Matt Lodge Discussion

[theshed]

EDIT:
I'm just tired of the media narrative against the club. Lodge is the worst human being to play RL and is apparently going to cost the game from a marketing POV when there are people who have done years in jail currently playing that faced a fraction of the scrutiny that Lodge is copping. If the media weren't reporting this the general public wouldn't' care that Lodge is returning to the code.

Bennett is also apparently a whinger and terrible for the code when he objectively puts the game above the Broncos on several occasions.

It’s representative bias, mate. Lodge definitely isn’t copping it any worse than any other player in his position has in the past.

 

[lynx000]

Short answer is yes.


Long answer: It’s easy to see our mates as the nice guys who are good friends while overlooking the shitty things they do to other people. Does it mean you shouldn’t be their friend? That’s not for me to decide. What it does mean though is that your friend is a fuckwit.

Packer may be a great guy 364 days of the year, but 1 day he stomped a mans head after assaulting him to the point he was lying on the floor. Should I hold that against him for the rest of his life? Uh yes. It takes a very long time to prove to society that you aren’t still the kind of guy who is capable of doing that. No way should you be allowed to earn 100s of thousands of dollars at a company that pretends to be moral pillars of th community.

Packer did a real shitty thing and shouldn’t be in the NRL according to the image the NRL itself has chosen to put forward. But again, I watch footy for entertainment, I couldn’t care less who these people are off the field. If anything their scummy behaviour adds to the entertainment.

My point though is that we as bronco fans should accept the shit we deservedly cop by signing this (historically) scummy human.

A really talented computer programmer at genius level and has the capacity to earn huge money. He is having a hard time with emotional problems, potentially some mental health issues. One night he stupidly mixes alcohol and some prescription medication and does something really stupid, let's say drives a vehicle and is involved in a collision which seriously injures the occupants of another vehicle. He is charged by the police, pleads guilty gets punished by the Court. He is also sued by the injured parties and has a large award of damages made against him. Would it be your opinion that this person should be prevented from going back to his previous profession to utilise his skill base and in time earn that large income? If so, why?

 

[lynx000]

There is one thing I have not been able to rationalize about this scenario with Lodge. I noted Talanoa's outrage above about his knowledge of the events. I do not know whether his understanding of the scenario comes from inside knowledge or from media reports about what went on that night. The thing I cannot understand is, if the incident played out as it has been represented in the media, and given that it occurred in the USA (where the Courts are generally not known for being light on crime and in particular violent crime), how in the world he got away with 2 weeks in Rikers and community service?? Something is not right in this scenario.

 

[Morkel]

There is one thing I have not been able to rationalize about this scenario with Lodge. I noted Talanoa's outrage above about his knowledge of the events. I do not know whether his understanding of the scenario comes from inside knowledge or from media reports about what went on that night. The thing I cannot understand is, if the incident played out as it has been represented in the media, and given that it occurred in the USA (where the Courts are generally not known for being light on crime and in particular violent crime), how in the world he got away with 2 weeks in Rikers and community service?? Something is not right in this scenario.

Because the victims decided to not pursue criminal charges, but make it a civil case instead. That way they could make money from their circumstance, instead of doing the right thing by society and actually have him charged and sentenced.

 

[Morkel]

A really talented computer programmer at genius level and has the capacity to earn huge money. He is having a hard time with emotional problems, potentially some mental health issues. One night he stupidly mixes alcohol and some prescription medication and does something really stupid, let's say drives a vehicle and is involved in a collision which seriously injures the occupants of another vehicle. He is charged by the police, pleads guilty gets punished by the Court. He is also sued by the injured parties and has a large award of damages made against him. Would it be your opinion that this person should be prevented from going back to his previous profession to utilise his skill base and in time earn that large income? If so, why?

Does his industry make the vast majority of its money from media rights, and is required to uphold a certain public image?

I keep coming back to the same thing - if you don’t want to be a role model or be expected to act as such, don’t expect the dollars that come with such a high profile sport.

 

[lynx000]

Because the victims decided to not pursue criminal charges, but make it a civil case instead. That way they could make money from their circumstance, instead of doing the right thing by society and actually have him charged and sentenced.

No he was charged by the police and convicted I understood.

