Dane Chisolm 8 match ban

[Robin Evans]

13 minutes ago, Dave T said:

What is the solution though? And obviously we don't know how the panel came to their verdict. 

It is a tricky situation, but it does lead us down a mirky road if we don't believe victims in one on one incidents. I'm thinking of more serious situations than this one. 

There's the rub and Where's the safeguards here? If a player genuinely did not say what is alleged to have said and gets 8 matches on the back of it.

What if a game involves two perspective play off teams and one player makes an unsubstantiated accusation of a similar comment and is banned from the play offs.

The reported comments of Dane's case (again, I really wish this was a player not associated with fev so I could distance myself from an accusation of bias), suggest that no other evidence was presented. So gingerjon is quite correct, a balance of probability is applied.

Given Dane's work with the LD community, I'm really struggling with this one.

It's murky indeed. 

A balance has to be applied in cases where there is no other evidence beyond a single complainant. I've not (as yet) given a lot of thought to how or what that balance would look like.

The word alleged is awful. I hate it and always jump on those who use it. I genuinely can't see Dane saying that. But I wasn't next to him when he was alleged to have said it.

Under the mental deficiency act (1913) people with a learning disability were classified as "idiots" at the high functioning end, feeble minded as mild-mod Ld and "imbeciles" at the low functioning end.

I routinely call a good pal of mine an f'in idiot. He says he's going to report me to the NMC!!

[RigbyLuger]

7 minutes ago, Robin Evans said:

It's murky indeed. 

It really is. Alex Simmons is on the RFL's diversity board, yet on his TV show, has Wayne Godwin use blackface to portray Marwan Koukash. The clips of that are still on YouTube. It may not offend him, but will others.

[Johnoco]

40 minutes ago, Dave T said:

What is the solution though? And obviously we don't know how the panel came to their verdict. 

It is a tricky situation, but it does lead us down a mirky road if we don't believe victims in one on one incidents. I'm thinking of more serious situations than this one. 

We end up with a situation like the Jussie Smollet case. Whereby people make up fake attacks but are instantly believed because they are 'a victim'.

It's possibly better to exercise caution and see what the evidence presents, or is that ridiculously old fashioned? 

[dkw]

5 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

We end up with a situation like the Jussie Smollet case. Whereby people make up fake attacks but are instantly believed because they are 'a victim'.

It's possibly better to exercise caution and see what the evidence presents, or is that ridiculously old fashioned? 

What makes you think that hasn't happened here, I still haven't seen an official explanation from the RFL on this ban that explains their decision. 

[Robin Evans]

Just now, dkw said:

What makes you think that hasn't happened here, I still haven't seen an official explanation from the RFL on this ban that explains their decision. 

I've seen a report stating there was no other evidence. It's like the Flanagan on Bussey case. He got a huge ban with no other corroboration where Bussey was believed based on (I think) Flanagan's back sheet.

I'm very much struggling with this process where the complainant [appears to] be believed more than the defendant.

[gazza77]

37 minutes ago, Impartial Observer said:

I assume they are waiting for the case to be finalised which will be after the appeal if there is one

From memory (and there are no live cases currently under review to test my logic), hearing notes usually go on the disciplinary page fairly quickly after a hearing. Any subsequent appeal is usually added following the second hearing. 

I'll stand corrected if that's not the case. 

[Johnoco]

3 minutes ago, dkw said:

What makes you think that hasn't happened here, I still haven't seen an official explanation from the RFL on this ban that explains their decision. 

I've no idea what happened here in reality. I'm saying nothing other than the point has been raised that we should automatically believe any accusations anybody makes against another person. I think this is the murky path, not the other way. 

[dkw]

9 minutes ago, Robin Evans said:

I've seen a report stating there was no other evidence. It's like the Flanagan on Bussey case. He got a huge ban with no other corroboration where Bussey was believed based on (I think) Flanagan's back sheet.

I'm very much struggling with this process where the complainant [appears to] be believed more than the defendant.

Is there an official statement from the RFL regarding that? The only place I can see that says there was no other evidence is in the media.

[Robin Evans]

2 minutes ago, dkw said:

Is there an official statement from the RFL regarding that? The only place I can see that says there was no other evidence is in the media.

I don't think the hearing notes are on yet. 

[The Blues Ox]

2 hours ago, dkw said:

Your right, so racism, sexism, basically anything goes as long as you use the excuse "it was in the heat of the battle. 

Maybe next you can use the "boys will be boys defence" should you need it in a court of law.

I asked where the line is drawn. When I say Ive heard worse thats in both male and female games FWIW in fact the womens game can be more vicious for insults from what I have seen.

[Robin Evans]

6 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

I asked where the line is drawn. When I say Ive heard worse thats in both male and female games FWIW in fact the womens game can be more vicious for insults from what I have seen.

Certainly the case in the other code. It really surprised me when I saw a women's game just how verbally vicious they could be to each other compared to the men's game.

