NEWS Sampson: Lodge can make up for his past

soup said:
No, I was just giving Beads a pat on the back for posting as he’s been quiet lately and the place is better for his presence. It’s a shame you took it that way. He made a call a couple of years ago and he stuck to it. I respect that even though I disagreed with it.
Click to expand...

My apologies again, my radar seems to be out lately and I am misinterpreting things it seems.
 
Super Freak said:
And when you got older, what made you keep supporting them?
Click to expand...
Basically. You don't normally stop supporting a team unless you go full stupid like I did. I'm a man of my word. I said I wouldn't support the broncos if Bennet signed Boyd. I was actually very wrong about Boyd. He's changed my opinion of him.

I've stated a few times that I was a mass bellend for quitting on the Broncos. Now I have no feelings towards them at all. I barely even watch NRL.
 
I honestly can't believe people actually have a personal opinion on lodge and what he did. Did he do wrong? Ofcourse, but why do you all care so much? Why do you take it personally? I can bet my life that if Lodge absolutely kills it in the first 10 rounds, all of you won't care about what he did and you'll be praising him. We aren't him, or his family to care on his actions. He plays football for the Broncos, our club and should be judged based on his performances on the field, that's all. We also must trust Wayne and the staff to keep an eye on Lodge to keep him in the right headspace. Other than that? He looks like an incredible buy for us and I truly hope he becomes the monster forward we haven't had in years, but everyone should chill out about his personal life. All this talk about Lodge is too much, what he did or didn't do, should he play or not etc. Who is anyone to judge? I'm glad none of you are running our club lol.

Anyway, I absolutely can't wait for Thursday, really pumped and looking forward to the season ahead.
 
Dee said:
I honestly can't believe people actually have a personal opinion on lodge and what he did. Did he do wrong? Ofcourse, but why do you all care so much? Why do you take it personally? I can bet my life that if Lodge absolutely kills it in the first 10 rounds, all of you won't care about what he did and you'll be praising him. We aren't him, or his family to care on his actions. He plays football for the Broncos, our club and should be judged based on his performances on the field, that's all. We also must trust Wayne and the staff to keep an eye on Lodge to keep him in the right headspace. Other than that? He looks like an incredible buy for us and I truly hope he becomes the monster forward we haven't had in years, but everyone should chill out about his personal life. All this talk about Lodge is too much, what he did or didn't do, should he play or not etc. Who is anyone to judge? I'm glad none of you are running our club lol.

Anyway, I absolutely can't wait for Thursday, really pumped and looking forward to the season ahead.
Click to expand...

The media buzz around it will die down after the game is over. But it's probably only going to get worse in the lead up.
 
FACTS-

- Did Lodge commit a crime? Yes
- Did Lodge receive a sentence & was this sentence completed with any conditions applied adhered to? Yes
- In the eyes of the law once a sentence has been completed is a person seen to have done his time? Yes
- In regards to the civil case has Lodge repaid the $1.6m compensation? No. ( It is reported that Lodge was on $700 a game playing for the Dolphins last season & $85k for the entire 2018 season. I know that it would be struggle to pay back $1.6m by now on that income.)
- Were conditions placed on Lodge by the NRL & have those conditions been met for re-entry into the NRL? Yes

Hard to argue with facts. I find it hard to understand what more Lodge can do to improve the situation & remember it has been 3 months since the world knew that he would be back playing NRL this season. Why has the media become indignant moral crusaders in the week leading up to season kickoff instead of when the news ofLodge's signing broke. Guess you gotta sell newspapers somehow.
 
lynx000 said:
So, one of your issues is with the criminal justice system in New York and a belief that appropriate punishment was not administered? Once again, experience tells me that sentencing is a very complex beast and quite often, we the public, do not the full range of information that is available to the prosecution and the Court when they make such decisions.

The punishment that was determined by the Court to be appropriate is not something that is either in Lodge's control or responsibility. He has complied with the terms of the plea agreement which is all that he can do.