 

[lynx000]

Does his industry make the vast majority of its money from media rights, and is required to uphold a certain public image?

I keep coming back to the same thing - if you don’t want to be a role model or be expected to act as such, don’t expect the dollars that come with such a high profile sport.

I struggle with the concept that any of these players are `role models'. Any large group will be a reflection of society. Within our body of `role models' we will have drug users, alcoholics, people with gambling addictions, sex offenders, thieves, perpetrators of domestic violence, thugs and just general merkins. Are they also `role models'?

 

[Alec]

It's funny, dirty NRL players are probably still better role models than some actual celebrities like Miley Cyrus or Justin Bieber or whatever.

 

[Jason Simmons]

Because the victims decided to not pursue criminal charges, but make it a civil case instead. That way they could make money from their circumstance, instead of doing the right thing by society and actually have him charged and sentenced.

Yes they did. He was charged, convicted and sentenced to a non-custodial sentence.

The civil case has been on top of that.

 

[theshed]

A really talented computer programmer at genius level and has the capacity to earn huge money. He is having a hard time with emotional problems, potentially some mental health issues. One night he stupidly mixes alcohol and some prescription medication and does something really stupid, let's say drives a vehicle and is involved in a collision which seriously injures the occupants of another vehicle. He is charged by the police, pleads guilty gets punished by the Court. He is also sued by the injured parties and has a large award of damages made against him. Would it be your opinion that this person should be prevented from going back to his previous profession to utilise his skill base and in time earn that large income? If so, why?

My issue isn’t with the individual, it’s the hypocrisy of the company. If his employer is a company that markets itself as having a strict moral code (e.g the NRL’s deadly choices promotion, women in league, anti-domestic violence stance, and the way they will often strongly renounce antisocial behaviour), then I think that an individual who goes against those morals should not be employed by them, and that they should be consistent across the board instead of giving preference to the more talented individuals.

Like I said in my earlier posts, I have no issue with him playing because to me it’s pretty irrelevant what a player does, and I’m in no place to judge him to severely myself. I do however think that his employment (and players with similar offences) in the broncos organisation, and the nrl does not meet the moral standards that they have proclaim to have.

On top of that, a computer programmer isn’t in the public eye. I can’t speak for anyone but myself but if Russel Packer has assualted me to the floor than stomped my head, I would feel quite a high level of discomfort seeing him live out a pristigious career on television.

Though another hypothetical that is similar to yours, and to sportsmen with poor behaviour is, do you think Kevin Spacy should continue to get work in Hollywood?

 

[Huge]

My issue isn’t with the individual, it’s the hypocrisy of the company. If his employer is a company that markets itself as having a strict moral code (e.g the NRL’s deadly choices promotion, women in league, anti-domestic violence stance, and the way they will often strongly renounce antisocial behaviour), then I think that an individual who goes against those morals should not be employed by them, and that they should be consistent across the board instead of giving preference to the more talented individuals.

Like I said in my earlier posts, I have no issue with him playing because to me it’s pretty irrelevant what a player does, and I’m in no place to judge him to severely myself. I do however think that his employment (and players with similar offences) in the broncos organisation, and the nrl does not meet the moral standards that they have proclaim to have.

On top of that, a computer programmer isn’t in the public eye. I can’t speak for anyone but myself but if Russel Packer has assualted me to the floor than stomped my head, I would feel quite a high level of discomfort seeing him live out a pristigious career on television.

Though another hypothetical that is similar to yours, and to sportsmen with poor behaviour is, do you think Kevin Spacy should continue to get work in Hollywood?

Kevin Spacey, **** yes. Some of the greatest motion pictures in history were jointly made by persons less savoury than Spacey. If a person has done the time and mended their ways, all good. Mind you, I don't extend that as far as child killers, rapists, murderers, lawyers and all the other really loathsome fiends. It's just that 99% of us have a line in the sand and all we are quibbling about is location.

 

[holdzy]

Kevin Spacey, **** yes. Some of the greatest motion pictures in history were jointly made by persons less savoury than Spacey. If a person has done the time and mended their ways, all good. Mind you, I don't extend that as far as child killers, rapists, murderers, lawyers and all the other really loathsome fiends. It's just that 99% of us have a line in the sand and all we are quibbling about is location.

