NRL ban Jack Wighton for 10 matches, impose $30,000 fine

[-TW-]

There's disagreeing with an opinion and there's calling out factual untruths..

There's a big difference

[gangrenous]

The Sharks got less for peptides! they cheated to try and win games of football. Wighton assaulted 5 members of the public.

You’re right cat, there have been quite a lot of embarrassing things said by fans. They’ve pretty well all been in support of Wighton and the Raiders.

The handling of this is more likely to see me not renew my membership than even the diabolical madness that is Stuart’s coaching strategy.

[Bay53]

I think part of the reason the club in particular wanted this sorted now was so when the court dishes out punishment the club can point out how he has already been punished by his employer. It also now gives him an opportunity to do some community work, again to minimise the court punishment.

I highly doubt that is true. I think there are some big problems with our legal system if that was the case.

The club didn't want to sort this out now. They wanted to apply a punishment after the court case had finished.

Our legal system should and will take into account what Jack has done and is doing between now and his sentencing, for better or worse.

IMO this has worked out well for the Raiders. The sentencing will barely raise an eyebrow if everything goes to plan and everyone will have moved on well before kick-off in 2019.

They won’t take into account whether he got six or 10 weeks suspension. Agree they will take account Jack’s other actions, and it seems they have generally been pretty good which is the reason the club is determined to stand by him.

[Bay53]

I disagree that the Raiders haven't handled this properly.

I think you will find that the Raiders didn't intend to suspend him at all until the court proceedings had finished. I think that is reasonable.

The NRL has made a decision following the Brett Stewart incident that they won't punish anyone until they are found guilty by the courts. I think this is the way to go for two reasons - 1) everyone is entitled to the presumption of innocence and 2) they don't want to prejudice the court process.

In this case, there is a guilty finding, once Jack changed his plea. However, I think that they should still wait until the end of those proceedings and the full case is heard before imposing the penalty. For exactly the same reason that you don't want to prejudice the court process and in that sentencing hearing the facts of the case will be discussed and a court penalty imposed based on that evidence. The truth from a football perspective is we would probably rather 10 weeks now in a season that is unlikely to be successful rather than 6 weeks next season when there is fresh hope, but regardless I think that is the way it should have been approached and I think the Raiders feel the same way.

I also disagree with the view expressed here by GE that once you plead guilty you should be stood down until sentencing. The time between Jack pleading guilty and the sentencing hearing is 19 weeks. Depending on the timing, that could mean a player misses 19 games, as opposed to other cases where it has been much less. You normally plead guilty to get a reduced sentence, not a longer one. In many ways the 10 weeks is a number for convenience, because that is how many games we have got (did have) to go. If there were 13 games left in the season would he had got 13 weeks? If we were on top of the ladder, would he have been suspended for the finals series?

I think there are still a couple more questions to be asked now however. Are the NRL saying that this is now the end of the matter? From a football perspective, the decision is done so no matter what comes out in the sentencing hearing, there will be no further penalty? Basically provided Jack in not in jail come Round 1 2019 he is free to play?

On the subject of the $30,000 fine - does he get paid for the time he is suspended? If so that is an extraordinarily light financial penalty. There have been reports that he earns $800k per year. That is $15K per week. I would have thought that if he was suspended for 10 weeks, he would be fined $150K - i.e. he doesn't get paid for the time he is suspended.

That is an extraordinarily heavy financial penalty. I'd like to knew a single other case of assault where someone was fined 30k? The courts might give you 3k. I'd say 30k is considerable mount ON TOP of any court penalty still to come.

You might think it's all play money but smart players will have a lot of that money promised or intended. Yes they are wealthy but 30k will change most peoples year.

My question is does he still get paid his contract money during his suspension. At $15k a week he is still getting paid $150k (before tax obviously) for that period. Yes, he still has to go to work (training) but he is still well ahead for that period, despite that due to his actions he is not adding any value for the team. Of course he could be injured but we accept that is part of the game.

I agree the courts would never impose that sort of monetary penalty.

