Rumour Rumors of cat player in big trouble

[PenAndPaper]

then why list it if everyone knows!

This has been explained to you 50 ****ing times...Jesus Christ

 

[BEaston]

You're wrong

View attachment 2277049

Doesn't show much unless case rate is included.
Also you said Western world, not rest of Aus so it's irrelevant to the point.

 

[mighty_lions]

This has been explained to you 50 ****ing times...Jesus Christ

yeah and still doesn't make any sense or logic, listing a player as a fake finger injury is absurd, the suppression order is about the publication and has nothing to do with a random injury list on a website, its a cover story and its not necessary

the public are entitled to think whatever they like and not having him listed or not has nothing to do with a suppression order

 

[Willo_]

yeah and still doesn't make any sense or logic, listing a player as a fake finger injury is absurd, the suppression order is about the publication and has nothing to do with a random injury list on a website, its a cover story and its not necessary

the public are entitled to think whatever they like and not having him listed or not has nothing to do with a suppression order

it really isn't that hard to understand, yet here you are

The clubs are required to list players as out when they are unavailable.. the AFL would be absolutely aware of what is happening and it is pretty clear the Cats would have sought advice on how they are to handle it and list it. A vague injury clearly was put in there just to cover a base and try to avoid questions, where listing Personal Reasons is much much more obvious.

The Club, the AFL, the media.. no one is allowed to say anything, they have tried a solution to try avoid too many questions being asked.


Lets be honest, if they had listed personal reasons, you would be outraged about that.

 

[mighty_lions]

it really isn't that hard to understand, yet here you are

The clubs are required to list players as out when they are unavailable.. the AFL would be absolutely aware of what is happening and it is pretty clear the Cats would have sought advice on how they are to handle it and list it. A vague injury clearly was put in there just to cover a base and try to avoid questions, where listing Personal Reasons is much much more obvious.

The Club, the AFL, the media.. no one is allowed to say anything, they have tried a solution to try avoid too many questions being asked.


Lets be honest, if they had listed personal reasons, you would be outraged about that.

this is straight up BS, he doesn't have to be listed on the afl injury list, also I didnt say list him as personal reasons I said dont list him at all,

''The clubs are required to list players as out when they are unavailable", yeah not true this list isn't some sort of legal document he doesn't have to be on it and you even agreed its a cover story

 

[PenAndPaper]

this is straight up BS, he doesn't have to be listed on the afl injury list, also I didnt say list him as personal reasons I said dont list him at all,

''The clubs are required to list players as out when they are unavailable", yeah not true this list isn't some sort of legal document he doesn't have to be on it and you even agreed its a cover story

Again for the 51st time, if they don't list him on the injury list (when he's a clear best 22 player) then even more people are going to question why he isn't playing.

Putting it down as an injury means less people are going to question why he isn't playing compared to putting personal reasons or not having him listed at all. Of course some people are still questioning it, but there 100% would be more people that were unaware questioning it if he just wasn't playing with no explanation given...

**** me, I don't know how much more simply I can explain this for you.

 

[mighty_lions]

Again for the 51st time, if they don't list him on the injury list (when he's a clear best 22 player) then even more people are going to question why he isn't playing.

Putting it down as an injury means less people are going to question why he isn't playing compared to putting personal reasons or not having him listed at all. Of course some people are still questioning it, but there 100% would be more people that were unaware questioning it if he just wasn't playing with no explanation given...

**** me, I don't know how much more simply I can explain this for you.

people are allowed to question whatever they like, for the millionth time a supression order is about the publication NOTHING to do with whether or not people talk about it and the media are not going to anyway

Listing as a fake finger injury thats just TBC is drawing more attention to it than not listing him

 

[WillHayward]

So i think if you had any brains Geelong would be in talks with the AFL in what's happening, and they would be getting instructed by the AFL and there lawyers in what and not to say...
Of course what's happened is bad.. But at no stage this is Geelong’s fault in covering it up...

Can't see how Geelong could have done anything different or better.

Big differences with Balta are :

1. Balta plead guilty
2. Richmond had other reasons to suspend Balta not related to the criminal charges. I.e. they probably have some club rule about being drunk in public after 12am or something similarish so they could suspend him just for that without having to delve into the criminal stuff.

 

[BF Tiger]

Nice and subtle front page from an unrelated case that explain how useless suppression orders really are.
Unfortunately for Mr Sinnott he couldn't get a gag order despite being allegedly involved in the same crime.
How does suppressing one of the accused's name protect the victim but not the other? Obviously Sinnott didn't pay his lawyer enough.
View attachment 2277165

Can we see page 5?

 

[foxdog50]

Can't see how Geelong could have done anything different or better.

Exactly
Geelong Football Club isn't hiding anything and no they wouldn't want to.. They are getting told by what the club lawyers and the league lawyers

 

[Partridge]

So i think if you had any brains Geelong would be in talks with the AFL in what's happening, and they would be getting instructed by the AFL and there lawyers in what and not to say...
Of course what's happened is bad.. But at no stage this is Geelong’s fault in covering it up...