Re the damages award, it was a default judgment scenario, so I would doubt that there was a jury involved. American tort judgments, particularly at first instance are notoriously ridiculous and regularly reduced on appeal. Add into that that it was a default judgment where no claims or assertions are tested and the Court is only provided with one version, and voila, $1.6M damages award. It is not clear whether you are relying on the damages award as being something that corroborates that the incident was more serious, but for the reasons expressed above, I doubt that this would be a reliable assumption to make.
Click to expand...
I will take the time to answer, because I have a healthy dose of respect for you, and it seems you may have missed some of my posts...

In regards to this thread's topic, the issue I have is people painting Yvonne's interview with the same brush as all the bullshit articles from Sydney.


In regards to the incident itself, I am relying on the first instance accounts from the victims, including those the two German women initially accosted, which corroborate the family's, as well as those from the police in relation to what they encountered. The accounts from the witnesses and police are corroborated by the CCTV images, as far as what happened in the building's lobby. I've posted the links to those and summarised them in this post:
https://broncoshq.com/threads/lodge-warning-one-strike-youre-out.33486/page-9#post-2912365

Based on that, I think Lodge came off lightly.

FTR, I give little value to posterior statements, especially those from the family in question, as they are clearly chasing money now, or possibly their lawyers are the ones chasing money and feeding them what statements to give, including the apparent lies about Lodge's regret, apologies and attempts for compensation.
I agree with you in regards to the civil case, given Lodge was not represented. Still, the judge came to the conclusion that what occurred was serious enough to warrant USD $1.2M.

Finally, in terms of Lodge playing for the Broncos.
I don't think he, Packer, Metcalf and others who have found themselves guilty of serious crimes should be allowed in the NRL. Not because I don't believe in rehabilitation, but because I believe that playing professional sports (amongst other professions for various reasons) is a privilege that comes with higher responsibilities, which you forfeit once you go beyond certain limits. IMO, violence such as displayed by Lodge, threats to women or children, and of course acts such as those perpetrated by Metcalf, Packer, Mau, etc... are way past said limits.

Another thing I loathe btw, is using alcohol influence as an excuse, and in this case the fact he swinged and missed as a consequence of his intoxication. It's not a mitigating factor. If you can't handle it, don't drink!

Having said that, all of the above is strictly my opinion.

Now, given the NRL's permission, I believe a bloke like Lodge is certainly better served by an environment such as the Broncos, where he has a much better chance of successfully turn his life. Besides, given his talent, I prefer to see him playing for us, than against us.
 
Last edited:
ettybay said:
remember it has been 3 months since the world knew that he would be back playing NRL this season. Why has the media become indignant moral crusaders in the week leading up to season kickoff instead of when the news ofLodge's signing broke. Guess you gotta sell newspapers somehow.
Click to expand...

Yep, unfortunately most people only become interested in the NRL right about now. So they are milking this for all it's worth.
 
Porthoz said:
I will take the time to answer, because I have a healthy dose of respect for you, and it seems you may have missed some of my posts...

In regards to this thread's topic, the issue I have is people painting Yvonne's interview with the same brush as all the bullshit articles from Sydney.


In regards to the incident itself, I am relying on the first instance accounts from the victims, including those the two German women initially accosted, which corroborate the family's, as well as those from the police in relation to what they encountered. The accounts from the witnesses and police are corroborated by the CCTV images, as far as what happened in the building's lobby. I've posted the links to those and summarised them in this post:
https://broncoshq.com/threads/lodge-warning-one-strike-youre-out.33486/page-9#post-2912365

Based on that, I think Lodge came off lightly.

FTR, I give little value to posterior statements, especially those from the family in question, as they are clearly chasing money now, or possibly their lawyers are the ones chasing money and feeding them what statements to give, including the apparent lies about Lodge's regret, apologies and attempts for compensation.
I agree with you in regards to the civil case, given Lodge was not represented. Still, the judge came to the conclusion that what occurred was serious enough to warrant USD $1.2M.