[Fuifui Bradbrad]

Jack always gets paid


Sent from my iPhone using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

[RedRaider]

I wonder how much of the fine was for the assaults and how much for public urination? The NRL drew a line under 'live streaming' after the Carney incident. Jack may be our No.1 but he knows he can't do a No.1 in public. The squirt has to learn the lesson. They couldn't give him a piddling little fine after Carney was sacked. The NRL is trying to flush out and close the lid on this behavior. I hope the Raiders speak to all the players about this type of display and then they zip it.

[Matt]

I wonder how much of the fine was for the assaults and how much for public urination? The NRL drew a line under 'live streaming' after the Carney incident. Jack may be our No.1 but he knows he can't do a No.1 in public. The squirt has to learn the lesson. They couldn't give him a piddling little fine after Carney was sacked. The NRL is trying to flush out and close the lid on this behavior. I hope the Raiders speak to all the players about this type of display and then they zip it.

Well played sir

[greeneyed]

The thing that really ticks me off ( and yes I may be biased ) is that the raiders have been by far and away the leaders when it comes to punishment through off field drama ( obviously unfortunately we have to )
We have released Monaghan, Dugan, Carney and fergo who all at the time were representative quality players. Not only that but several of those players released played AGAINST US THAT SAME YEAR !!! most notably Dugan for the dragons. Now the where the **** was the NRL then !!! We as a club were essentially being punished for having a strong stance on player behaviour and other clubs benefited from it.
If there was one club in this competition that should hold there head up high in regards to player punishment then it’s us.
YET - the nrl come over the top and to the best of my memory the only other time they have done this is with Brett Stewart and they were made to look like idiots ( more so ).
I understand that the circumstances are different in the sense that wighton has pleaded guilty and Stewart did not, however I do believe the fact that the nrl has come over the top of our club ( when we have IMO set the benchmark for what our club stands for ) is discusting !!!
The same competition banned the sharks players for less then half of that amount of time for peptides and don’t get me started on Matt lodge !!

The problem is, the Raiders have managed all of these players and they are responsible for their behaviour. We have had poor culture, which have led to repeated poor player behaviour.

Up to now, when the players have produced unacceptable behaviour, they’ve put the punishment on the line... and said... meet the standard or leave, be sacked.

The Raiders have set aside their standards in this case, and I’m disappointed in the club.

[zim]

You can’t go around stating this sort of stuff. The whole damn police force would off seen this video and he was never charged with Sexual Assault -

He forcibly kissed a woman without her consent.

Do we want to split hairs here because I'm pretty sure that falls under the definition of sexual assault.

The undesputed fact remains that Mitchell Pearce is an innocent man due to the fact he has never been found guilty of this charge and no one has a right to label him otherwise.

What an odd stand to place your hat on. Visible evidence of him assaulting a woman but you'll defend his honour against some "hurtful" words. Interesting priorities you got there.

If there is visuable evidence of him assaulting a women why has he not been charged by police ?

Ill have a zzzz while you come up with an answer to that question.

I’m not getting into an arguement here on what my values are because I don’t have to justify them to you - but for the record then yes I don’t think that sort of behaviour should be acceptable in society and I certainly think he is grub for what was shown- but that’s my opinion. My opinion doesn’t give me the right though to label someone with something that they haven’t been found guilty of though.

It's pretty obvious you felt the need to justify your values to somebody. Maybe yourself? I dunno I'd probably feel like a defensive idiot if I was more worried about the people calling out an assault than the actual assault. But then I would probably just own up to the error in judgement and move on rather than trying to dig my way to the top.

To answer your original question: In no country anywhere on the planet do police charge every crime even when there's clear evidence. Nor should it have to be charged and convicted for you to see something wrong with it and label it for what it is. It's not rocket surgery.

[scotchberry]

He forcibly kissed a woman without her consent.

Do we want to split hairs here because I'm pretty sure that falls under the definition of sexual assault.

The undesputed fact remains that Mitchell Pearce is an innocent man due to the fact he has never been found guilty of this charge and no one has a right to label him otherwise.

