Breaking news - lovett charged.

[The Falcon Strike]

If Lovett is entitled to the presumption of innocence, surely the woman in question is also entitled to the presumption of not being a liar.

from a legal sense or moral sense?

She is not being charged and therefore presumption of her testimony should be considered at all.

It is something for the jury to assess - and having sat on a bigger criminal case that this - i reckon it's pretty easy to pick when someone is lying.

 

[The Falcon Strike]

Is this what keeps you up at night?

Yeah mate - a footy game is really going to be the motivation behind someone posting about a rape case!

booze and drugs? perhaps - a rape case? that would be the bottom of the barrel

 

[GeorgeGrljusich]

Not that I rate Lovett as an individual, by law, he must be given the presumption of innocent before proven gulity.

What St. Kilda are doing can possibly see Lovett raising a case of restraint of trade.

Frankly, the whole thing is a big enough mess as it is without civil actions being started on crap like restraint of trade.
If Lovett had a clean behaviour sheet before this it may be different. But he hasn't.
For all parties involved it would be best to let due process run its course and not stir up a seperate hornets nest.

 

[Macca18]

It's a sad case for all involved and justice will be served... but where are all those knockers of the EFC now after they decided to get rid of him despite his obvious talent?

Disappeared by the looks... funny that. Good Luck Saints.

 

[The Panther]

If Lovett had a clean behaviour sheet before this it may be different. But he hasn't

You can't hold something against an employee for an action he did at a previous employer, it's against the law.

St. Kilda knew the risks associated with Lovett & signed him, due diligence wasn't followed. Any legal implications they encounter as a result are their own doing.

 

[giantsully]

It's a sad case for all involved and justice will be served... but where are all those knockers of the EFC now after they decided to get rid of him despite his obvious talent?

Disappeared by the looks... funny that. Good Luck Saints.

Were there seriously any of those? Always looked a pretty legitimate decision by both parties to me.

 

[The Exorcist]

If Lovett is entitled to the presumption of innocence, surely the woman in question is also entitled to the presumption of not being a liar.

Not quite sure what you're trying to say here, Brown Dog.


Isn't the whole point of having a court case is to test whether Lovett is innocent or whether the women is lying? What you're saying is that because Lovett has been charged we should bypass the Court case and simply convict him now because she's entitled to the presumption of not being a liar.

Even if Lovett does get off it doesn't necessary mean that she's a liar, it may simply mean that at law Lovett is not guilty.

Don't want to seem to taking Lovett side here, because if he is guilty then lock him up, but wish that people would get it into their heads that there's a big difference between being charged and actually being found guilty.

 

[DaVe86]

The Saints have not sacked him. They have not said he is guilty. They have not said that he will not play for the club.

Lovett was accused of rape...which is as serious as it gets in terms of charges. He has now subsequently been charged of rape following a 2 month investigation.


All St.Kilda did was distance themselves from the investigation. I can totally understand that. Let the legal system deal with the matter. It is not a football matter...it is a legal matter. And St.Kilda are not going to make a solid stance on him until it is resolved. In the mean-time, he is suspended from the club pending the result of this case.



It would be very awkward for the players to deal with Lovett during this process.

What if Lovett lets something slip to a player about the incident?

What if a player is disgusted by him and gets into a fight?

What about the young teenagers in the club?? What parent would want their kid with an alleged rapist???

How about the potential gossiping behind his back? What about team morale? It would be the elephant in the room every time he was around.

What about all the media following him?? By suspending Lovett, the media is not going to go to training to follow him etc.



Finally, Saints players were there when it happened and probably know more than they are saying publicly. SOme may be witnesses.

Who knows, some may be witnesses against him...or for him. What if they have details and simply don't want him around due to his bad character.

The Saints have a good list, they don't need a bad seed wrecking their culture.



Saints have done the right thing. Lovett should understand this. THey have not sacked him yet. They are rightfully distancing themselves from a very serious issue.