Finally, in terms of Lodge playing for the Broncos.
I don't think he, Packer, Metcalf and others who have found themselves guilty of serious crimes should be allowed in the NRL. Not because I don't believe in rehabilitation, but because I believe that playing professional sports (amongst other professions for various reasons) is a privilege that comes with higher responsibilities, which you forfeit once you go beyond certain limits. IMO, violence such as displayed by Lodge, threats to women or children, and of course acts such as those perpetrated by Metcalf, Packer, Mau, etc... are way past said limits.

Another thing I loathe btw, is using alcohol influence as an excuse, and in this case the fact he swinged and missed as a consequence of his intoxication. It's not a mitigating factor. If you can't handle it, don't drink!

Having said that, all of the above is strictly my opinion.

Now, given the NRL's permission, I believe a bloke like Lodge is certainly better served by an environment such as the Broncos, where he has a much better chance of successfully turn his life. Besides, given his talent, I prefer to see him playing for us, than against us.
Click to expand...

I have not commented on the Sampson interview at all. Re some of the other reporting, there appears to be an agenda behind it and much of it does not appear to be balanced.

I actually agree with you, I think he was fairly lucky, and that his lawyer did a great job in getting that plea agreement. He was at real risk in my view of at least some custodual time. I looked up the judge that sentenced him, and she was a recent appointment in 2015 and had worked as a legal aid lawyer, so he got a good draw there as well. But ultimately, he can only do what he is required to do under yhe agreement, and he honoured that.

Re your position on huus contract being registered, I understand that and would fully support that if it was applied across the game equally and this approach was honoured by all of the clubs. Unfortunately, it is not on both counts. Your ultimate conclusion is a pragmatic one that I totally agree with.
 
Porthoz said:
As I mentioned before, I don't know what the reasons were for the plea deal, but prosecutors in the US, especially in the bigger cities, are definitely in the business of getting guaranteed convictions with plea deals, very often to the revolt of the victims.
US law is funny that way, because in this case, the worse charge, carrying the highest minimum sentence, was that of wilful property damage, which in my opinion is the least of the problems in this case.
Click to expand...

Lodge was only convicted on one charge that is the NY analogous offence to the Australian offence of common assault. (Misdemeanour - reckless assault.)

Plea deals are usually decided between Prosecutors and Defence after conferencing. The interests of justice are served by such a process where dubious charges are laid, or charges where the evidence is there, but isn’t necessarily compelling enough to ensure a guilty finding at trial beyond any reasonable doubt and where one or both parties wishes to expedite the matter.

FTR, I don't think what he allegedly did, deserved 5-25 years jail, but it definitely deserved more than community service imo.
Click to expand...

You are entitled to your opinion, but the analogous sentence to the US based offence Lodge was convicted of in Australia, without any particular issues effecting sentencing, is usually a $400 fine and a bit of a dressing down from the Magistrate... A particularly egregious common assault may see that fine lifted up to a $1000 or so and a severe dressing down...

Considering that, Lodge was relatively heavily penalised for the offence he was actually convicted of.

In fact the civil suit was brought on 2 months later as a result of the dissatisfaction from the victims with the plea deal offered to him, and it appears a jury of his peers agreed with them.
Click to expand...

As Lodge didn’t answer the complaint, in NY an inquest is held where a judge determines whether the plaintiff’s case has merit and what damages should be applied. Such decisions can actually be vacated if Lodge wished to go back and challenge it, but I assume he doesn’t want to bother any more given the time it would likely take. So no jury of his peers was ever involved in deciding this matter.

Furthermore civil cases regularly proceed after criminal matters are finalised at court. The reason is becase criminal matters rely on a standard of proof ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ whereas the civil standard of proof is on the ‘balance of probabilities.’ The obvious implication is that if you can prove someone guilty in a criminal proceeding a civil proceeding should be very straight forward.
 
Jason Simmons said:
Lodge was only convicted on one charge that is the NY analogous offence to the Australian offence of common assault. (Misdemeanour - reckless assault.)

Plea deals are usually decided between Prosecutors and Defence after conferencing. The interests of justice are served by such a process where dubious charges are laid, or charges where the evidence is there, but isn’t necessarily compelling enough to ensure a guilty finding at trial beyond any reasonable doubt and where one or both parties wishes to expedite the matter.



