Are the Bulldogs Guilty?

[silentC]

Well, we will never know. The purpose of this short rant is to object to some statements made by club officials and others since the DPP dropped the case.

Let me just state clearly that the Bulldogs players have not been vindicated, nor have they been proved innocent. What has happened is that the DPP has decided that there is not enough evidence to proceed to trial.

There is a huge difference between this and being proved innocent. We will never know whether or not they are innocent because the police were unable to gather enough evidence to build a case that has enough of a chance of winning to satisfy the DPP, according to whatever measurements they apply. It simply means that anyone who knows anything about the incident has kept their mouths closed.

Sorry, it just annoys me when people in the media put a false spin on things. I'm not saying it should have gone to trial despite the lack of evidence, I'm just saying that it doesn't necessarily mean that nothing dodgey went on. They were very, very lucky. I wonder if they will think twice next time?

[DaveInOz]

First thing I would like to say is that they are innocent according to the law, and should have been treated as such all along.
In cases of sexual abuse it seems everyone wants the defendant to prove innocence rather than the prosecutors to prove guilt. The stigma of a sex crime charge can be unbearable, people assume that if you weren't found guilty - then you probably just got away with it, and treat you as if you were guilty.

I believe that it is better a guilty man goes free than an innocent goes to jail.

[silentC]

Dave, you're absolutely right and in the eyes of the law they are all innocent. I wouldn't change that because otherwise the whole legal system falls on it's ear. Trial by media is a whole other issue and I don't particularly like that either.

What I object to is club officials gloating and saying "see, they didn't do anything wrong" when it is obvious from all the fuss both inside the club and out, that something dodgey went on. By all means say that they are innocent (of a crime) until proven guilty (of that crime). We all know what that means. But don't stand up there and tell me that these guys are angels. That's what annoys me.

If they have been vindicated then why is there an ongoing enquiry within the club? If I was releasing a statement, I'd have said "no charges have been laid and so our guys are off the hook in that regard but the Bulldogs will continue to conduct an internal enquiry into this incident and, if necessary, action will be taken by the club. We do not tolerate this kind of behaviour". That would be a lot more palatable than "ha ha, see, our guys never did anything wrong".

[DaveInOz]

You are right, on that night something happened - what it was you and I will probably never know. The only thing we do know is that they broke the player code of conduct and put the club in a bad position
I think you'll find the internal enquiry is not about truth of the allegations but about how they (the players) got in to a position where the allegations could be raised in the first place.

I also agree the club is making a big strech from allegations un-proven to allegations un-founded

[Robert WA]

If the young lady brings a civil action, for damages, as she is threatening, then the standard of proof will be "the balance of probability" rather than "beyond reasonable doubt".

The speed of the rush to settle the claim/claims may be an indicator of the degree of guilt felt by the blokes concerned.

[bitingmidge]

Where there's smoke?

I do not want to be seen as defending these guys and have avoided informing myself of the "developing situation" where possible...HOWEVER..

The press in this country are without any scruples as long as they have a sniff of "public interest".

I am part of the public, and let's be quite clear, I have NO INTEREST in reading beat ups about what may or MAY not have been done, particularly when the lives and/or careers of high profile persons are in the firing line.

I have never met any of the following people, and have no interest in them however:

I can recall the sordid details of a dubious liason carried out by a high profile footballer a few years ago, reported blow by juicy blow in the press, only for him to clearly prove his innocence of the charge. Morally he had judged poorly, but he was acting in private until the press took hold and DESTROYED the reputation of an INNOCENT (of a crime at least) person.

Last year the Mayor of Maroochy Shire won a civil action against a man accused of stalking her. She was the innocent party in so far as the case was concerned, yet her ..."liaisons" with a number of high profile local identities (used in evidence) were paraded publicly and she suffered enormous damage as a result, she was the victim in this sense, but was torn apart by the press.

Another high profile swimming coach recently discharged for the second time, while the press continue to push the story......

Whatever the "truth" why are these people (reporters) allowed to publish anything before a trial has been concluded?

We have formed opinions on the Bulldogs based on what we have seen and heard. I don't like their attitude...the reality is that I have no idea what their attitude is apart from the body language I have had presented to me in a few seconds of edited television. What has been the attitudes of the persons concerned the rest of the time?

The public has an interest in the truth, but it will only pay for salicious gossip!

The press is comprised of blithering idiots as well!

(Oh no, he goes again!)

P

[journeyman Mick]

"The press is comprised of blithering idiots as well!

