131 replies to this topic

[longboard]

Love his twitter comment
"I'm not a biter, but if I could chew on anything it would be Paul Woods right testicle"

That would be bad taste.

[Keith T]

Taking your point, but then contrasting this, as you say, circumstantial and balance of probability finding, with the Holifield, Tyson incident where a piece of the man's ear was bitten off, where is the justification for the enormous ban?. Guilty, maybe, but shouldn't the punishment fit the crime?

First of all there has to be a crime and on the evidence shown on the video there isn't even any contact between Graham's mouth and Slater's ear. Everyone, including the judiciary presumably, are merely assuming that he bit him because that is what Slater says but it is his word against Graham's and I hope graham appeals and gets good legal support.

[AndyCapp]

First of all there has to be a crime and on the evidence shown on the video there isn't even any contact between Graham's mouth and Slater's ear. Everyone, including the judiciary presumably, are merely assuming that he bit him because that is what Slater says but it is his word against Graham's and I hope graham appeals and gets good legal support.

Are you saying Slater decided to fabricate a bite and then make his Ear start bleeding as he got up?

Its not just his word against Slaters, its the probability of the claim related to where his head was in the video and lastly the fact Slater got up with his Ear bleeding.
What more do you want?

There will be no appeal as Graham has already left for the UK and Canterbury have no interest in an appeal.

[AndyCapp]

This video would rather tend to suggest that this player does in fact like a bit of a fight. Indeed rather than allowing himself to be pulled away from the incident he seemed to want to fight everyone who was gathered round. He could have walked away rather than responding to the push.



The evidence you suggest is more than enough is hardly overwhelming. The video shows Graham holding Slater in the same way he held Sam Burgess earlier in the season. The bloody ear was hardly gushing. All anyone has seen is a small scratch on the inside of the ear. We are of course to ignore the fact that he was held in a headlock for several seconds by David Stagg and the resulting wrestling which took place before Slater was flung to the ground. Far more likely that he could have received the small scratch to the inside of the ear at that stage.

The accusation, well he was accused by Slater the man who had to be warned about his consistent tendancy to lead with the feet in a 50 50 situation. Slater seems to have been elevated to sainthood because he rememberered that he'd been warned about this and managed only to land in the middle of the back of Perret. We should also not forget a favourable mention in the rush to report the incident of the man found guilty of the chicken wing tackle, Cameron Smith. To be accused by such impeccable charcteres is compelling indeed.

I agree its time to move on though Graham may well be the victim of the hullabaloo that blew up over this. Personally I would like to see more compelling evidence before a man whose character was held in fairly high regard permanently tarnished in such a way.

I said Slater is not a known fighter, I did not mean he would not defend himself or have a go if riled, In context..... Graham said he got him a bear hug up close because he can not fight and did not want to be hit. Slater can not fight for ######, hardly a player to be feared by a player 70 lbs heavier is he?
Why was Graham even on Slater at that point?
If you get in the position Graham was in on top of a player roaring and snarling around a players Ear and he gets up with a bleeding Ear, he claims to be bitten you made you made your own Bed.... lie in it.

[Derwent]

If you get in the position Graham was in on top of a player roaring and snarling around a players Ear and he gets up with a bleeding Ear, he claims to be bitten you made you made your own Bed.... lie in it.

Right, so because Slater alleged it then it must have happened. We can't dispute the word of Saint Billy can we ?

Have another look at the footage. There is a point during the melee when the Storm No. 4 (Chambers) reaches around the back of Graham's head and actually pulls his head onto Slater's. Is it not possible that any contact by Graham's teeth (if there was any) was accidentally caused by such an action ? The fact that Slater was bleeding does not make what happened deliberate, there are other perfectly plausible explanations.

Edited by Derwent, 09 October 2012 - 09:55 AM.

[AndyCapp]

Of course there are.
Graham should have presented them to the Judiciary with enough conviction and proof that the three unbiased ex players on the Board had enough doubt in their minds to exonerate him or give him a milder sentence.

His peers in the NRL do not believe he has been badly treated or unfairly dealt with, neither do most of the Canterbury fans on Oz Forums, there is a players Union in Oz that have not got involved at all.

Still, us keyboard know it alls could tell them a thing or two about how it should all work out.

ps
Billy Slater is a lot better bloke than many on here think and comes across off the field as a genuine country boy with no bull at all about him, no ego at all, a humble kid that thinks he has won the lottery to be in the spot he is in, his looks and on field confidence and ability may not translate that well.
Not all Australians like him by any means but he is respected by the majority.