It gets less savoury than sexually assaulting/harassing underage boys in your book? The piece of shit should be black-listed for good.

I struggle with the concept that any of these players are `role models'. Any large group will be a reflection of society. Within our body of `role models' we will have drug users, alcoholics, people with gambling addictions, sex offenders, thieves, perpetrators of domestic violence, thugs and just general merkins. Are they also `role models'?

Yes. Bad role models can be as useful as good ones - all adults are role models by virtue of our concept of society. You may not want to be a role model, but if you are a professional sports person, you are. Expectations to be a professional are the constant, being a **** head is the variable. I agree with earlier sentiments, if you aren't up for the second part of being a professional athlete, that is, the part of ambassador, willing or otherwise, that will influence whether kids play the sport and parents let them, go dig holes.

 

[kat00]

1- It is offensive to their victims, and additional psychological punishment to see their tormentor's public success and reward.
2- It serves as example to others, that no matter how much talent and/or ability you have, there are boundaries you cannot cross.

Only problem with this is, thank God, we live in a society then when we break the law we have a price to pay, to society.
I'd imagine victims can litigate civilly should they choose.

In Packers case, he went to jail........debt paid to society and it really is that simple.
The example to deter "Others" was set by Packer being imprisoned for his crime.
In my opinion Packers crime was abhorrent but he doesn't have to pay for it for the rest of his life according to the laws we all have to abide by and live with.

As for Lodge? I wonder if he has paid his debt but I buggered if I am going to take the sanctimonious moral high ground but I will watch both his career and behaviour with interest.

 

[Dash]

Only problem with this is, thank God, we live in a society then when we break the law we have a price to pay, to society.
I'd imagine victims can litigate civilly should they choose.

In Packers case, he went to jail........debt paid to society and it really is that simple.
The example to deter "Others" was set by Packer being imprisoned for his crime.
In my opinion Packers crime was abhorrent but he doesn't have to pay for it for the rest of his life according to the laws we all have to abide by and live with.

As for Lodge? I wonder if he has paid his debt but I buggered if I am going to take the sanctimonious moral high ground but I will watch both his career and behaviour with interest.

He paid his 'criminal' debt just as Packer did. Lodge undertook all punishment as deemed appropriate by the judge. There's nothing else he can do.

In my opinion, Packer's crime was far worse. People got over it, just as they'll get over the Lodge situation as soon as something new comes along to be outraged about.

 

[Morkel]

Yes they did. He was charged, convicted and sentenced to a non-custodial sentence.

The civil case has been on top of that.

Sorry, I stand corrected.

 

[lynx000]

My issue isn’t with the individual, it’s the hypocrisy of the company. If his employer is a company that markets itself as having a strict moral code (e.g the NRL’s deadly choices promotion, women in league, anti-domestic violence stance, and the way they will often strongly renounce antisocial behaviour), then I think that an individual who goes against those morals should not be employed by them, and that they should be consistent across the board instead of giving preference to the more talented individuals.

Like I said in my earlier posts, I have no issue with him playing because to me it’s pretty irrelevant what a player does, and I’m in no place to judge him to severely myself. I do however think that his employment (and players with similar offences) in the broncos organisation, and the nrl does not meet the moral standards that they have proclaim to have.

On top of that, a computer programmer isn’t in the public eye. I can’t speak for anyone but myself but if Russel Packer has assualted me to the floor than stomped my head, I would feel quite a high level of discomfort seeing him live out a pristigious career on television.

Though another hypothetical that is similar to yours, and to sportsmen with poor behaviour is, do you think Kevin Spacy should continue to get work in Hollywood?

Thank you for the reply. So, if the employer does none of those things, that is, uses it's large public profile to try and do some public good and public education via various programs, it would be okay for someone like Lodge to be still employed? You also on another level, have no issue with an employer simply blocking an individual from pursuing employment in their chosen field and more than that, proffering no assistance to the individual in their attempts at rehabilitation (particularly after they have shown some level of commitment by (a) not touching alcohol for over 800 days or whatever the figure is; (b) fully participating in their community service obligations in two countries; and (c) voluntarily participating in programs to educate young people against making the same mistakes that the individual has made.