What an odd stand to place your hat on. Visible evidence of him assaulting a woman but you'll defend his honour against some "hurtful" words. Interesting priorities you got there.

If there is visuable evidence of him assaulting a women why has he not been charged by police ?

Ill have a zzzz while you come up with an answer to that question.

I’m not getting into an arguement here on what my values are because I don’t have to justify them to you - but for the record then yes I don’t think that sort of behaviour should be acceptable in society and I certainly think he is grub for what was shown- but that’s my opinion. My opinion doesn’t give me the right though to label someone with something that they haven’t been found guilty of though.

It's pretty obvious you felt the need to justify your values to somebody. Maybe yourself? I dunno I'd probably feel like a defensive idiot if I was more worried about the people calling out an assault than the actual assault. But then I would probably just own up to the error in judgement and move on rather than trying to dig my way to the top.

To answer your original question: In no country anywhere on the planet do police charge every crime even when there's clear evidence. Nor should it have to be charged and convicted for you to see something wrong with it and label it for what it is. It's not rocket surgery.

I’m very straight forward mate - Pearce did nothing wrong that night that was against the law according to the powers that be (do you honestly think the NSW police service would let it slide considering it was the number 1 news story at the time in the state ?)

I don’t agree with it, you don’t agree with it, not many people agree with it, but the powers that be obviously did

If you can’t accept that then that’s on you to fight the system and get it changed.

[scotchberry]

EDIT

That’s horrible to say that.

I’m out - obviously this internet Raiders forum isn’t for me.

[zim]

The undesputed fact remains that Mitchell Pearce is an innocent man due to the fact he has never been found guilty of this charge and no one has a right to label him otherwise.

What an odd stand to place your hat on. Visible evidence of him assaulting a woman but you'll defend his honour against some "hurtful" words. Interesting priorities you got there.

If there is visuable evidence of him assaulting a women why has he not been charged by police ?

Ill have a zzzz while you come up with an answer to that question.

I’m not getting into an arguement here on what my values are because I don’t have to justify them to you - but for the record then yes I don’t think that sort of behaviour should be acceptable in society and I certainly think he is grub for what was shown- but that’s my opinion. My opinion doesn’t give me the right though to label someone with something that they haven’t been found guilty of though.

It's pretty obvious you felt the need to justify your values to somebody. Maybe yourself? I dunno I'd probably feel like a defensive idiot if I was more worried about the people calling out an assault than the actual assault. But then I would probably just own up to the error in judgement and move on rather than trying to dig my way to the top.

To answer your original question: In no country anywhere on the planet do police charge every crime even when there's clear evidence. Nor should it have to be charged and convicted for you to see something wrong with it and label it for what it is. It's not rocket surgery.

I’m very straight forward mate - Pearce did nothing wrong that night that was against the law according to the powers that be (do you honestly think the NSW police service would let it slide considering it was the number 1 news story at the time in the state ?)

I don’t agree with it, you don’t agree with it, not many people agree with it, but the powers that be obviously did

If you can’t accept that then that’s on you to fight the system and get it changed.

Yeah I think that might be the issue, and I definitely run into the same problem myself in different areas; You're being too straight forward in this case. But hey we've said our piece and I'll tip my hat and move on.

[scotchberry]

What an odd stand to place your hat on. Visible evidence of him assaulting a woman but you'll defend his honour against some "hurtful" words. Interesting priorities you got there.

If there is visuable evidence of him assaulting a women why has he not been charged by police ?

Ill have a zzzz while you come up with an answer to that question.

I’m not getting into an arguement here on what my values are because I don’t have to justify them to you - but for the record then yes I don’t think that sort of behaviour should be acceptable in society and I certainly think he is grub for what was shown- but that’s my opinion. My opinion doesn’t give me the right though to label someone with something that they haven’t been found guilty of though.

It's pretty obvious you felt the need to justify your values to somebody. Maybe yourself? I dunno I'd probably feel like a defensive idiot if I was more worried about the people calling out an assault than the actual assault. But then I would probably just own up to the error in judgement and move on rather than trying to dig my way to the top.