Edited by AndyCapp, 09 October 2012 - 10:53 AM.

[Keith T]

Andy Capp, I'm not trying to be a keyboard know it all I am trying to stop you from being one. Where in all the video evidence is there any contact between Graham's teeth and Slaters ear? You have made your mind up from what? The blood on Slater's ear could have been there from any previous contact in any tackle, is there any evidence that it wasn't? There is no conclusive evidence to say Graham bit Slater other than the word of one player against another. It would appear that Graham is also a liar as well according to what you and others are saying!!!!!!!!!!

[AndyCapp]

Andy Capp, I'm not trying to be a keyboard know it all I am trying to stop you from being one. Where in all the video evidence is there any contact between Graham's teeth and Slaters ear? You have made your mind up from what? The blood on Slater's ear could have been there from any previous contact in any tackle, is there any evidence that it wasn't? There is no conclusive evidence to say Graham bit Slater other than the word of one player against another. It would appear that Graham is also a liar as well according to what you and others are saying!!!!!!!!!!

I was not talking about you specifically, I was generalising about all on this thread that are forensic and orthodontic sleuths.

There are often comments about the negativity of fans, the criticism of Refs and rules and tournament schedules.
I believe if the Judiciary have made a decision we should live with it and stop banging on about Oz bias, etc.

Some one earlier commented on why the NRL Judiciary give a more lenient sentence if you plead guilty.

It was brought in to stop every single charge being challenged and making the game more of a Judiciary system than a Sport.
If you were guilty and accepted the punishment the penalty was less, much the same as the Legal system.
If you want to plead innocent, plead your case but if you do not convince the Panel of your innocence accept the consequences.
How could Graham believe his plea with only one expert opinion regarding the bite think it would be successful?

How much evidence would convince you?
If your requirements are the minimum standard of evidence you could do away with 90% of England's Jails.

Again why was he in on Slater after he had already been banged around by half of the Canterbury team, pushed down, strangled, thrown into the hoardings, why did Graham latch onto him at all?
Last man in on a little bloke, mouth around the ear.
Maybe he could have used the footage to show where Slaters ear was bleeding before he was on top of him?
That would have worked.

Edited by AndyCapp, 09 October 2012 - 11:26 AM.

[DeadShotKeen]

Love how a few in this thread are suddenly medical experts and can deduce that Slater's injuries are "not enough" to have been caused by a bite. Serious? Some even want half his ear on the turf Holyfield style before it's worthy of serious action.

I'm glad the Oz RL authorities are not of the same opinion and share my revulsion at the practice. I'd like to have seen a longer ban but 12 games does send some kind of a message. Hopefully it's a long, long time before we see another biting thread on this forum.

[Blotto]

The Dogs found this and were really winding him up on Mad Monday cause of it!

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=SNH8XIt9FRg

[Futtocks]

An expert weighs in with support for JG.

[Saintslass]

Graham should have presented them to the Judiciary with enough conviction and proof that the three unbiased ex players on the Board had enough doubt in their minds to exonerate him or give him a milder sentence.

Very naive.

He and his counsel spent two days on his defence. The judiciary spent less than 10 minutes considering it. That yells 'mind made up regardless' to me, and to a lot of other people too.

He still maintains his innocence and I believe him, not because he was a Saints player but because as a result of him being one, and me being a Saints fan, I saw him play often enough to be of the belief that he is not the sort of player to be sly like that. He's always been totally open with his hissy fits and he has never even gotten close to doing anything like that previously, even when pushed by the likes of Bailey. Also, like it or not, the video does not show a bite. It shows Graham close to Slater's ear. The likelihood of him just shouting while being jostled around by the melee around him is just as much a possibility as a bite. And yes, it's perfectly possible that Slater lied. Some people think Graham is doing so by declaring his innocence and so I don't see why Slater lying isn't a possibility. Likewise, Slater could have been mistaken. There was a push and shove going on. Assuming he felt his ear hurting or some form of contact with his ear, how did he know what that contact was, whether it was deliberate, who did it?

Personally, given his previous record, given the character he has shown himself to be and given the lack of conclusive evidence from the video, I believe Graham is innocent as claimed.

Edited by Saintslass, 15 October 2012 - 05:27 PM.