Not to mention it's 100% exactly what every other club would do as well.

 

[PenAndPaper]

Listing as a fake finger injury thats just TBC is drawing more attention to it than not listing him

No it's not, the fact you can't comprehend that is wild.

 

[cats_09]

people are allowed to question whatever they like, for the millionth time a supression order is about the publication NOTHING to do with whether or not people talk about it and the media are not going to anyway

Listing as a fake finger injury thats just TBC is drawing more attention to it than not listing him

Except for the basic fact that he played in the pre-season hit out against Hawthorn with a finger injury - so it at least worked as an option for the first few weeks

Or are you going to suggest that the long game has been in play and that prior to any charges being laid, all parties were preparing in case something eventuated?

 

[iameviljez]

No it's not, the fact you can't comprehend that is wild.

Outside of the BigFootyverse, most fans won't have twigged. I'd suggest even most Geelong supporters whose footy interest is under a 6/10 haven't realised.

 

[PenAndPaper]

Outside of the BigFootyverse, most fans won't have twigged. I'd suggest even most Geelong supporters whose footy interest is under a 6/10 haven't realised.

Exactly, most will be thinking "geez must have broken that finger badly"

 

[iameviljez]

Exactly, most will be thinking "geez must have broken that finger badly"

Long game: it's actually Toby Conway and the alleged has just racked up a traffic violation

 

[mighty_lions]

Except for the basic fact that he played in the pre-season hit out against Hawthorn with a finger injury - so it at least worked as an option for the first few weeks

Or are you going to suggest that the long game has been in play and that prior to any charges being laid, all parties were preparing in case something eventuated?

Yeah he had a finger injury but he doesnt have it now they've just continued to run with it obviously to stop people questioning which is bullshit


The trial game was the 16th and the charge was a few days later presumably the 20th or 21st so even listing it initially is just a cover story because the injury list wouldn't of come out to a few days later anyway

 

[cats_09]

Exactly, most will be thinking "geez must have broken that finger badly"

About two weeks after TB was added to the injury list, we had Bews added to it with a broken little finger with a return time frame of 8-12 weeks

So it does seem finger injuries can be a long return process, especially when surgery is involved

 

[Fulgent]

Exactly, most will be thinking "geez must have broken that finger badly"

What's worse, a broken finger or a broken record?

 

[mighty_lions]

About two weeks after TB was added to the injury list, we had Bews added to it with a broken little finger with a return time frame of 8-12 weeks

So it does seem finger injuries can be a long return process, especially when surgery is involved

they listed the finger injury after he was charged

 

[cats_09]

they listed the finger injury after he was charged

What was Bews charged with?

 

[Wojcinski]

Yeah he had a finger injury but he doesnt have it now they've just continued to run with it obviously to stop people questioning which is bullshit


The trial game was the 16th and the charge was a few days later presumably the 20th or 21st so even listing it initially is just a cover story because the injury list wouldn't of come out to a few days later anyway

why is this such a point of contention for you? I understand being appalled at what he has been accused of doing but why are you so hung up on how the AFL has handled the suppression order? Do you even care about the victim or is this just an opportunity for you to point-score against the AFL and Geelong?

edit: just checked and you have 65!! posts in this thread all asking the same question

 

[iameviljez]

If the co-accused has been charged with other offences since being charged with this offence then his lawyers may well have argued that naming him will be prejudicial to the other case.

Especially if it is a similar offence.

I don’t know the details of this suppression order, but if he is facing other charges he won’t be named in the public domain until all matters are settled by the courts.

It may also just be that if it goes public, it will really hurt the chances of getting an impartial jury who are unaware of the player's history as it might pertain to the case, due to the massive amount of press it will get.

Most people won't know Mr Sinnott from a bar of soap, even after his name has been published. If the footballer's name goes public, within the week, almost everyone in Geelong will know who he is and a lot of other facts that they may need to keep from the jury.

 

[mighty_lions]

why is this such a point of contention for you? I understand being appalled at what he has been accused of doing but why are you so hung up on how the AFL has handled the suppression order? Do you even care about the victim or is this just an opportunity for you to point-score against the AFL and Geelong?

edit: just checked and you have 65!! posts in this thread all asking the same question

Why does it have to be one or the other? and its irrelevant how many times ive posted

 

[mighty_lions]

It may also just be that if it goes public, it will really hurt the chances of getting an impartial jury who are unaware of the player's history as it might pertain to the case, due to the massive amount of press it will get.

Most people won't know Mr Sinnott from a bar of soap, even after his name has been published. If the footballer's name goes public, within the week, almost everyone in Geelong will know who he is and a lot of other facts that they may need to keep from the jury.

this is the greatest fallacy ever, you can still be tried without a jury and numerous cases have been