Brett Stewart under investigation for alleged sexual assault

[Bucking Beads]

Stewart is gone surely he will not play this weekend.. As for Watmough he needs to be suspended by the club for a month at the very least and fined a decent sum of money...

 

[Flutterby]

Isn't there a whole other thread dedicated to the Watmough incident?

 

[Aeetee]

Isn't there a whole other thread dedicated to the Watmough incident?

yeah yeah hold your horses, I had both open and just put it in the wrong one.

 

[Flutterby]

Admins should take more care - they set the standard around here you know :p

 

[Kaz]

Admins should take more care - they set the standard around here you know

Be nice to admin, they have the ban button. :P

 

[Flutterby]

Tee wouldn't ban me :mrgreen:

Note to Tee - that is not a dare.

 

[Aeetee]

Soooo tempted.......... MWAHAHAHAHA

ok I wouldn't :)

 

[mick]

yeah yeah hold your horses, I had both open and just put it in the wrong one.

That's what she said.

icon_thumbs_u

 

[Assassin]

Can't beleive Stewarts been charged with rapeing a 17 year old and he's still playing this weekend.... man the manly team is going to cop some heckeling on away games this year... its not like they were the most liked team to start with you know.

 

[Coxy]

And the fact they're playing the Bulldogs, the original gang rapists, who never got charged....ouch. Their fans are going to go ape at the Sea Eagles.

 

[Emma]

I don't necessarily have an issue with Stewart playing this weekend. I realise he's now been charged, but surely everyone is entitled to a presumption of innocence until they are found guilty? Let's say down the track charges are dropped, it ends up being a load of bs? I'm not saying I think that's what will happen, but let's say it does. He's then been stood down for doing absolutely nothing wrong. How unfair would that be, not only to him, but to the rest of the team and their fans? Now I'm not one for feeling sorry for Manly or their fans, but if this was to happen to my team (which it very nearly did), I wouldn't want the player stood down until he was found guilty.

Also, bulldogs fans have vowed to absolutely give it to Stewart on the weekend. Standing him down would mean we miss out on that and that's something I'm looking forward to! icon_thumbs_u

 

[Coxy]

I actually tend to agree. However, if sponsors of the NRL or the Sea Eagles start getting nervous and threaten to withdraw support then that may force their hand (as the Sharks' hand was forced with Greg Bird).

 

[Emma]

Oh definitely Coxy, if that happens then they'll have no choice. And I wouldn't blame the sponsors if they did that. The fact remains that he got so drunk at a club function that he doesn't even remember the events of the night at all. For some sponsors, that would be more than enough to threaten withdrawal of their sponsorship in which case Manly would have to do the right thing by the club and not play him.

 

[mrslong]

I would have no issues with them playing Stewart, but the precedent was set with Bird that once a Charge is laid he was stood down. It would not be fair to Greg Bird if Stewart was allowed to play.

The NRL can't be showing favouritism, they need to be consistent if they want the players to stop getting in trouble.

Just because you're the pin-up boy of the NRL doesn't mean you have special exemptions.

 

[Coxy]

I don't think it can be black and white. It depends on the individual case.

But in this case we're talking about an alleged assault on a minor. I think the damage caused to the game by letting him play and then find he's convicted is far worse than the damage caused by standing him down and then having him found innocent.

 

[mrslong]

Exactly Coxy...it's not worth risking the product of the game.

I would have been saying the same thing if Hunt, Thaiday & Boyd had've been charged last year too.

 

[Emma]

I would have no issues with them playing Stewart, but the precedent was set with Bird that once a Charge is laid he was stood down. It would not be fair to Greg Bird if Stewart was allowed to play.

The NRL can't be showing favouritism, they need to be consistent if they want the players to stop getting in trouble.

Just because you're the pin-up boy of the NRL doesn't mean you have special exemptions.

In the Greg Bird case, the reason he was stood down was because he lied to the club repeatedly, and made them look like idiots in the process. There was a board member on the radio the other day talking about it and a Cronulla fan rang up and asked why Stewart should be treated any differently and the board member stated Bird was not stood down for any other reason.

In this case, Stewart is cooperating with police and appears to be being honest with his club. Completely different circumstance. I realise the charge is a major one, but I still see no need until such time as he is found guilty or admits guilt, that he should be punished. It is hardly fair on the club and fans to stand a player down who may well be innocent for all we know. The majority of the population would get the advantage of being allowed to continue in their jobs if they had simply been charged and not yet convicted, and whilst I realise this isn't some random company that isn't in the spotlight, I really fail to see why this should be treated and differently.

 

[Coxy]

Yep, that doesn't surprise me. Manly can afford to have a bit of public backlash about playing him. The NRL can't.