To answer your original question: In no country anywhere on the planet do police charge every crime even when there's clear evidence. Nor should it have to be charged and convicted for you to see something wrong with it and label it for what it is. It's not rocket surgery.

I’m very straight forward mate - Pearce did nothing wrong that night that was against the law according to the powers that be (do you honestly think the NSW police service would let it slide considering it was the number 1 news story at the time in the state ?)

I don’t agree with it, you don’t agree with it, not many people agree with it, but the powers that be obviously did

If you can’t accept that then that’s on you to fight the system and get it changed.

Yeah I think that might be the issue, and I definitely run into the same problem myself in different areas; You're being too straight forward in this case. But hey we've said our piece and I'll tip my hat and move on.

Cheers Zim

[Sun Coast Raider]

That’s horrible to say that.

I’m out - obviously this internet Raiders forum isn’t for me.

I've felt the same way but then I discovered the foe function. Makes it a lot better than reading absolute drivel. Also I avoid certain parts of the forum altogether. Tend not to get into debates either as it simply not worth it.

[Sun Coast Raider]

The Raiders have set aside their standards in this case, and I’m disappointed in the club.

This exactly.

[RedRaider]

I wonder how much of the fine was for the assaults and how much for public urination? The NRL drew a line under 'live streaming' after the Carney incident. Jack may be our No.1 but he knows he can't do a No.1 in public. The squirt has to learn the lesson. They couldn't give him a piddling little fine after Carney was sacked. The NRL is trying to flush out and close the lid on this behavior. I hope the Raiders speak to all the players about this type of display and then they zip it.

Well played sir

I'm relieved you think that, Matt ...

[Coastalraider]

+1

[-PJ-]

Jacki Boi's done a bad bad thing...

Let's just chill until his return to court.

In the meantime let's enjoy NCotric at #1.

[Green eyed Mick]

The thing that really ticks me off ( and yes I may be biased ) is that the raiders have been by far and away the leaders when it comes to punishment through off field drama ( obviously unfortunately we have to )
We have released Monaghan, Dugan, Carney and fergo who all at the time were representative quality players. Not only that but several of those players released played AGAINST US THAT SAME YEAR !!! most notably Dugan for the dragons. Now the where the **** was the NRL then !!! We as a club were essentially being punished for having a strong stance on player behaviour and other clubs benefited from it.
If there was one club in this competition that should hold there head up high in regards to player punishment then it’s us.
YET - the nrl come over the top and to the best of my memory the only other time they have done this is with Brett Stewart and they were made to look like idiots ( more so ).
I understand that the circumstances are different in the sense that wighton has pleaded guilty and Stewart did not, however I do believe the fact that the nrl has come over the top of our club ( when we have IMO set the benchmark for what our club stands for ) is discusting !!!
The same competition banned the sharks players for less then half of that amount of time for peptides and don’t get me started on Matt lodge !!

The problem is, the Raiders have managed all of these players and they are responsible for their behaviour. We have had poor culture, which have led to repeated poor player behaviour.

Up to now, when the players have produced unacceptable behaviour, they’ve put the punishment on the line... and said... meet the standard or leave, be sacked.

The Raiders have set aside their standards in this case, and I’m disappointed in the club.

Any facts to back up these assertions GE?

What standards have been set aside and where is your evidence?

[Billy Walker]

The Raiders have set aside their standards in this case, and I’m disappointed in the club.

This exactly.

100% - I'll say again, I won't be paying a cent to take my family to attend a game where Jack is playing. I'll watch the lads on TV and I'll head out if Jack's injured or out of the line up. The fact the club has no standards is all the more reason I feel I need to stick to mine.