I would have thought that where an individual has already demonstrated that level of commitment to their rehabilitation, that there is in fact a moral obligation on an employer who markets itself as having a strict moral code to support such a person in their rehabilitative endeavours.

My issue with all of this is when is punishment enough. He did something really, really stupid under the influence of alcohol and drugs.

He has been charged and dealt with by the Courts and fully complied with his sentence and what was required of him. He has performed his community service both in the USA and here. He has been of good behaviour since then and has taken extra steps to provide some payment back to the community. He has also been prevented from playing at NRL level for 2 years, at a cost to him of anywhere between $200,000.00 to potentially $600,000.00. When has he been punished enough?

 

[lynx000]

Though another hypothetical that is similar to yours, and to sportsmen with poor behaviour is, do you think Kevin Spacy should continue to get work in Hollywood?

Two responses to that:

1. Kevin Spacey has suffered no punishment for his alleged `crimes'. At this stage he has not been charged, he has not been convicted, he has paid no penalty whatsoever. If you adopt the innocent until proven guilty mantra, then until there is some proof of the allegations, he should not been be penalised by being blacklisted in his industry. In the current `me too' environment, it appears that all you need is a mob making the same or similar allegations to be sufficient proof in the court of public opinion. I am a strong believer in the former, so until there is actual proof that has been accepted by a court or other authority, there is no sound basis in my view for him to be restricted from working. In reality, the court of public opinion will and has ensured that he will be blacklisted.

2. If you accept the allegations as fact, there is a basis for an argument that Spacey should be prevented from working in the industry again. That is, some of the allegations have harassment occurring on film sets, stage plays and therefore effectively in a work environment. Secondly, Spacey has used the profile he has developed as a film star from working within his industry as a means to carry out his alleged conduct. On both of those grounds, there is a basis for him to be prevented from working in the industry.

Compare that to Lodge. He was a 21 year old nobody (particularly in the USA) and his conduct on the evening in question had absolutely no link to his employment duties or role. He was not representing the NRL, he was not in his playing gear. He was in fact in another country. He was no different to a drunk, drug affected 21 year old American male with an attitude problem.

By the way, I would be saying the same things if Lodge had been contracted by the Storm. He is entitled to another chance to prove himself. He is in a different position in my view to someone like Carney (how many chances was he given by the NRL?) or Barba, who were also given more than one opportunity by the NRL and blew it.

 

[Porthoz]

Only problem with this is, thank God, we live in a society then when we break the law we have a price to pay, to society.
I'd imagine victims can litigate civilly should they choose.

In Packers case, he went to jail........debt paid to society and it really is that simple.
The example to deter "Others" was set by Packer being imprisoned for his crime.
In my opinion Packers crime was abhorrent but he doesn't have to pay for it for the rest of his life according to the laws we all have to abide by and live with.

As for Lodge? I wonder if he has paid his debt but I buggered if I am going to take the sanctimonious moral high ground but I will watch both his career and behaviour with interest.

I sure as hell will take the moral high ground, and it will be anything but sanctimonious, because the worst things I've done in my life (according to society), are: speeding, not completely stopping at a stop sign and other minor traffic offences, I may or may not have smoked illegal substances and walked out of a supermarket as kid with an unpaid chocolate in my pocket... and yes, I have been blind drunk too, without feeling the urge to glass someone, break into someone's home and threaten to kill them, stomp on a person's head, or abort my unborn child by kicking the mother in the gut.

The bold part would implicate that he would be denied a right, which a high paid career in the limelight is not. It's a privilege!
No one is saying he should stay in jail forever, or denied an opportunity to earn an honest buck outside of the public eye.

There are plenty of professions which society has deemed being permanently unattainable for people with a criminal past. High profile professional sports are in my opinion, part of those that should be permanently denied once someone commits a crime of such a nature as Lodge or Packer committed, not to speak of Metcalf, who still tops the list, but flew under the radar.

The example I am talking about, is the idea that regardless of your past behaviour, talent opens doors that would otherwise be forever shut for the unlucky talent-less people who are shunned forever once they are branded a criminal for much lesser offences (which is something I also do not agree with btw).