Scandal Clem Smith in drunken altercation

[Sir_Loin]

Your attempts to compare Smith to Martin are tiresome. About the only similarities are they both consumed alcohol, and they occurred in the same week.

Defend your player as much as you like, but what Smith did, and how Carlton punished him are essentially irrelevant.

How about Heath Scotland? Probably more appropriate given he followed through and actually assaulted a woman.

How'd Carlton treat that one?

 

[HARKER]

How about Heath Scotland? Probably more appropriate given he followed through and actually assaulted a woman.

How'd Carlton treat that one?

Incorrectly. Now you have your answer and know what should be done with Martin.

 

[Sir_Loin]

Incorrectly. Now you have your answer and know what should be done with Martin.

Except Martin didn't assault anyone. Police said so.

 

[HARKER]

Except Martin didn't assault anyone. Police said so.

Oh well, that's it then..................end of story.
No. The RFC will now decide his fate so we'll see what they have in store.

Clem's fate has been decided and he's done his due penance given whatever the circumstances may have been, with few getting up in arms about it other than Richmond supporters...............now, why would that be the case?

 

[Sir_Loin]

Oh well, that's it then..................end of story.
The RFC will now decide his fate so we'll see what they have in store.

Clem's fate has been decided and he's done his due penance given whatever the circumstances may have been, with few getting up in arms about it other than Richmond supporters...............now, why would that be the case?

Agree just thought I'd point out Carlton has a shocking track record of dealing with its players who assault people. Really the last club out there who's supporters should feel justified in commenting on the Martin situation. Given you and many of your fellow supporters can't even come close accepting Martin has been cleared, I really am stumped on the hypocrisy.

Anyway it is a Clem Smith thread, I'll leave you to self congratulate yourselves on the blatant double standard.

 

[HARKER]

Agree just thought I'd point out Carlton has a shocking track record of dealing with its players who assault people. Really the last club out there who's supporters should feel justified in commenting on the Martin situation. Given you and many of your fellow supporters can't even come close accepting Martin has been cleared, I really am stumped on the hypocrisy.

Anyway it is a Clem Smith thread, I'll leave you to self congratulate yourselves on the blatant double standard.

They had (had) a shocking record.

This isn't about the players getting off on serious matters as anyone who is assaulting others should be treated harshly.........even Carlton players.

 

[Sir_Loin]

They had (had) a shocking record.

This isn't about the players getting off on serious matters as anyone who is assaulting others should be treated harshly.........even Carlton players.

You post intelligently, I genuinely mean that. But don't you find it odd that the implication that Martin "got off" continues to be trotted out? He didn't get off anything, not only wasn't he charged the police said no offence had been committed.

So what exactly did he do that can be used in comparison?

 

[Tiger2709]

Oh well, that's it then..................end of story.
No. The RFC will now decide his fate so we'll see what they have in store.

Clem's fate has been decided and he's done his due penance given whatever the circumstances may have been, with few getting up in arms about it other than Richmond supporters...............now, why would that be the case?

Richmond supporters keep refering to the Smith case because of a number of Carlton supporters attacks on Martin in other threads, while ignoring what now seems to be a more severe incident involving alcohol and violence at their own club.

 

[HARKER]

Richmond supporters keep refering to the Smith case because of a number of Carlton supporters attacks on Martin in other threads, while ignoring what now seems to be a more severe incident involving alcohol and violence at their own club.

I may have missed the report.
What news has come about in regards to Smiths incident?

Whichever way though the two issues aren't linked and putting the spotlight on one, doesn't add or detract from the other.

 

[the_interloper]

I may have missed the report.
What news has come about in regards to Smiths incident?

Whichever way though the two issues aren't linked and putting the spotlight on one, doesn't add or detract from the other.

You are 100% correct, however by Bigfooty rules this is not the case. How many times do you comment on something but then a response is something that your club has done in the past, which may have no relevance but somehow precludes you from commenting in the first place. Somehow.

 

[LanceRomance]

so I get the feeling that Clem Smiths involvementwas getting beaten up?

 

[HARKER]

so I get the feeling that Clem Smiths involvement was getting beaten up?

You could take that a couple of ways, Lance

 

[Rich01]

so I get the feeling that Clem Smiths involvementwas getting beaten up?

The only reports that have come out is that he was involved in a fight on a Saturday night while out on the grog.

For this he was punished with a weeks worth of running sessions and sit ups by the blues.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

The only reports that have come out is that he was involved in a fight on a Saturday night while out on the grog.

For this he was punished with a weeks worth of running sessions and sit ups by the blues.

There was a Collingwood poster who posted on the Carlton board saying that Smith was set upon. Said he defended himself but lost out. What actually happened though, maybe it will come out.

I would suggest that Carlton's extra training punishment was in response to him being out late and drinking (1, 2 or 20?), not to do with the fight as they are not in possession of the facts. If he is charged and sentenced, we may then have further sanctions.

We don't yet have any evidence that he provoked a fight, was being a dick in a public place, was intimidating or annoying anybody. May have as it usually takes 2 to tango but as we know these days, not always.

 

[Love the Drake]

Richmond supporters keep refering to the Smith case because of a number of Carlton supporters attacks on Martin in other threads, while ignoring what now seems to be a more severe incident involving alcohol and violence at their own club.

More severe than martins incident? Getting set upon by drunken males vs bailing up a middle age woman. Hmmm..

 

[Love the Drake]

The only reports that have come out is that he was involved in a fight on a Saturday night while out on the grog.