Lovett should understand the seriousness of his charge and worry about himself for now. Footy should be the least of his concerns. He should also be greatful the club hasn't taken a stance against him or sacked him on the spot. If he gets off, he may well still have a future at St.Kilda...but now he has probably blown that chance too. No one will touch him now.

 

[Hodgepodge]

It's a sad case for all involved and justice will be served... but where are all those knockers of the EFC now after they decided to get rid of him despite his obvious talent?

Disappeared by the looks... funny that. Good Luck Saints.

They're alive and well. Hack journalists are parroting this idea that Essendon's going to miss Lovett a lot this year. You'll hear this after every Essendon loss, so get used to it

 

[tigers_of_old_08]

Not that I rate Lovett as an individual, by law, he must be given the presumption of innocent before proven gulity.

What St. Kilda are doing can possibly see Lovett raising a case of restraint of trade.

He has now been charged, so I'm presuming the police now have enough evidence to proceed with the rape allegations.

If this is in fact the case, then the St Kilda FC owe something to their sponsors and must stand down the player until these charges are dropped.

I see nothing legally or ethically wrong with the measures the club has taken.

 

[Defacto]

i hope this doesnt disrupt the season for the saints :-(

 

[FuManchu]

Whilst Rick james may have a valid argument in terms of treatment, I would say that 6 years is a long time in the moral development of any AFL club these days.

Clubs are far more aware of public expectations and act a lot more promptly and with better judgement than what they did 6 years ago. In this case they have acted responsibly and correctly.

 

[Zvim]

I hope this girl is squeaky clean because Lovett's expensive legal team will drag her through the mud if they find any dirt on her so her testimony wont be worth spit.

This is the problem with rape cases, the victim is now on trial. In such a high profile case it could do a lot of damage to her.

 

[The Panther]

The Saints have not sacked him. They have not said he is guilty. They have not said that he will not play for the club.

They have though limited Lovett to complete his job properly.

It would be very awkward for the players to deal with Lovett during this process

This is largely irrelevant. If St. Kilda players have alienated Lovett, it is a form of discrimination in the workplace, which is against the law.

 

[rick James]

That's one way to look at it I suppose.

But in my opinion you are very wrong.


The Saints have not sacked him. They have not said he is guilty. They have not said that he will not play for the club.

They have treated him markedly different form the way they treated M&M though - and I imagine that's one point he will raise in his complaint.

Not only that, they've cut him off from training, and physical maintenance is pretty damn important for an AFL player I would say.

Lovett was accused of rape...which is as serious as it gets in terms of charges. He has now subsequently been charged of rape following a 2 month investigation.

But he wasn't charged when they punished him, that's the point.

And yes, rape is very serious - but I wouldn't think it is THAT much more serious than assault (it is, after all, just another type of assault) and many AFL players have been given leeway for assault charges.

Being purely logical here, you can't kill someone by raping them - but you can definitely kill or disable someone by punching them. But in our macho-centric society, we dont' seem to care as much about violence towards males, do we? (Anyway, that's another topic)

All St.Kilda did was distance themselves from the investigation. I can totally understand that. Let the legal system deal with the matter. It is not a football matter...it is a legal matter. And St.Kilda are not going to make a solid stance on him until it is resolved. In the mean-time, he is suspended from the club pending the result of this case.

And that's ok, but they didn't do that for M&M did they? And why not?

the only thing I can think of, is that Gram may have agreed to testify against Lovett, in which case, St Kilda WOULD have an obligation to keep them seperated. IF that's the case, I withdraw my criticism of StKFC entirely.

It would be very awkward for the players to deal with Lovett during this process.

What if Lovett lets something slip to a player about the incident?

What if a player is disgusted by him and gets into a fight?

What about the young teenagers in the club?? What parent would want their kid with an alleged rapist???

How about the potential gossiping behind his back? What about team morale? It would be the elephant in the room every time he was around.

What about all the media following him?? By suspending Lovett, the media is not going to go to training to follow him etc.

Finally, Saints players were there when it happened and probably know more than they are saying publicly. SOme may be witnesses.

Who knows, some may be witnesses against him...or for him. What if they have details and simply don't want him around due to his bad character.

