NRL has morals when it suits.....why?

[Geo]

Sorry. Rebecca Wilson was a grub and she wasn't above printing about the recently departed with her efforts in regard to Jonny Mannah. Foran had hit the skids and was obviously struggling to deal with his issues and he had that maggot running speculators in the paper about him (**was she the charmer that suggested his kids weren't his?**)

She made her bed she can lay in it. Dying doesn't mean you become instantly canonized. God may forgive but I certainly don't.

Rebecca was that 'reporter' indeed..

 

[Fade_To_Black]

I suppose the difference is that Simona has broken NRL rules so they can suspend him immediately.
The NRL can't act on s legal matter though as in Radradras case until a hearing.

The NRL had every capacity to send the Sharks and its' players to the wall over the systematic doping though didn't it? Instead it allowed the players to serve most part of their suspensions in the off season and a coach who supposedly wasn't allowed to have dwalings with his club miraculously re-signed a contract extension throughout this time. Scabby organisation the NRL is, I will support my team until I go under the ground but the NRL is a pretty vile, corrupt business IMO. You could list at least a dozen examples of the NRL's dubious handling of various issues.

 

[Fade_To_Black]

This Simona thing has really reinforced the fact that the NRL has very selective morals when it comes to player indescretions.
A bloke that has a few bets (which are rumoured to have been on himself) is seen as a major issue and is prohibited from playing until the matter is resolved yet Radrada is awaiting court for allegedly bashing his missus but is free to play until his day in court. Massive double standards.

IMO the main factor governing the NRL's stance on unsavoury issues revolves wholly and solely around money. The NRL comes down swift and hard on anyone (apart from Teflon Foran) who is in danger of jeopardizing the NRL's massive moneymaking affiliation with betting agencies. They don't want to risk the bad press and finger-pointing that comes with players betting on games. They don't have a "gambling-free" round to spruik their so-called abhorrance at player gambling.
They can just pass over partner beating scum like Avu'a, Barba, Radradra etc under the guise of the "women in league round" and promoting the no domestic violence cause all the while letting the perpetrators of these cowardly acts to continue to play and in 2 of those 3 cases mentioned, win a premiership. Disgusting to say the least.
Ditto for drug users like the Sharks who massively breached the rules but were let off virtually scot-free. Why are these other issues treated so much more leniantly that a bloke having a bet?
Players betting on games is a massive issue of integrity to the NRL. But IMO it is probably less of an integrity issue than letting wife beaters and drug cheats take the field every week and be portrayed as faces of the NRL.
One has to think the major deciding factor for the NRL is the almighty dollar. Do what you like as long as it doesn't jeopardize our money making avenues. It stinks beyond belief.

Ok first Ill answer your question directly and seriously…...

The "no gambling on NRL games" rule is an NRL rule, not common law and as a consequence the NRL are the only ones who can and will police it. Simona will never have to worry about the NSW Police knocking on his door for backing himself as first try scorer. Its an NRL Rule and they will act on it.

Ok now I have that out of the way....if you cant see the problem with what Simona has allegedly done? It has repercussions for Wests Tigers and the NRL

Have never said that there was no problem with what Simona has allegedly done.
Where does the Sharks performancing enhancing drugs program lie? Is that not directly under the NRL banner… .it is their game to govern isn't it? Yet those mongrels got off with nothing as punishment and won the GF. That seems pretty fair.

 

[Glennb]

This Simona thing has really reinforced the fact that the NRL has very selective morals when it comes to player indescretions.
A bloke that has a few bets (which are rumoured to have been on himself) is seen as a major issue and is prohibited from playing until the matter is resolved yet Radrada is awaiting court for allegedly bashing his missus but is free to play until his day in court. Massive double standards.

IMO the main factor governing the NRL's stance on unsavoury issues revolves wholly and solely around money. The NRL comes down swift and hard on anyone (apart from Teflon Foran) who is in danger of jeopardizing the NRL's massive moneymaking affiliation with betting agencies. They don't want to risk the bad press and finger-pointing that comes with players betting on games. They don't have a "gambling-free" round to spruik their so-called abhorrance at player gambling.
They can just pass over partner beating scum like Avu'a, Barba, Radradra etc under the guise of the "women in league round" and promoting the no domestic violence cause all the while letting the perpetrators of these cowardly acts to continue to play and in 2 of those 3 cases mentioned, win a premiership. Disgusting to say the least.
Ditto for drug users like the Sharks who massively breached the rules but were let off virtually scot-free. Why are these other issues treated so much more leniantly that a bloke having a bet?
Players betting on games is a massive issue of integrity to the NRL. But IMO it is probably less of an integrity issue than letting wife beaters and drug cheats take the field every week and be portrayed as faces of the NRL.
One has to think the major deciding factor for the NRL is the almighty dollar. Do what you like as long as it doesn't jeopardize our money making avenues. It stinks beyond belief.

Ok first Ill answer your question directly and seriously…...

The "no gambling on NRL games" rule is an NRL rule, not common law and as a consequence the NRL are the only ones who can and will police it. Simona will never have to worry about the NSW Police knocking on his door for backing himself as first try scorer. Its an NRL Rule and they will act on it.

Ok now I have that out of the way....if you cant see the problem with what Simona has allegedly done? It has repercussions for Wests Tigers and the NRL

Have never said that there was no problem with what Simona has allegedly done.
Where does the Sharks performancing enhancing drugs program lie? Is that not directly under the NRL banner… .it is their game to govern isn't it? Yet those mongrels got off with nothing as punishment and won the GF. That seems pretty fair.

Nope, teh Sharks drugs thing was ASADA and the NRL had to wait for them to issue penalties.

 

[jirskyr]

I suppose the difference is that Simona has broken NRL rules so they can suspend him immediately.
The NRL can't act on s legal matter though as in Radradras case until a hearing.

I agree with this. NRL assumedly have concrete evidence they collected wrt Simona and it is the NRL that gets to decide what contravenes their own policies. Police have evidence towards Radradra that won't be fleshed out until full court hearing, and the veracity of such evidence is still to be publicly challenged, so there has not been confirmed law breaking.

Regarding Cronulla, I think one would find it much easier to develop evidence against and prosecute a single person, than an entire organisation. So Sharks did a lot of slippery legal dealing and side-stepping to arrive where they were. Also some really grey areas there: how responsible are players for consumables provided by their club? How hard can you go after a club as an entire organisation if there are guilty parties and other scapegoats who are dealt with? Etc.

 

[tiger_one]

Stopping betting??

Someone's living in lottoland.

 

[mctiger]

I think the Simona issue jeopardises the integrity of the game (especially if betting on himself). The other issues jeopardises the reputation of the game.

I see no reason why betting for everyone should be stopped but those that can influence a result should not be allowed to bet - which is what is in place. Those that try to flaunt the rules invariably get caught at some time.