Lance Justice just charged over ID11 positive swab

[aussiebreno]

G'day Breno,

I think what we need in place here in Oz are rules that are in keeping with the NRL penalties system.
I'm not a football fan by any means, I'd choose to smash by Jatz Crackers between a brick and a farrier's anvil rather than sit down and watch a game of Rugby League, but I am a fan of their judiciary come regulatory set up.
They have over-arching signed code of conduct agreements in place, there are discounts for early guilty pleas and for those who stand their ground & are then found guilty there mandatory minimum sentences for various transgressions etc. Backing it all up is the fact that it is ALL tied in to initially being granted permission to play.
I can't see any reason why we cannot put something similar in place for all participants which is directly tied to the Licences of owners, strappers, trainers, drivers etc. Licences need to be such that for the really heinous end of the transgression spectrum they can be revoked at any time or otherwise the controlling body can simply refuse to renew them if the person concerned is deemed to be undesirable.
Of course, my greatest and basically only fear under such a system is that the reason/s why those kinds of rules/regulations were put in place may somehow get itself lost in the wash...ala the change of tactics rules...with participants falling victim to overtly harsh, irregular & incorrect interpretations thereof.
The whole thing would have to be drafted in such a way as to be so black and white that there would be no NO WIGGLE ROOM LEFT for Participant or Regulatory Authority, both parties being bound by their rights and responsibilities as laid out & mutually agreed upon from the outset.

I like it VVV

[harnesslover]

sounds all common sense to me!! hope the officials are reading and taking note of this!!!

[Flashing Red]

G'day Breno,

I think what we need in place here in Oz are rules that are in keeping with the NRL penalties system.
I'm not a football fan by any means, I'd choose to smash by Jatz Crackers between a brick and a farrier's anvil rather than sit down and watch a game of Rugby League, but I am a fan of their judiciary come regulatory set up.
They have over-arching signed code of conduct agreements in place, there are discounts for early guilty pleas and for those who stand their ground & are then found guilty there mandatory minimum sentences for various transgressions etc. Backing it all up is the fact that it is ALL tied in to initially being granted permission to play.
I can't see any reason why we cannot put something similar in place for all participants which is directly tied to the Licences of owners, strappers, trainers, drivers etc. Licences need to be such that for the really heinous end of the transgression spectrum they can be revoked at any time or otherwise the controlling body can simply refuse to renew them if the person concerned is deemed to be undesirable.
Of course, my greatest and basically only fear under such a system is that the reason/s why those kinds of rules/regulations were put in place may somehow get itself lost in the wash...ala the change of tactics rules...with participants falling victim to overtly harsh, irregular & incorrect interpretations thereof.
The whole thing would have to be drafted in such a way as to be so black and white that there would be no NO WIGGLE ROOM LEFT for Participant or Regulatory Authority, both parties being bound by their rights and responsibilities as laid out & mutually agreed upon from the outset.

Nice proposal

[Flashing Red]

Without knowing specifics of the process...Do you think its fair HRNSW might be paying say 5 people for a 2 days to clear up a case, the person gets found guilty and gets fined $500. In those 2 days HRNSW wages might have been $1000 plus they had to call in a couple of reserve stewards Bathurst and Penrith because said stewards were at the hearing. Is this fair?
Do you think its fair punters lose thousands? Or do you have contempt of their dollar because they're 'mugs'.
100% of the time the answer is no its not fair.
My 'theory' if you like may not be perfect but there are instances where it would be absolutely fair.

There are instances where it would be absolutely fair, for example in the most serious and intentional of infractions, however it wouldn't be fair if applied like a blanket over the whole industry, that is all. And then you have that grey area of discretion which can provide just outcomes but also very harsh ones. I quite like Triple V's proposal. It takes into account the whole aggravating / mitigating factors I was taking about, something that a blanket rule would not. Further, it allows discretion but regulated discretion, not nilly willy... I'm all for discretion but not the amount of discretion we are seeing at the moment (for example, chance of tactics).