concerned" about the welfare of de Belin."

What I do not get in all this, is nobody in the NRL/ARLC hierarchy or within the club has expressed any concern whatsoever for the woman who has alleged she was raped. I cannot imagine anyone wanting to allege something like this and go through the very public ordeal of having their traumatic experience played out in such a public way.

This woman most likely will never at all return to a normal life, regardless of the outcome of the trial. The impacts of a crime this serious extend well beyond the club and the game. I applaud the NRL for doing this. A fair process is required for sure. The alleged attacker will not lose out financially unless he is found guilty and the anguish of missing football games pales in comparison to anything experiences on the other side. I can completely understand why women would be reluctant to report things like this. The real case of "damned if you do and damned if you don't" is not being experienced by the NRL. It is not a difficult process at all to establish and maintain consent.

Buramada wrote:"Dragons CEO Brian Johnston spoke to the media before Greenberg announced the move to say his club was supportive of the NRL's stance about player misbehaviour.

He said the club was "very, very concerned" about the welfare of de Belin."

What I do not get in all this, is nobody in the NRL/ARLC hierarchy or within the club has expressed any concern whatsoever for the woman who has alleged she was raped. I cannot imagine anyone wanting to allege something like this and go through the very public ordeal of having their traumatic experience played out in such a public way.

This woman most likely will never at all return to a normal life, regardless of the outcome of the trial. The impacts of a crime this serious extend well beyond the club and the game. I applaud the NRL for doing this. A fair process is required for sure. The alleged attacker will not lose out financially unless he is found guilty and the anguish of missing football games pales in comparison to anything experiences on the other side. I can completely understand why women would be reluctant to report things like this. The real case of "damned if you do and damned if you don't" is not being experienced by the NRL. It is not a difficult process at all to establish and maintain consent.

You’re 100% right about no one mentioning the lady involved and I agree completely. 
You’re also 100% right about everything else if you assume that he’s guilty but thankfully we live in a country where he’s assumed innocent. 
My personal opinion on it is that he is guilty and he’s lucky I’m not that ladies father but I can personally say that people can and do get accused and charged with crimes that they didn’t commit. 
I look at this similarly to the death penalty which I also hate, there are very few things in the world which can be 100% guaranteed and until it can taking someone’s life who has a 0.00001% chance of being innocent is wrong. 
In no way am I defending JDB but I am defending the principle that he shouldn’t be punished without due process taking its course. Especially by a piece of shit who was defending another player who could have killed someone only a few months ago.

Most people would be suspended from work if they were charged with rape or similar.

Check with your HR tomorrow if you're not sure.

Bravo Buramada.

Another aspect not discussed is the roll of Peter Beattie.
The media was always going to have a field day with this issue. So what does Peter do in the lead up to today's decision? For the last two weeks he's turned into a media tart cropping up all over the place offering opinions and thus he helps keep the issue in the media. And he also loves tweeter. He should have shut up. He was part of the reason this case was getting continuing publicity.
He obviously wanted today's decisions and that could have been achieved behind the scenes with less public scrutiny.
I predict he resigns in a months time.

Krump wrote:
You’re 100% right about no one mentioning the lady involved and I agree completely. 
You’re also 100% right about everything else if you assume that he’s guilty but thankfully we live in a country where he’s assumed innocent. 
My personal opinion on it is that he is guilty and he’s lucky I’m not that ladies father but I can personally say that people can and do get accused and charged with crimes that they didn’t commit. 
I look at this similarly to the death penalty which I also hate, there are very few things in the world which can be 100% guaranteed and until it can taking someone’s life who has a 0.00001% chance of being innocent is wrong. 
In no way am I defending JDB but I am defending the principle that he shouldn’t be punished without due process taking its course. Especially by a piece of shit who was defending another player who could have killed someone only a few months ago.

He is not being punished. He is being stood down with full pay. He alone has put himself into a position where he has a high income based not only on his athletic prowess but on the popularity of the game in the media. There are many other ways for him to apply his professional skills but he has chosen this path... one where he has a high profile but high reward.

Despite some serious allegations, he has only been asked to stand aside (with full pay) while a resolution can be made about his integrity. His money is not earned because he plays football, but because football is watched.

Most high profile positions have trade-offs. One is that you maintain your integrity. Whether he is guilty or not guilty has nothing to do with his employer maintaining their integrity. People in other roles, get stood down, transferred or demoted for much less. Jack de Belin is having a sook over nothing.

As I said, it is not hard to establish and maintain enthusiastic consent. What happens at his trial (innocent or guilty) has nothing to do with his capacity to effectively do his job with integrity. How many people do you know that are on trial for serious charges like this keep high profile jobs? There is nothing moronic about comparing to them. He has lost the faith of the public who watch football on television and effectively pay his salary. He should consider himself lucky that he is getting paid at all.