[sprintman]

The thing that really ticks me off ( and yes I may be biased ) is that the raiders have been by far and away the leaders when it comes to punishment through off field drama ( obviously unfortunately we have to )
We have released Monaghan, Dugan, Carney and fergo who all at the time were representative quality players. Not only that but several of those players released played AGAINST US THAT SAME YEAR !!! most notably Dugan for the dragons. Now the where the **** was the NRL then !!! We as a club were essentially being punished for having a strong stance on player behaviour and other clubs benefited from it.
If there was one club in this competition that should hold there head up high in regards to player punishment then it’s us.
YET - the nrl come over the top and to the best of my memory the only other time they have done this is with Brett Stewart and they were made to look like idiots ( more so ).
I understand that the circumstances are different in the sense that wighton has pleaded guilty and Stewart did not, however I do believe the fact that the nrl has come over the top of our club ( when we have IMO set the benchmark for what our club stands for ) is discusting !!!
The same competition banned the sharks players for less then half of that amount of time for peptides and don’t get me started on Matt lodge !!

The problem is, the Raiders have managed all of these players and they are responsible for their behaviour. We have had poor culture, which have led to repeated poor player behaviour.

Up to now, when the players have produced unacceptable behaviour, they’ve put the punishment on the line... and said... meet the standard or leave, be sacked.

The Raiders have set aside their standards in this case, and I’m disappointed in the club.

Same. Long term high standards ditched.

[greeneyed]

The thing that really ticks me off ( and yes I may be biased ) is that the raiders have been by far and away the leaders when it comes to punishment through off field drama ( obviously unfortunately we have to )
We have released Monaghan, Dugan, Carney and fergo who all at the time were representative quality players. Not only that but several of those players released played AGAINST US THAT SAME YEAR !!! most notably Dugan for the dragons. Now the where the **** was the NRL then !!! We as a club were essentially being punished for having a strong stance on player behaviour and other clubs benefited from it.
If there was one club in this competition that should hold there head up high in regards to player punishment then it’s us.
YET - the nrl come over the top and to the best of my memory the only other time they have done this is with Brett Stewart and they were made to look like idiots ( more so ).
I understand that the circumstances are different in the sense that wighton has pleaded guilty and Stewart did not, however I do believe the fact that the nrl has come over the top of our club ( when we have IMO set the benchmark for what our club stands for ) is discusting !!!
The same competition banned the sharks players for less then half of that amount of time for peptides and don’t get me started on Matt lodge !!

The problem is, the Raiders have managed all of these players and they are responsible for their behaviour. We have had poor culture, which have led to repeated poor player behaviour.

Up to now, when the players have produced unacceptable behaviour, they’ve put the punishment on the line... and said... meet the standard or leave, be sacked.

The Raiders have set aside their standards in this case, and I’m disappointed in the club.

Any facts to back up these assertions GE?

What standards have been set aside and where is your evidence?

All I’m saying is that the club should have reached agreement with the NRL on a penalty. 10 weeks seems like a pretty reasonable outcome, given the reported incidents. The Raiders now look like they’re not being serious in relation to player behaviour.

[BadnMean]

I disagree that the Raiders haven't handled this properly.


You might think it's all play money but smart players will have a lot of that money promised or intended. Yes they are wealthy but 30k will change most peoples year.

My question is does he still get paid his contract money during his suspension. At $15k a week he is still getting paid $150k (before tax obviously) for that period. Yes, he still has to go to work (training) but he is still well ahead for that period, despite that due to his actions he is not adding any value for the team. Of course he could be injured but we accept that is part of the game.

I agree the courts would never impose that sort of monetary penalty.

From what I understand players still get paid according to their contract when they are suspended- hence clubs sometimes fine players- but the basic contract payments continue yes. I realise Jack is making a lot of money but the system has to work the same for a player who was on minimum (is that 80k or thereabouts?) and got stood down, he'd have nothing to live on if he was stood down for 3 months and payments ceased in that case.

[raiderskater]

The undesputed fact remains that Mitchell Pearce is an innocent man due to the fact he has never been found guilty of this charge and no one has a right to label him otherwise.

What an odd stand to place your hat on. Visible evidence of him assaulting a woman but you'll defend his honour against some "hurtful" words. Interesting priorities you got there.

If there is visuable evidence of him assaulting a women why has he not been charged by police ?

Ill have a zzzz while you come up with an answer to that question.

