And you thought Nate Myles Hotel poo incident was bad

Yet another case of over sensationalized internet rubbish. 20 years ago it wouldn't have seen the light of day and no one would be any the wiser.
 
@Blokarter said:
I can feel the knives sharpening now but on many a bucks night, not that many years ago, it was almost mandatory to have the poor unconscious buck photographed with his todger in some sort of animal. And that always ensured a whole lot of one liners from the folks at the photo shop. Harden up.

he wasnt unconscious. he knew exactly what he was doing and alcohol doesnt have anything to do with it. alot of people get drunk but would never want to do anything like that. i dont know why you say harden up. its like your saying people that find it disgusting arent tough :laughing:
 
@Blokarter said:
I can feel the knives sharpening now but on many a bucks night, not that many years ago, it was almost mandatory to have the poor unconscious buck photographed with his todger in some sort of animal. And that always ensured a whole lot of one liners from the folks at the photo shop. Harden up.

I don't know if harden up is the correct way to look at this, but I know what your trying to say.

Unfortunately, times have changed and back in the days you are talking about, most possibly would shake there heads and walk away. Back then, you could smack your kid across the back of the head, blokes didn't sip on Latte's and Vegetarian Food was for the queers…

Unfortunately, the old adage of "what happens on tour, stays on tour" no longer exists.

Ps - been to plenty of Bucks Nights, but never seen your depiction of a great night. We always had strippers too 😕
 
@Blokarter said:
Yet another case of over sensationalized internet rubbish. 20 years ago it wouldn't have seen the light of day and no one would be any the wiser.

So if people don;t find out about something then no matter how bad it is it's OK to do it?

& add me to the list of people who've never seen a groom forced to perform acts of beastiality.
 
be interestiing to see what type of penalty the NRL impose.
as a result of this would not be suprised, if something is wriiten into all players contracts, clearly stating, that they will be immediately sacked from the club, and it will be mandatory fo rthe matter to be forwarded to the relevant law enforcement agencies, to be dealt with.
 
the guy is finished. Gallop has already basically stated that.

Joel will be the new grounds keeper at the Queanbean Bowls Club because they have a 'No Dogs' rule…
 
Sponsor may walk if Raiders don't act
Chris Barrett and Chris Dutton
November 6, 2010

CANBERRA will not take disciplinary action against any other players despite it emerging that one of the Raiders' stars took the photo of Joel Monaghan simulating a sex act with a dog that has caused outrage after being published online.

Monaghan yesterday returned to Canberra from the NSW South Coast, and appears certain to have his contract terminated at a Raiders board meeting next week after admitting on Thursday to being the person in the photo, taken during Mad Monday celebrations last month.

Even in the event Canberra spares the 28-year-old centre, it is understood the NRL will likely deregister him, blocking him from playing next year. However, the Herald has been told the Raiders will not censure anyone other than Monaghan, including the player, thought to be a high-profile squad member, who took the photo later published on Twitter.
Advertisement: Story continues below

The party where the photo was taken was at the home of the Raiders forward Josh Miller in Canberra's north, although it is yet to be confirmed who owns the labrador pictured in the simulated sex act. About 30 people, including players and friends, were at the house party, held following the Raiders' elimination final defeat by Wests Tigers on September 17.

The Raiders are yet to assemble for pre-season training but the board has instructed all officials and players not to comment on the matter until it meets on Monday.

The pressure to sack Monaghan intensified yesterday, with Canberra sponsors threatening to abandon the club if it does not tear up his contract. Major backers, the CFMEU and The Tradies, and another sponsor, Local Liquor, are monitoring the Raiders board meeting with interest, while Canberra Milk, which has been associated with the club in some capacity since 1982, has demanded the player be shown the door on Monday.

''I've spoken to [the Raiders] and given them our thoughts. We would be concerned if he was still there,'' said Garry Sykes, the general manager of Canberra Milk, whose contract with the Raiders runs until 2012.

''That's for them to decide. If they don't take some fairly strong action then we're going to be asking some questions. If one individual screws up, we're not going to walk away. If they go, 'Oh well, everything is back to normal and things go on as usual,' and he starts training with the boys like nothing has happened, we'll have something to say.''

Sykes said he was ''absolutely livid'' at the photo scandal. ''All the board are good personal friends of mine, as is the management,'' he said. ''We're all pretty close and we call it the Raiders family. We've got a ratbag in the family.''

Monaghan, whose elder brother Michael plays in the English Super League with Warrington, is understood to be distraught and already receiving counselling.

However, the former Australian representative gained an unlikely ally in ACT Chief Minister John Stanhope, who believes the Raiders should stand by him.

"I think he should be supported by his organisation, that he perhaps might be subjected to appropriate disciplinary action,'' Mr Stanhope told ABC Radio. ''I don't believe a very sick joke gone badly wrong should be the basis for the destruction of a career. I don't see how that advances the cause of any of us in relation to the issues that we face.''
 
//''I don't believe a very sick joke gone badly wrong should be the basis for the destruction of a career.//

depends on your definition of a sick joke….if he had his pants on and pretended, then no drama, but the piccie I saw goes beyond that, well beyond that.

Would other players really want to be associated with the guy anyway now?
 
The sponsors have ultimately decided his fate, not the club. I honestly believe that Fuhrer Furner was contemplating keeping him on based on his attitude in the media the other day.
 
NRL's Joel Monaghan in the dog house
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9xauFZVmm2A&feature=player_embedded" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-league/league-news/campese-in-fight-to-keep-monaghan-at-raiders-20101107-17j09.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
 
Off to the Superleague it seems, Blessing in disguise for Canberra I'm guessing and he's 28 and they got lots of talent they would be hoping to lock up with is doggy dollars.

Cant wait for this story to be over.
 
@Tiger Watto said:
his resignation free's up there Salary Cap. If he was sacked, it still would of counted for 2011… Well done Canberra!

It's a common way to do things. We did the same thing with Hoppa didn't we?
 
According to FSN he hasn't resigned (or they haven't accepted it, not sure which) and they will have a meeting

on Tuesday to discuss the matter. Senior players group to have their say, Campese wants him to stay.

Can't see them keeping him and losing big sponsor dollars.
 
Some of these players need to realise that player retention is not in their job description. Unless Terry Campese can guarantee the sponsorship shortfall he should pull his head in.
 
Back
Top