(Oh no, he goes again!)

P"

I'm staying quiet! (well about idiots, blithering or otherwise)
I will say though that I have seen the press in action first hand, almost destroying the life of a close friend with salacious rumours and innuendo, which, in the end all came to naught. Charges were dropped because they were ludicrous and totally unfounded. There may or may not be something behind the Bulldogs story. The press know that no matter what the truth is, a sensationalised story will help them to sell advertising space, which is where their real interest lies.

Mick

[DarrylF]

I know two things about this whole sickening mess:

1. The 'Press' are a bunch of pointless hacks, with the occasional gem and more than their fair share of rabid dogs with no scruples and no interest in anything remotely resembling the truth. Amazing how such a small percentage of their combined effort produces benefits of such importance it justifies the existence of a profession that otherwise would have been outlawed decades ago.

2. Footballers - especially the professional breed we seem to be afflicted with in this country - have collectively the lowest average IQ possible while still being considered human. Again, there is the occasional worthwhile individual, but fer chrissake - these people make a living out of beating the crap out of each other and somehow have come to believe they have some sort of value that allows them to behave any way they like.

As far as I'm concerned they can go at each other all they like. Journalists taking footballers down a peg or three is a good thing. I'm just sick to death of hearing about it.

And how on earth did sport reach such importance as to warrant a third to a half of every damn news broadcast anyway?

(if that lot isn't an invitation to an argument, I don't know what is )

[Dean]

As a magazine editor/writer myself, I think there are certain facets/publications as part of the collective term "press" that can be relied upon more than others for truthful reporting and information dispersal. Let's not bash them all up

[Little Festo]

The Bulldogs:

Salery Cap scandel

Sexual assaul claims last year at Cofffs Harbour

Sexual assault claims this year at Coffs Harbour again

Players bring the game into disrepute - urinating in front of the press and kicking a football at the press - at two different press conferences.

A club in control?? Players who think they are above the law??

Peter

[silentC]

Trouble certainly follows them around. Before the salary cap problems, they had problems with their supporters trying to emulate the English football hooligans of the 80's at the grounds and on their way home.

I feel sorry for the die hard supporters. The Bulldogs have been a great team in the past but lately their reputation has taken a hiding. I don't blame their CEO for trying to put on a positive spin but he could have selected his words a bit better.

Regarding the problems of a free press - can you imagine the alternative? I'd prefer to take it the way it is warts and all and use my own discretion, than to have a state press agency that only tells me what the government wants me to hear.

[jackiew]

One definition of the IQ of a group -

the lowest IQ of any member divided by the size of the group. And that is without adding alcohol. Sadly people in groups do things they wouldn't contemplate individually.

I suspect that we are unlikely to know the real facts because people who work/play together tend to cover up for the behaviour of members of the team. Haven't most of us bent the truth to protect a colleague from the wrath of management, or a sibling from the wrath of a parent. And once you've hidden the truth it takes a lot of bottle to front up and say "I lied", especially if you're going to look bad in public and would be ostracised by the people you work with.

Have a few times been interviewed by reporters from local papers and have been amazed ( and embarassed ) at the printed result which bore no relationship to anything that had been said at the interview. Consequently I view everything I read in the press with a certain amount of suspicion.

[Wongo]

… and there is fire.

They have done something wrong, to what extent we don’t know and is not important now.

To big Willie Mason, quit while you are ahead. It won’t be apology because you don’t deserve one. Guilty or not guilty, someone from the Bulldogs should come out and apologise to their fans and the public for what had happened.

[silentC]

... the printed result which bore no relationship to anything that had been said at the interview ...

I do a bit of work with a journo and he makes his quotes up. I say to him "you can't write that, that's not what the guy said". His reply? "Don't believe everything you read in the papers".

[DanP]

Silent,

Disagree on one point. They are innocent. That is not to say that they did not commit the crime. MANY rapes do not get to court because of a lack of evidence... BUT under the current court system, they are all innocent, whether they did it or not. Remember, innocent until proven guilty. They have not been proven guilty in a court of law and therefore are innocent.

Those who have been wrongly accused will be the first to remind you of this. Also, settling civil matters is no indication of guilt or innocence, it is often a desire to not get into the civil court, where basically anything can be said about any person giving evidence, which for celebs can be very damaging, true or not. Therefore MOST will settle out of court. I think the speed of the civil litigation is more of an indication of truth (or not) of a matter.

Dan