I’m not getting into an arguement here on what my values are because I don’t have to justify them to you - but for the record then yes I don’t think that sort of behaviour should be acceptable in society and I certainly think he is grub for what was shown- but that’s my opinion. My opinion doesn’t give me the right though to label someone with something that they haven’t been found guilty of though.

It's pretty obvious you felt the need to justify your values to somebody. Maybe yourself? I dunno I'd probably feel like a defensive idiot if I was more worried about the people calling out an assault than the actual assault. But then I would probably just own up to the error in judgement and move on rather than trying to dig my way to the top.

To answer your original question: In no country anywhere on the planet do police charge every crime even when there's clear evidence. Nor should it have to be charged and convicted for you to see something wrong with it and label it for what it is. It's not rocket surgery.

I’m very straight forward mate - Pearce did nothing wrong that night that was against the law according to the powers that be

So according to you it's perfectly fine to sexually assault a woman just as long as the police don't charge you for it.

Righto, I know which GH members I won't be going anywhere near in person.

[Dr Zaius]

Jebus Christ

[GreenGirl]

Pearce got like 7 weeks and a $125K fine for faking a dog photo.

I keep seeing people use this argument and it's annoying the **** out of me.

1. It wasn't just the dog photo. In the same video he sexually assaults a woman and urinates on her couch.

2. It was also not his first offence and just another entry in a long line of idiot behaviours for him.

3. Are we forgetting that Pearce was lauded as some kind of tragic redemption hero while Monaghan (clean rap sheet, no priors, etc, etc) was exiled to England because the NRL told the Raiders "he can jump or we'll push him"?

So no, Pearce wasn't suspended six weeks for "faking a dog photo".

I'm interested in Kent's remark, which seems polar opposite to everything else so far, and I wonder why. Kent doesn't generally mince words about idiots.

I’ve just read this whole thread and re-watched the video footage.

I find it a stretch to say he sexually assaulted the woman in the video. He kissed her, she then told him she was not interested and he backed off. He didn’t grope her or push his body onto hers. She seemed more upset with him peeing on her couch and what he did to her dog. Was it okay that he kissed her without explicitly asking prior? I guess not, but I certainly have not explicitly asked every man I have kissed before going in for one. I would say most of the men on this forum have not verbally asked before kissing their girlfriends or wives for the first time either? Some may have even had a few drinks before doing so. You might not agree, and that’s okay, but I and others on this forum also have the right to disagree without then being called names or without their character being questioned.

[greeneyed]

Canberra Raiders coach Ricky Stuart blasts NRL over Jack Wighton ban

Canberra Raiders coach Ricky Stuart has come out swinging at the NRL and slammed the governing body for disrespecting his board over the Jack Wighton scandal.

“I was of the feeling that was going to happen, I was just more disappointed with the disrespect to our board,” Stuart said. “They had taken it into great consideration into what they felt was the correct punishment and you can’t take it lightly in regards to the past record our board has shown, other clubs and I think the NRL, how to handle poor behaviour.”

Read more: https://www.canberratimes.com.au/sport/ ... 4zrh9.html

[myanonymoususername]

I don't understand why the Raiders want to die in a ditch over 6 weeks vs 10 weeks. In both cases, its effectively the rest of the season, which by the way, the Raiders have zero chance of making the finals in. So its pretty academic as far as I see whether he can play a couple of games at the end or none. I'd advise the Raiders to pick more worthwhile battles to fight.

[Billy Walker]

Pearce got like 7 weeks and a $125K fine for faking a dog photo.

I keep seeing people use this argument and it's annoying the **** out of me.

1. It wasn't just the dog photo. In the same video he sexually assaults a woman and urinates on her couch.

2. It was also not his first offence and just another entry in a long line of idiot behaviours for him.

3. Are we forgetting that Pearce was lauded as some kind of tragic redemption hero while Monaghan (clean rap sheet, no priors, etc, etc) was exiled to England because the NRL told the Raiders "he can jump or we'll push him"?

So no, Pearce wasn't suspended six weeks for "faking a dog photo".

