Allegations against Bulldogs

[Kaz]

Doesn't look like a player to me.

He's probably a friend of one of the players.

 

[fredie]

the bulldogs know who it was . he will reprimanded by club indoors lol. behind closed doors without media knowledge .

 

[Browny]

Can you please use sentences fredie, it's painful trying to decipher what you're saying

 

[Kaz]

Major Bulldogs sponsor comes to defence of beleaguered players in the wake of Mad Monday antics

As Canterbury-Bankstown handed their report on their Mad Monday antics into the NRL, the club's major sponsor defended the players in question and claimed women are subject to same shabby treatment in Sydney pubs.

And new Cronulla signing Luke Lewis believes the players should stick together and not give the culprits up.
+++++++++++++++

Further down the page.
____________________

Gary Johnston, head of the Bulldogs' major sponsor Jaycar, went on radio on Wednesday to defend the players's right to privacy

But Johnston went on to compare the Bulldogs' Mad Monday antics to what can be expected in Sydney pubs and clubs

"What they said was outrageous but they're only young blokes. And in every pub in Sydney you can come across that language," said Johnston.

"It doesn't make it right, it just makes it the reality of what it is.

"If a woman walks into some bars in Sydney, she will be ogled.

"She will be treated as an object and that's the way it is. She doesn't have to walk into those bars.

http://www.foxsports.com.au/league/...ad-monday-antics/story-fn2mcuj6-1226487642827

Full interview can be heard here.

http://soundcloud.com/sydney-live/gary-johnston-owner-of-jaycar

 

[Nashy]

Lol. It happens other places, so that makes it fine?

 

[Coxy]

Lol. It happens other places, so that makes it fine?

Yes. They're young men. Young men get drunk and demand chicks suck them off and threaten to punch them in the head. That's just what guys do. Boys will be boys.

/sarcasm

 

[broncos4life]

The fact that Johnston is the head of a even semi successful company is astonishing. The fact that he believes it would be common place for women to be verbally abused, told to suck a guys **** and that he is gonna punch her in the head is horrifying.

But I suppose if he says so its all fine. After all boys will be boys and if she didn't want to have that said to her, then why has she left the house? Back in the kitchen b****

 

[subsbligh]

The fact that Johnston is the head of a even semi successful company is astonishing. The fact that he believes it would be common place for women to be verbally abused, told to suck a guys **** and that he is gonna punch her in the head is horrifying.

But I suppose if he says so its all fine. After all boys will be boys and if she didn't want to have that said to her, then why has she left the house? Back in the kitchen b****

The point he is trying to make is that footballers shouldn't have to meet an objective standard greater than other members of society. I think he is right on that point. I'd like to see a logical argument why they have a higher standard.

BUT I disagree that the apparent standard in general society is that it is ok to make the alleged remarks (which are still yet to be proven to be directed at the complainant or said by any particular person, let alone a member of the Bulldogs playing group) to any person, whether they were looking for trouble or not.

 

[Nashy]

They wern't in a bar. The reason the clubs hold Mad Monday is so all the players are in their sites, and they can be looked after so they don't do stupid shit which brings the game into disrepute.

They are professional athletes, they are in the spotlight, they are role models. They should be acting better than your average ****wit at the pub.

 

[Bucking Beads]

I've had a good laugh at this flog on twitter who keeps screaming blue murder that channel 9 are picking on the Bulldogs over this matter.

 

[fredie]

But I suppose if he says so its all fine. After all boys will be boys and if she didn't want to have that said to her, then why has she left the house? Back in the kitchen b****

get in there and cook some ears for us too munch on

 

[Coxy]

The real myth is that we all have a constant level of behaviour we need to uphold. When I'm at work, representing my employer, I need to be professional, courteous and respectful. When I'm at the footy or the pub or having a piss up at home with friends, not with work associates or in work attire or representing my employer, I don't have to be professional, and my levels of courteousness and respectfulness can vary.

The thing with sportspeople is their face is representing their club. The fact they are recognisable as representatives of their clubs means they are, while in public, ALWAYS needing to be professional, courteous and respectful. No ifs, no buts, no maybes. That's just part of the job.

What does that mean? If they go to a pub, a nightclub, a beach, anywhere public and act like a drunk, aggressive, abusive, harassing bogan then they are bringing their club, and by association the game into disrepute.

