Brett Stewart under investigation for alleged sexual assault

Nashy said:
Broken Link.

If that's the girl with the Dolce and Gabbana (can't spell) shirt, then that's not her. That's the sponsor's daughter.
Click to expand...
Well yes that's her, then that guy who said that was the girl in question is stupid.
Actually my bad you are right, that is the sponsors daughter, i was just confused.
http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/g ... -3,00.html
either way shes hot :P
 
Coxy said:
The NRL are covering themselves by saying it's been accepted that Stewart drank excessively at an official function and thus has breached their code of conduct.

That way they're not saying he's being stood down due to sexual assault charges, but because of boozing.
Click to expand...
Surely though if they're going to officially take that line, then Watmough should be in the same boat? I think even saying that is still leaving the door open for possible trouble for themselves.
 
I agree. Just saying how they're justifying their actions.
 
I'm sure the NRL aren't stupid, I'm sure there are plenty of things in their contracts that state they can do whatever, whenever to do with this that and everything. Don't like it, don't sign it.
 
I know, that's a dodgy move by the NRL...they should say they're dropping him because of the charges. Otherwise our 3 broncos boys are very, very lucky.

Unless Brett had a special agreement that he had to sign to star in the ad etc?
 
It comes under that cover all of Bringing the Game into Disrepute.

And to be honest I think if the Broncos situation had happened at the beginning of last season instead of finals time they would have been stood down. Double standard I know, but it's what I believe. And as Rock pointed out, I would say the NRL have further information that would lead them to believe he is more likely to be found guilty of something than not.

There is also the fact that these incidents just keep happening and the "punishments" handed down over previous incidents just don't seem to be having an impact, so they are taking a harder and harder stance.
 
Yes indead there is a clear line of events to say that the stance is becoming harder every year. I don't think they are debating the fact their current line of punishments are comparable to a couple years ago, they seam to be very clearly making a statement that they will continue to crack down on this every season until the NRL is about as clean as can be possible. God help the next player to play up cause I am sure the NRL isn't about to step back... and in the current climate where sponsors are hard enough to attract as it is I must say I agree with the decision.
 
The Rock said:
The thing that is most surprising for me is that he has actually been charged. Now there's been heaps of similar incidents like this in the past (like the Broncos one last year) yet there was never any real talk of them being charged.

This police must have some serious evidence to charge him this early in saga. I think the NRL would probably have this information and are certain that they are making the right decision.

P.S. Looks like Stewart's NSW jersey is goornskies now.
Click to expand...

Anthony Laffranchi was charged in 2007.

edit: Michael Crockett was too.
 
Laffranchi got off (pardon the pun) because a jury couldn't be sure it wasn't consensual, as is often the case in these cases...however, it went to trial and through the whole process and could easily have gone either way to be honest.
 
Yeah. The magistrate decides whether a jury could make an informed decision.
 
Nashy said:
Wasn't he suspended by the Titans though?
Click to expand...

Nope.

I believe Crockett also wasn't suspended for the vast majority of time he was facing a rape charge.

All well and good that the NRL has taken this action. I for one agree with it.

But it sets a precedent. There's no doubt about that.
 
The main reason IMO is because it was during Manly's season launch & that he was one of the main players in the NRL ad.
 
That is only the reason the NRL are using so they don't get burned if he is proven innocent. The ban is clearly for the whole chain of events involving Stewart from the ad campaign to all of the events at and after the launch including the alleged incident.
 
Gallop is an ex lawyer he knows he has to choose his wording carefully when giving reasons for punishment.
 
Fatty was on radio this morning saying they did an interview with Brett Stewart last Friday before the incident and he was saying something about how players have to be responsible for their own behaviour etc... embarrassing.
 
New Posts

Unread

Watch

YouTube
0 0 722
1:29:58
NSWRL Minor Semi Final, 1990 - Brisbane Broncos vs Manly Sea Eagles
View full media list »

Active Now

  • Sproj
  • lynx000
  • Lostboy
  • Jedhead
  • Morkel
  • 1910
  • PT42
  • Wolfie
  • broncoscope
Total: 132 (members: 12, guests: 120)
Robots: 292
Top
  AdBlock Message
Please consider adding BHQ to your Adblock Whitelist. We do our best to make sure it doesn't affect your experience on the website, and the funds help us pay server and software costs.