The Saints have a good list, they don't need a bad seed wrecking their culture.

Saints have done the right thing. Lovett should understand this. THey have not sacked him yet. They are rightfully distancing themselves from a very serious issue.

Lovett should understand the seriousness of his charge and worry about himself for now. Footy should be the least of his concerns. He should also be greatful the club hasn't taken a stance against him or sacked him on the spot. If he gets off, he may well still have a future at St.Kilda...but now he has probably blown that chance too. No one will touch him now.

All fair points, I agree with you that if StKFC players are involved with the testimony it might have forced St Kilda's hand. With Milne and Montagna, obviously it was a bit different.

 

[Hodgepodge]

This is largely irrelevant. If St. Kilda players have alienated Lovett, it is a form of discrimination in the workplace.

Unfortunately it's not.

As a sociopath I have alienated many people at work in my time. It can't be judged to be discrimination if they have a genuine grievance.

 

[FuManchu]

Because in the M & M Case there weren't two other players from your club present to tell you exactly what happened.

Its only speculation that they have anything to add.

 

[Timmy from Thomastown]

StKilda could not play Lovett even if they wanted to because two of his teammates are likely to be witneeses for the prosecution.

They have done the right thing here and luckily have avoided a dilemma that may have arisen had the police dedcided not to proceed with the charge.

Whether the club did the right or wrong thing with Milne and Montagna is a different matter but its ancient history now. They were never chargedf so from this point forward their case is not comprable to LovettNsM

 

[rick James]

I hope this girl is squeaky clean because Lovett's expensive legal team will drag her through the mud if they find any dirt on her so her testimony wont be worth spit.

This is the problem with rape cases, the victim is now on trial. In such a high profile case it could do a lot of damage to her.[/B]

But yeah, the Kobe Bryant defense system will kick in if Lovett has the money.

Don't see too many rich blokes getting done for rape, that's for sure.

 

[Bosk]

Here's a hypothetical question:

If Lovett is actually found Not Guilty, could he then sue St.Kilda for the way they've treated him?

Not that I disagree with how they've treated him, or that I think he will be found not guilty for that matter (where there's smoke there's usually fire) but if he was innocent he could argue the case that St.Kilda's actions have furthe tarnished his reputation.

 

[Hodgepodge]

Its only speculation that they have anything to add.

Some fairly strong speculation given that we have the names and circumstances of the event. We also have 'speculation' that several players have refused to play with him.

Sounds very much like a non-consensual version of the Carey incident.

 

[Hodgepodge]

Here's a hypothetical question:

If Lovett is actually found Not Guilty, could he then sue St.Kilda for the way they've treated him?

He would be unsuccessful given that St.Kilda are still paying him.

 

[The Panther]

Unfortunately it's not.

As a sociopath I have alienated many people at work in my time.

But that is the case, Lovett never committed an act to alienate his own players at his place of work.

If St. Kilda can't provide a workplace that is free of discrimination, they are breaking the law.

 

[GeorgeGrljusich]

the only thing I can think of, is that Gram may have agreed to testify against Lovett, in which case, St Kilda WOULD have an obligation to keep them seperated. IF that's the case, I withdraw my criticism of StKFC entirely.

All fair points, I agree with you that if StKFC players are involved with the testimony it might have forced St Kilda's hand. With Milne and Montagna, obviously it was a bit different.

And that is the logical conclusion here and the vast difference between the two cases.
Pure speculation, however, it seems that the SKFC have a hell of a lot of inside information here, and wouldn't be setting themselves up for a hugely damaging civil law suit.

 

[The Exorcist]

No, many workplaces suspend people while investigations are taking place because of some charges etc


He may have a claim if they sack him now because of the charges and he later gets off, but it all gets down to the reason they sacked him


I'd imagine that if they did sack him, they wouldn't do it because of the charges themselves (because they haven't been proven), but rather because he's brought irreparable damage to the brand of the club, however they'd also have to prove that, but it'd be easier to prove that given the media exposure about this whole isse.