You can complain that that's not fair all you like, that other 20-year old blokes can do all that stuff and not risk being fired or criticised, but that's the way it is. While an average 20 year old could saunter up to a chick at a bar and say "Suck me bitch" and either get what he wants or get slapped, if a footballer does that there's very likely going to be more serious consequences.

Too bad. So sad.

The Bulldogs case is borderline because they were on private property, BUT their behaviour was public. And it went beyond ogling, it was degrading, threatening and abusive. There's no excuse.

 

[Kimlo]

Coxy makes a good point. When I'm wearing my IBM badge, I need to behave professionally because I'm representing the company. Kind of like back in school the principal would go off at people who kept their school uniform on outside of school hours because any bad behaviour would reflect poorly on the schools image.

 

[subsbligh]

The real myth is that we all have a constant level of behaviour we need to uphold. When I'm at work, representing my employer, I need to be professional, courteous and respectful. When I'm at the footy or the pub or having a piss up at home with friends, not with work associates or in work attire or representing my employer, I don't have to be professional, and my levels of courteousness and respectfulness can vary.

The thing with sportspeople is their face is representing their club. The fact they are recognisable as representatives of their clubs means they are, while in public, ALWAYS needing to be professional, courteous and respectful. No ifs, no buts, no maybes. That's just part of the job.

What does that mean? If they go to a pub, a nightclub, a beach, anywhere public and act like a drunk, aggressive, abusive, harassing bogan then they are bringing their club, and by association the game into disrepute.

You can complain that that's not fair all you like, that other 20-year old blokes can do all that stuff and not risk being fired or criticised, but that's the way it is. While an average 20 year old could saunter up to a chick at a bar and say "Suck me bitch" and either get what he wants or get slapped, if a footballer does that there's very likely going to be more serious consequences.

Too bad. So sad.

The Bulldogs case is borderline because they were on private property, BUT their behaviour was public. And it went beyond ogling, it was degrading, threatening and abusive. There's no excuse.

I see your very good point.

But isn't the beef then (using your analogy) with the Bulldogs as the players' employer. If they choose to hire ****wits, sobeit, as an outsider don't support the club.

I guess in some professions (given the position requires trustworthy and fit and proper perosn to carry out the role e.g. doctor's and lawyers) there is an overriding duty to the Court or the medical profession beyond just your employer.

I don't think you can draw that analogy to sports people. Their only real role in society is to entertain.

So do the players owe a duty to the NRL? On what basis?

 

[subsbligh]

They wern't in a bar. The reason the clubs hold Mad Monday is so all the players are in their sites, and they can be looked after so they don't do stupid shit which brings the game into disrepute.

They are professional athletes, they are in the spotlight, they are role models. They should be acting better than your average ****wit at the pub.

I personally hate the "role models" arguement. At best that might be the way it is in society, but it's not the way it should be.

 

[Coxy]

Because the NRL's business is to attract viewers, merchandise sales, ticket sales, sponsors. If you have a number of visual representatives of your business that turn the average person off that particular person, their club, it may also turn them off having an interest in the NRL.

For rusted on League fans, it won't make any real difference. Where it will have an impact is casual fans and, worse, casual fans who are parents who may then discourage their kids from watching the sport, let alone participating.

You can argue all you like that only prudes and softcocks would be put off by a few badly behaved boys but all it takes is one family to turn away from league, and a potential Darren Lockyer might be lost to another sport. A once in a lifetime player.

Have enough incidents or incidents serious enough and you just have to look at Alan Jones and all his sponsors deserting him.

It's too simplistic to just accept it as part of what stupid, young, drunk, (did I mention stupid?) men do.

 

[Nashy]

I personally hate the "role models" arguement. At best that might be the way it is in society, but it's not the way it should be.

Too bad. They are role models to many kids. Tell a kid he shouldn't aim to be his favourite footballer.

It's part of the job, if the players don't like it, they can go and lay bricks or whatever a Bulldogs player is capable of achieving somewhere else.

 

[m1c]

I think it's even more simple than being in a prominent position, a role model or representing a company or corporation. It doesn't matter if you're Brad Pitt of Joe Public - you'll pay some kind of price if comments of that nature can be attributed to you personally. The troll debate on twitter is a perfect example - unknown members of the public are being named and shamed, in some cases even reported to their workplaces . Times are-a-changin and individuals have unprecedented resources to inject their opinion into the public debate. The trade off happens to be accountability. I'm not sure why anyone is so surprised they're in strife.