The bad behaviour thread

Pieman wrote:bye bye benny for good..
great precedent set by the NRL for fucking off fuckwits (about time) but geez I hope the NRL supports his partner through it all

also a new video out of what appears to be Napa racking charlie off what is apparently mitch pearce's wang... it semi looks like napa but cant really tell... and what does Pearce's D look like ryno, surely you can tell us whether its is his or not?

When is rent due for living in your head?

Shanbon wrote:He actually hasnt been banned for life either, he has been de-registered and Greenburg cant see him ever getting registered again but there is not concrete dont ban.

there must be some legal repercussions for saying banned for life or something..
"Cant see any time in the future when he will be welcomed back"

Pieman wrote:

there must be some legal repercussions for saying banned for life or something..
"Cant see any time in the future when he will be welcomed back"

Vossy chased this up yesterday, because media was saying "banned for life" but the league wouldn't. Came down to there is nothing in the constitution/laws of the game or player contracts that references "banned for life" as a punishment. There for they can't just invent a new punishment and apply it to a case. Worst they can do is de-register a player and infer it's for life.

https://www.illawarramercury.com.au/story/5900155/come-on-have-a-go-new-details-of-de-belins-rape-allegation-revealed/
If this is remotely true footy will be the least of his worries and rightly so.

Wow thats a pretty shocking read. If the jury find him guilty then fuck me dead... big trouble.
It could potentially be a case of post 3-way guilt, and considering she left willingly with them it will be a case of his word against theirs. Assuming he and the other fella has no history of anything like this, it will be hard to prove that she was raped.

God thats a bad read though, fark

It turns my stomach the way people are judging her actions. What else was she meant to do?
Not directed at you pieman but more the stuff I’ve seen on Facebook

Pieman wrote:... and considering she left willingly....

Did she have any other option?
And as reported she then hightailed it to a hospital for examination as soon as she could.

Based on the article krump posted the NRL should be thinking about standing down JDB before thinking about the Napa stuff.

Krump wrote:It turns my stomach the way people are judging her actions. What else was she meant to do?
Not directed at you pieman but more the stuff I’ve seen on Facebook

code delta wrote:

Did she have any other option?
And as reported she then hightailed it to a hospital for examination as soon as she could.

Based on the article krump posted the NRL should be thinking about standing down JDB before thinking about the Napa stuff.

yeh, the Dragons play FTA 3 out of the 5 weeks played before the court case, there's gotta be no way they can allow him repeated time in the spotlight with those details out there yet to be resolved

if those events happened as described, i struggle to think of how she could've handled the situation any better, especially post-incident, really fucked-up but really savvy to play along until in a public setting where giving them the slip isn't anywhere near as potentially dangerous as trying to flee a private residence.

I think the 2 arguments have been articulated here:

1 side will be saying you called the Uber to continue partying with the accused which is inconsistent with a victim and the other side will be saying pre meditated escape plan.

Next step from the defense will be discredit her morally because if half of that's true he's fucked.

i've always been an "innocent till proven guilty" guy but this one is tough, the allegations are hard to read and if guilty, i just sincerley hope the courts actually do their job and the NRL never even have to worry about "what punishment should he get"


as it stands tho, they are still allegations and he has plead not guilty, so i think he should be able to play on


i havn't really posted on the NAPA stuff, but as a bulldogs fan who was more then a little annoying that we bought the one tricky pony in the first place, it just more annoys me that someone at the clubs thinks this idiot is actually capable of being a forward leader

in saying that, if he gets a 4-6 game suspension like rumoured, just another sign that NRL HQ are more concerned about media pressure and what looks bad then actually punishing bad behavior fairly accross the board.

code delta wrote:

Did she have any other option?
And as reported she then hightailed it to a hospital for examination as soon as she could.

Based on the article krump posted the NRL should be thinking about standing down JDB before thinking about the Napa stuff.

sorry, I meant - went back to the unit initially with them

yeah its a tough one, we will never know what really happened and even if he is found not guilty, that doesn't mean he didn't do it.
It could have played out a million ways and there are a million what if scenarios eg. why not lock yourself in the bathroom and call the police?
I mean, this is another hypothetical and purely just speculation but say they have the 3 some, they go back out, him and the other fella ignore her, tease her, etc tell all the boys that they spit roasted her, she feels embarrassed and guilty then she goes to the cops and says she was raped.

We will most likely never know what actually happened. if she was raped the way it reads I hope he goes to jail for the rest of his fucking life.

Not much the NRL can do after the Brett Stewart thing where they essentially banned him for rape (even though they said bringing the game into disrepute at a club function) and he was then found not guilty.

I do agree with the Lumby SMH article that players should stand themselves down in this situation.

Not really the bad behaviour we are used too but Cartwright not getting his kids vaccinated isnt a great idea, i wouldnt want them around my kids at club functions.

No Worries wrote:I think the 2 arguments have been articulated here:

1 side will be saying you called the Uber to continue partying with the accused which is inconsistent with a victim and the other side will be saying pre meditated escape plan.

Next step from the defense will be discredit her morally because if half of that's true he's fucked.

Yep. Whether her story is true or not or partly true, JBD's lawyers are going to rip her to shreds.

For women who go through experiences like this, I can't imagine how it effects them with so many making up their minds and judging them without knowing what has happened and of course, on the other side of the coin, men who are falsely accused and judged in the public court of opinion.

There are no winners in these situations.

Shanbon wrote:

Not really the bad behaviour we are used too but Cartwright not getting his kids vaccinated isnt a great idea, i wouldnt want them around my kids at club functions.

Because they aren't vaccinated or because they shit on the floor ?

No Worries wrote:

Because they aren't vaccinated or because they shit on the floor ?

Or because genetic mediocrity might be contagious?

Cartwright's missus said she'd home school the kids before vaccinating them. Hopefully she can teach Cartwright to tackle instead.

It amazes me that vaccination isn't mandatory.

Such a tough one with the DeBelin case. I mean a player who might ultimately be found innocent (Lafranchi, Inglis etc) shouldn't be punished, but it just is such a bad look. And you do need to take a charge more seriously than an accusation as well. The Lafranchi case took like a year didn't it? You can't suspend them for all that time waiting for the court appearance if they're pleading not guilty.

Perhaps the answer is that depending on the penalty for a crime, if you're charged then there is a required minimum time without playing (not technically a suspension), even if it is under the guise of "allowing the player adequate time to prepare for their upcoming case and ensure the welfare of all parties involved". For example, if you get charged with DUI, then maybe there is a minimum 1-2 week non-selection period. DV or assault 2-4 weeks, Rape 8 weeks etc. They can still train, appear at matches etc, just not play. If they are found guilty, then time already taken off counts as part of their suspension served.

If a player is suspended or charged for off-field indescretions, does that count towards loading for a non-similar charge if they are later charged for an off field incident? EG if someone is suspended for 2 weeks for DUI, then on their return get a grade 2 lifting charge, is 20% loading applied?

Dip wrote:If a player is suspended or charged for off-field indescretions, does that count towards loading for a non-similar charge if they are later charged for an off field incident? EG if someone is suspended for 2 weeks for DUI, then on their return get a grade 2 lifting charge, is 20% loading applied?

That's an interesting question. I don't think it does because it doesn't go through the NRL judicial process.
I'm not a fan of standing down players who've been charged. There are countless people found not guilty of crimes all the time. If they were stood down it would have to be for something with clear evidence of them commiting an act that brings the game into disrepute similar to the Carney or Pearce situation.