I'm interested in Kent's remark, which seems polar opposite to everything else so far, and I wonder why. Kent doesn't generally mince words about idiots.

I’ve just read this whole thread and re-watched the video footage.

I find it a stretch to say he sexually assaulted the woman in the video. He kissed her, she then told him she was not interested and he backed off. He didn’t grope her or push his body onto hers. She seemed more upset with him peeing on her couch and what he did to her dog. Was it okay that he kissed her without explicitly asking prior? I guess not, but I certainly have not explicitly asked every man I have kissed before going in for one. I would say most of the men on this forum have not verbally asked before kissing their girlfriends or wives for the first time either? Some may have even had a few drinks before doing so. You might not agree, and that’s okay, but I and others on this forum also have the right to disagree without then being called names or without their character being questioned.

Kissing boys without asking.... I always thought you seemed nice greengirl. I shocked!

[GreenGirl]

Pearce got like 7 weeks and a $125K fine for faking a dog photo.

I keep seeing people use this argument and it's annoying the **** out of me.

1. It wasn't just the dog photo. In the same video he sexually assaults a woman and urinates on her couch.

2. It was also not his first offence and just another entry in a long line of idiot behaviours for him.

3. Are we forgetting that Pearce was lauded as some kind of tragic redemption hero while Monaghan (clean rap sheet, no priors, etc, etc) was exiled to England because the NRL told the Raiders "he can jump or we'll push him"?

So no, Pearce wasn't suspended six weeks for "faking a dog photo".

I'm interested in Kent's remark, which seems polar opposite to everything else so far, and I wonder why. Kent doesn't generally mince words about idiots.

I’ve just read this whole thread and re-watched the video footage.

I find it a stretch to say he sexually assaulted the woman in the video. He kissed her, she then told him she was not interested and he backed off. He didn’t grope her or push his body onto hers. She seemed more upset with him peeing on her couch and what he did to her dog. Was it okay that he kissed her without explicitly asking prior? I guess not, but I certainly have not explicitly asked every man I have kissed before going in for one. I would say most of the men on this forum have not verbally asked before kissing their girlfriends or wives for the first time either? Some may have even had a few drinks before doing so. You might not agree, and that’s okay, but I and others on this forum also have the right to disagree without then being called names or without their character being questioned.

Kissing boys without asking.... I always thought you seemed nice greengirl. I shocked!

That was all before I met my husband

[GreenGirl]

I don't understand why the Raiders want to die in a ditch over 6 weeks vs 10 weeks. In both cases, its effectively the rest of the season, which by the way, the Raiders have zero chance of making the finals in. So its pretty academic as far as I see whether he can play a couple of games at the end or none. I'd advise the Raiders to pick more worthwhile battles to fight.

Agreed, though I live in hope (I know empty hope) that we might still possibly make the finals. I’m looking forward to seeing Cotric at fullback for a few weeks to see what the kid can do.

[LastRaider]

Guilty of 5 counts of assault. 10 weeks and a $30,000 fine which is probably 3 or 4% of his yearly salary is the right punishment. Case closed


Sent from my iPhone using The Greenhouse

[Dr Zaius]

Guilty of 5 counts of assault. 10 weeks and a $30,000 fine which is probably 3 or 4% of his yearly salary is the right punishment. Case closed


Sent from my iPhone using The Greenhouse

I honestly don't know what people are arguing about. This is more than fair for Jack.

The club have decided not to sack him. Fair enough given he'd just run out for someone next season. If they decided to sack him I'd be supportive of that too.

[Sossman]

If I went to a bar and beat up 5 EDIT I'd lose my career. He's gotten off lightly.

Let's all rejoice and move on.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

[Pigman]

I don't understand why the Raiders want to die in a ditch over 6 weeks vs 10 weeks. In both cases, its effectively the rest of the season, which by the way, the Raiders have zero chance of making the finals in. So its pretty academic as far as I see whether he can play a couple of games at the end or none. I'd advise the Raiders to pick more worthwhile battles to fight.

Because they are total and complete **** idiots is why
They’ve never know how the pick their battles