Pain wrote:Most people would be suspended from work if they were charged with rape or similar.

Check with your HR tomorrow if you're not sure.

I would but she might take it the wrong way...
I think it’s a long bow to compare me to an NRL player. If I’m lucky I’ll be doing my job until I’m 60 which gives me a hell of long time to recover from it. Good footy players are different in that they are on good money for only a very short period of time if they’re lucky. If this case goes on for two years which is entirely possible he’ll be negotiating what would have likely been his most lucrative contract right in the middle of it.

Krump wrote:
I would but she might take it the wrong way...
I think it’s a long bow to compare me to an NRL player. If I’m lucky I’ll be doing my job until I’m 60 which gives me a hell of long time to recover from it. Good footy players are different in that they are on good money for only a very short period of time if they’re lucky. If this case goes on for two years which is entirely possible he’ll be negotiating what would have likely been his most lucrative contract right in the middle of it.

Should have thought long and hard about that before he headed out for the evening. This has got nothing to do with his trial for rape and everything to do with his personal integrity.

Buramada wrote:

He is not being punished. He is being stood down with full pay. He alone has put himself into a position where he has a high income based not only on his athletic prowess but on the popularity of the game in the media. There are many other ways for him to apply his professional skills but he has chosen this path... one where he has a high profile but high reward.

Despite some serious allegations, he has only been asked to stand aside (with full pay) while a resolution can be made about his integrity. His money is not earned because he plays football, but because football is watched.

Most high profile positions have trade-offs. One is that you maintain your integrity. Whether he is guilty or not guilty has nothing to do with his employer maintaining their integrity. People in other roles, get stood down, transferred or demoted for much less. Jack de Belin is having a sook over nothing.

As I said, it is not hard to establish and maintain enthusiastic consent. What happens at his trial (innocent or guilty) has nothing to do with his capacity to effectively do his job with integrity. How many people do you know that are on trial for serious charges like this keep high profile jobs? There is nothing moronic about comparing to them. He has lost the faith of the public who watch football on television and effectively pay his salary. He should consider himself lucky that he is getting paid at all.

Like I said before if you show me one skerrick of evidence showing him doing ANYTHING wrong I would totally agree. Stumbling around half pissed, not tipping his Uber which is apparently a thing now, anything, if you can show me an action that he’s taken which has placed the NRL into disrepute then I’d want him gone. Like I said I think he did it and anyone who does something like that that should get life without parole but right now he’s guilty of nothing other than the accusation of another person. 
If he’s guilty he’s going to be punished, that’s without question. So explain to me why it is that he should be punished now prematurely when nobody other than him, the lady in question and his dickhead mate know what happened?

Buramada wrote:

Should have thought long and hard about that before he headed out for the evening. This has got nothing to do with his trial for rape and everything to do with his personal integrity.

You’re losing me now. NRL players aren’t allowed to go out for a few drinks? 
Edit: deleting random baseless theories that help nothing.

Krump wrote:

Like I said before if you show me one skerrick of evidence showing him doing ANYTHING wrong I would totally agree. Stumbling around half pissed, not tipping his Uber which is apparently a thing now, anything, if you can show me an action that he’s taken which has placed the NRL into disrepute then I’d want him gone. Like I said I think he did it and anyone who does something like that that should get life without parole but right now he’s guilty of nothing other than the accusation of another person. 
If he’s guilty he’s going to be punished, that’s without question. So explain to me why it is that he should be punished now prematurely when nobody other than him, the lady in question and his dickhead mate know what happened?

The evidence is that a woman has made a rape claim against him, including going to the police and getting physically examined. She knows what happened and most of the country knows that she did this. If this happened to me the last thing I would be concerned about is my next season contract, it would be how did I get myself into this mess.

Why is going to trial = rape
Why he has lost his personal and public integrity = not establishing and maintaining enthusiastic consent.

REPEAT - He is not being punished. He is getting full pay. He is just not getting it for being in front and centre of millions of people for a bit for obvious reasons. Kind of like getting put out the back washing dishes instead of doing counter service for not grooming yourself well. Same pay, different role. Not being punished -- being moved somewhere, where he does less damage to the brand.

I'm just glad his partner is standing by him

Krump wrote:
You’re losing me now. NRL players aren’t allowed to go out for a few drinks? 
Edit: deleting random baseless theories that help nothing.

If they cant maintain and establish enthusiastic sexual consent after they have had a few drinks then yes they probably should not go out, where they are liable to violate other peoples safety. If he had done this, there would be no rape allegation. This is pretty clear, No?

Absolute rubbish. In this country a person is innocent until PROVEN guilty. Just because someone CLAIMS something happened doesn't make it so until proven in a court of law.
To pre-judge someone by standing them down is an absolute joke of the highest order. If he is found not guilty I hope he sues the NRL for millions. If he is found guilty I hope he rots in jail.