yes. Ambushed, and immediately offered a deal. Classic law enforcement technique. Punch em between the eyes and whilst they're still reeeling make them sign the paper
17 NRL players given SC notices
- Thread starter FuManchu
- Start date
- Tagged users None
What deal?
Statement from the Cronulla Sharks - August 20, 2014
The Sharks have been advised that five players currently contracted to the club have received ‘show cause’ notices from ASADA.
Players have been offered a proposal regarding a possible suspension, which they need to consider before the weekend, with the players to consult with their legal representatives over the next two days in relation to their individual circumstances.
The Sharks will continue to act in the best interests of the players and are providing on-going support, both to those issued with the notices as well as others in the club, while solicitors acting for the players will continue to manage the process on their behalf.
At this point in time the Cronulla Sharks Football Club will be making no further comment on any matter relating to the ASADA investigation or today’s developments.
http://www.sharks.com.au/news/2014/08/20/sharks_media_statement.html
God knows, a massive lot of question marks around Earl, and I don't think ASADA much appreciated the actions of the NRL in that case.
- Jan 12, 2011
- 25,401
- 35,580
- AFL Club
- Collingwood
Cronulla and NSW Captain Paul Gallen would be among the 5, I presume.
- Oct 26, 2009
- 18,956
- 11,315
- AFL Club
- GWS
- Other Teams
- Whomever is reigning NBA champion
So what was the offer they were given and why were Essendon not given any proposals?
Sorry i dont see any quotes from ASADA there,
You think maybe they were told how the process works, nd how they can make it better for them selves?
And also if what you just posted is any way true, i still don't see anything about not receiving SCN's do you?
Same as Essendon.
Tell the truth about what you were given, who gave it to you and who else took it, and ASADA etc will trigger the 'substantial assistance' provisions, cutting the penalties down to a minimum of six months.
Dopey BJ
Club Legend
- Jun 25, 2013
- 2,260
- 2,353
- AFL Club
- St Kilda
Sorry but this just doesn't add up
Given no laws have been broken ( as opposed to your example) it is more like the one where you send a letter to the last known address that they have won Superbowl tickets and when they turn up to collect the cuffs come out.
Not sure how it is such a bad thing.
Maybe Julian Burnside needs to get involved and protect the basis human right of not being ambushed.
Hearts to hearts
Brownlow Medallist
- Mar 16, 2001
- 24,173
- 56,873
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Wales, Eastwood, West Ham
Very interesting. Hard to see how they can be offered anything beyond the standard process, but given what has been called a "deal" up to now, they may say a "proposal" is something like "you have ten days to show cause why this shouldn't go to the ADVRP - if found guilty you may be suspended for up to two years, although ASADA will not oppose discounts in the event you provide substantial assistance and/or are found not to be significantly liable". So they consider whether to ket it go to the panel or mount a legal challenge, and whether they start thinking about what defence and assistance they might want to come up with.
Hearts to hearts
Brownlow Medallist
- Mar 16, 2001
- 24,173
- 56,873
- AFL Club
- North Melbourne
- Other Teams
- Wales, Eastwood, West Ham
Yes, that's what I meant too. Not a "proposal" any more than it was a "deal" for ASADA to explain the players' options.
If the players make a full admission, as Earl did, I would imagine they would.
And yet here we are, still with the delusion caucus unwilling to face facts.
Despite the bullshit and the misinformation, players have the choices they always had - tell the complete truth about what happened, or cop your fukll whack.
nope. As you said, they are an enforcement and compliance agency, led by an enforcement professional. Who generally measure their success by getting the most punitive sanctions possible.
I just find it interesting that they are dangling a carrot, available for a very short time, and I find it hard to believe they are doing it out of the goodness of their heart.
Maybe it's pure pragmatism and it's just about wrapping it up as quick as possible, but is there a reason why they'd feel the need to do that? Maybe the political pressure. Maybe they want to free up resources.
Or maybe it's because they want it wrapped up and done and dusted before Middleton makes a ruling. Maybe they want a result that is not pushed back on. Who knows?
Either way, it certainly puts a hole in a lot of previously held views on the rigidity of the code. Fascinating stuff really
but they've used multiple substances. You've been saying for 18 months that means they'll go for aggravated, which is 4 years.
I'd just love to hear how you reconcile those viewpoints.
why then the 48 hour limited time get it while it's hot condition?
I hope surprise birthday parties don't count, I'm a massive Human Rights Violator if they are...
We don't know what the offer is - it may fit within the parameters of the rigidity of the code.
I'm sure it fits within the code, just not the very firm understanding of the code that many on here have had
- Jul 22, 2013
- 18,821
- 27,479
- AFL Club
- Carlton
Ambushed. How many times in an afternoon have you repeated it? If I didn't know better I'd suspect you of being yet another of the make sure you repeat key word of the week people.
We are speaking about people who knew to a near certainty this was coming. What do you expect? A public announcement that SC notices are coming soon once a day for a week before the things get signed?
Personally I think the strike a deal article was at best a poor guess and at worst invented bullshit. Just about everybody here questioned it. But something happens not consistent with that guess/invention and it's a problem?