[Just Browny]

At least we've had an insight into the bullying and harassment policy at LPL.

[Dave T]

59 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

We end up with a situation like the Jussie Smollet case. Whereby people make up fake attacks but are instantly believed because they are 'a victim'.

It's possibly better to exercise caution and see what the evidence presents, or is that ridiculously old fashioned? 

There is always a risk of dishonesty, but the choice here is that you believe the accuser or you believe the accused in a 1 v 1 debate. 

I don't understand your last para. Nobody has judged anyone without the presented evidence. 

[dkw]

34 minutes ago, Robin Evans said:

I don't think the hearing notes are on yet. 

So currently we have the claim of there being no evidence entirely from the player/team involved. We need to see the RFL`s reasoning behind the ban before we can substantiate that claim.

[Robin Evans]

1 minute ago, Dave T said:

There is always a risk of dishonesty, but the choice here is that you believe the accuser or you believe the accused in a 1 v 1 debate. 

And that's the bit I'm towing with.

There is a risk of an offence being unpunished, or someone getting a long ban for something he didn't do.

Where it is a 1 v 1 if you're not taking a "beyond all reasonable doubt" approach, then there has to be a balance and a possibility of sine die if someone is proven to have made a malicious allegation 

[Robin Evans]

3 minutes ago, dkw said:

So currently we have the claim of there being no evidence entirely from the player/team involved. 

No. This has been widely reported in the media and RFL quoted. 

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, Robin Evans said:

And that's the bit I'm towing with.

There is a risk of an offence being unpunished, or someone getting a long ban for something he didn't do.

Where it is a 1 v 1 if you're not taking a "beyond all reasonable doubt" approach, then there has to be a balance and a possibility of sine die if someone is proven to have made a malicious allegation 

I do also think we need to be careful that we don't go the other way and give malicious allegations undue prominence here. 

If we go too far that way then we end up with all sorts of horrific things happening as history has shown when we don't believe victims. 

[Dave T]

5 minutes ago, Robin Evans said:

No. This has been widely reported in the media and RFL quoted. 

Do you have a link to that (not the Daily Star), I haven't seen anything from the RFL yet. 

[Johnoco]

12 minutes ago, Dave T said:

There is always a risk of dishonesty, but the choice here is that you believe the accuser or you believe the accused in a 1 v 1 debate. 

I don't understand your last para. Nobody has judged anyone without the presented evidence. 

You've pretty much said he's guilty as the panel found him such. The problem, at least on the face of it, seems to be that there was no one who could actually corroborate the story. 

But why would you automatically believe one or the other in such a scenario? Surely it still stands that one is innocent until proven guilty, or there is at least compelling evidence to indicate otherwise.

I know you won't see it but that's kangaroo court thinking. 

[Robin Evans]

Just now, Dave T said:

I do also think we need to be careful that we don't go the other way and give malicious allegations undue prominence here. 

If we go too far that way then we end up with all sorts of horrific things happening as history has shown when we don't believe victims. 

Oh agreed 100%. That's why I'm advocating balance. I'm not sure what balance looks like though.

I'm torn here. As stated earlier, I'm passionate about an aspect of my life that involves the LD community. I ###### loathe such comments as is alleged.

However, I'm also an advocate of fair justice and hate to see miscarriages of that process.

Given my knowledge of Dane and his voluntary work, I'm towing with this one.

Perhaps I should withdraw from this discussion as I have too many conflicting interests here

[Robin Evans]

5 minutes ago, Dave T said:

Do you have a link to that (not the Daily Star), I haven't seen anything from the RFL yet. 

No mate. It's a report I read on one of the many rugby fb pages. Might have been the LRL page.

[Dave T]

4 minutes ago, Johnoco said:

You've pretty much said he's guilty as the panel found him such. The problem, at least on the face of it, seems to be that there was no one who could actually corroborate the story. 

But why would you automatically believe one or the other in such a scenario? Surely it still stands that one is innocent until proven guilty, or there is at least compelling evidence to indicate otherwise.

I know you won't see it but that's kangaroo court thinking. 

I called him guilty because he has been found guilty. 

I'm the one respecting process. You are not. 

 

[dkw]

16 minutes ago, Robin Evans said:

No. This has been widely reported in the media and RFL quoted. 

Do you have a link to that, which isnt from Fev?

[Robin Evans]

Just now, dkw said:

Do you have a link to that, which isnt from Fev?

Please see my earlier reply Dave

[RigbyLuger]

13 minutes ago, Dave T said:

I do also think we need to be careful that we don't go the other way and give malicious allegations undue prominence here. 

If we go too far that way then we end up with all sorts of horrific things happening as history has shown when we don't believe victims. 

The sport has an example within itself. George Riley was tried by the newspapers, cast asunder from the BBC, over allegations made, but welcomed back in to work for the RFL.