You are entitled to your opinion, but the analogous sentence to the US based offence Lodge was convicted of in Australia, without any particular issues effecting sentencing, is usually a $400 fine and a bit of a dressing down from the Magistrate... A particularly egregious common assault may see that fine lifted up to a $1000 or so and a severe dressing down...

Considering that, Lodge was relatively heavily penalised for the offence he was actually convicted of.
Click to expand...
As I said, I don't know the reasons behind the plea deal, and I am not disputing the factual outcome, but I do not for a moment believe justice was served with a reckless assault charge, given everything that happened that night, particularly given the fact he was charged with very similar offenses 6 months before in Sydney.

How the Prosecutor came to make a deal like that, is something I'd love to understand given everything they originally charged him with. Possibly too many cases and a case of "a check-mark on the win column is a win", because there was definitely more than enough evidence to push for much more, at the very least for assault causing bodily harm, for which there is plenty of evidence.

It's good to know that if I punch some arsehole in the face, I will get a dressing down from a judge and pay a $400 fine, as long as I don't damage said arsehole too much of course...

The tendency in the western justice to impose much harsher penalties on financial crimes than on personal crimes, is also something I have an issue with, but that is for a different topic.

Jason Simmons said:
As Lodge didn’t answer the complaint, in NY an inquest is held where a judge determines whether the plaintiff’s case has merit and what damages should be applied. Such decisions can actually be vacated if Lodge wished to go back and challenge it, but I assume he doesn’t want to bother any more given the time it would likely take. So no jury of his peers was ever involved in deciding this matter.

Furthermore civil cases regularly proceed after criminal matters are finalised at court. The reason is becase criminal matters rely on a standard of proof ‘beyond a reasonable doubt’ whereas the civil standard of proof is on the ‘balance of probabilities.’ The obvious implication is that if you can prove someone guilty in a criminal proceeding a civil proceeding should be very straight forward.
Click to expand...
I understand the burden of proof is much higher to send someone to jail, than to "fine" him, and so it should be!

Civil proceedings are rare when the criminal case ends with a guilty verdict, and although it depends on the case, the compensation is generally also much lower in such cases.
Of course, without Lodge's presence or even that of a lawyer representing him, only one side of the story was presented to the judge. That and the criminal case outcome more than likely had an impact of the awarded damages.
 
lynx000 said:
I have not commented on the Sampson interview at all. Re some of the other reporting, there appears to be an agenda behind it and much of it does not appear to be balanced.

I actually agree with you, I think he was fairly lucky, and that his lawyer did a great job in getting that plea agreement. He was at real risk in my view of at least some custodual time. I looked up the judge that sentenced him, and she was a recent appointment in 2015 and had worked as a legal aid lawyer, so he got a good draw there as well. But ultimately, he can only do what he is required to do under yhe agreement, and he honoured that.

Re your position on huus contract being registered, I understand that and would fully support that if it was applied across the game equally and this approach was honoured by all of the clubs. Unfortunately, it is not on both counts. Your ultimate conclusion is a pragmatic one that I totally agree with.
Click to expand...
Of course it should absolutely be equally applied, but I'm not putting it on the clubs.
The NRL is the body which should draw the line, but we all know how low our expectations for anything out of the Moore Park offices should be...
 
I really do hope that Lodge is a changed man and does goodnfor the Broncos, but if this is the media towards him playing NRL again can you imagine if he makes NSW or better yet broncos make the Grand Final this year.. media is going to ride this for everything. Quite disgusting really. He did his time and I'm sure he will be paying his debt.
 
And Gallen can **** right off, as if he has the right to judge someone to not or play in the NRL when he used a performance enhancing drug and got a second chance to play again. FFS
 
New Posts

Unread

Watch

YouTube
0 0 822
1:24:53
NRL Round 7, 1998 - Brisbane Broncos vs North Sydney Bears
View full media list »

Active Now

Total: 171 (members: 8, guests: 163)
Robots: 597
Back
Top