For this he was punished with a weeks worth of running sessions and sit ups by the blues.

Oh right. So on the Martin thread you don't believe a word that is said, yet on this thread you believe everything?! Post the link that proves this happened because I'm not convinced anything happened. You know, like your various comments on the Martin thread, if the police didn't charge him it didn't happen...

 

[Rich01]

Oh right. So on the Martin thread you don't believe a word that is said, yet on this thread you believe everything?! Post the link that proves this happened because I'm not convinced anything happened. You know, like your various comments on the Martin thread, if the police didn't charge him it didn't happen...

No. I said the only reports that have come out is that he was involved in a fight on a Saturday night while on the grog. That's what the blues punished him for and he admitted to them he was involved in. It's detailed here...
http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/blues-seeing-red-after-drunken-punchup-20151209-glk0dr.html

I'm not sure how many times I have to say in the Martin thread I hope Martin gets punished for what he did. Hopefully the club has all the facts into the incident involved from the alleged victim, CCTV and witnesses and make a rational call based on all the evidence to determine what he actually did and punish him if appropriate.
It's common sense really.

 

[Love the Drake]

No. I said the only reports that have come out is that he was involved in a fight on a Saturday night while on the grog. That's what the blues punished him for and he admitted to them he was involved in. It's detailed here...
http://m.theage.com.au/afl/afl-news/blues-seeing-red-after-drunken-punchup-20151209-glk0dr.html

So you accept that this happened because the newspaper reported it. Yet you don't accept anything happened with Martin because the police didn't charge him. The police didn't charge smith either. So did it happen? I'm confused..

 

[Rich01]

So you accept that this happened because the newspaper reported it. Yet you don't accept anything happened with Martin because the police didn't charge him. The police didn't charge smith either. So did it happen? I'm confused..

Huh? Clem Smith admitted to the blues that he was on the grog and got into a fight. That's why he was punished.
When did I ever say nothing happened with Martin because the police didn't charge him?

Maybe read the rest of my post you quoted from just then.

 

[Love the Drake]

Huh? Clem Smith admitted to the blues that he was on the grog and got into a fight. That's why he was punished.
When did I ever say nothing happened with Martin because the police didn't charge him?

Read your posts in the thread...

 

[Rich01]

Read your posts in the thread...

Never claimed nothing happened because the police didn't charge him.
You've embarrassingly confused me with someone else.

 

[Tiger2709]

More severe than martins incident? Getting set upon by drunken males vs bailing up a middle age woman. Hmmm..

Police say "no crime committed" witnesses and CCTV footage fail to back up the lady involved, according to reports some even claim she was doing the harassing but as I wasn't there I can't comment on that, therefore I can only accept the proper authorities fairly definitive comment that no crime was committed. Hmmm..

So it seems with the evidence available we have to accept that Martin was drunk in public(on a club weekend off where drinking was permitted) but no violence occurred, whereas Clem Smith admitted having a drunken brawl in public, so yes from all available evidence the Smith incident was worse than the Martin incident.

Unless of course you have proof to discount the Police investigation, of course unsupported articles in the HUN are not proof of anything except a poor choice in newspapers.

 

[gavaniacono]

Never claimed nothing happened because the police didn't charge him.
You've embarrassingly confused me with someone else.

All Richmond supporters must seem the same to aliens and immigrants, that is, dashingly handsome and unforgivingly erudite.

 

[Komrade_Tiger]

All Richmond supporters must seem the same to aliens and immigrants, that is, dashingly handsome and unforgivingly erudite.

great word that, erudite. Certainly can't be attributed to any of the foamers on here going for Dusty's head

 

[Love the Drake]

Police say "no crime committed" witnesses and CCTV footage fail to back up the lady involved, according to reports some even claim she was doing the harassing but as I wasn't there I can't comment on that, therefore I can only accept the proper authorities fairly definitive comment that no crime was committed. Hmmm..

So it seems with the evidence available we have to accept that Martin was drunk in public(on a club weekend off where drinking was permitted) but no violence occurred, whereas Clem Smith admitted having a drunken brawl in public, so yes from all available evidence the Smith incident was worse than the Martin incident.

Unless of course you have proof to discount the Police investigation, of course unsupported articles in the HUN are not proof of anything except a poor choice in newspapers.[/QUOTE

Police say "no crime committed" witnesses and CCTV footage fail to back up the lady involved, according to reports some even claim she was doing the harassing but as I wasn't there I can't comment on that, therefore I can only accept the proper authorities fairly definitive comment that no crime was committed. Hmmm..

So it seems with the evidence available we have to accept that Martin was drunk in public(on a club weekend off where drinking was permitted) but no violence occurred, whereas Clem Smith admitted having a drunken brawl in public, so yes from all available evidence the Smith incident was worse than the Martin incident.

Unless of course you have proof to discount the Police investigation, of course unsupported articles in the HUN are not proof of anything except a poor choice in newspapers.

So you accept what the papers say about clem smith but not about Martin; can you not see how ridiculous that is?

A club spokesman said that Martin's behaviour was clearly unacceptable, that he had apologised to the woman in question as well as to the managers and owners of the restaurant.
"He had been drinking and was clearly disruptive to other diners and a female patron," the spokesman confirmed.
"He has subsequently called her and apologised and that apology has been accepted. His behaviour was not good enough."
Martin said in a statement released by the club late on Monday afternoon: "Regrettably, I was intoxicated and that, in itself, is completely unacceptable.
"If anything I have said or done has caused anyone to feel threatened, then that is totally inappropriate."