Jump to content

Dane Chisholm


Recommended Posts


23 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Mad that it can go from a 8 match(or whatever it were) to being cleared. I mean that is someones livelyhood and they got it so wrong? I think the RFL probably need to have a good look at themselves but I guess we already know that.

The Oldham physio is a liar who makes things up.

Is the only explanation that fits for the change in verdict.

  • Like 2

Build a man a fire, and he'll be warm for a day. Set a man on fire, and he'll be warm for the rest of his life. (Terry Pratchett)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, The Blues Ox said:

Mad that it can go from a 8 match(or whatever it were) to being cleared. 

Not really.  They either decide it's true (8 games) or it isn't (no games).

There's no middle ground in this case.

  • Like 1

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

The Oldham physio is a liar who makes things up.

Is the only explanation that fits for the change in verdict.

Correct and he should be sacked.

Unfortunately the knee jerk reaction these days to anything that some people don't like is to pull the race/gender/gay card. Not just in RL but in life and it's a disgrace, it's every bit as bad as the alleged offence, in fact its worse. The racist or homophobe is at least being honest, all be it from a very warped and tragic perspective, he/she may be a nasty nut job but they are expressing their truth. This on the other hand appears to be a total and vindictive lie, one that could have cost a man his livelihood and especially his reputation. Reputations can remain tarnished no matter how vindicated you are by a court and it's a huge problem for some people.

We need to put an end to this trial by media/social media, these allegations need to be tested to the limit before sentence and should never be made public until the appeal process has been completed. The RFL is not a Court of Law so it has no right to publicise damaging information until all lines of enquiry have been exhausted, this clearly wasn't the case.

  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oldham physio doesnt necessarily have to have been lying, the context may have been framed differently, we don't know.

The physio could have quite easily have heard his say 'spastic' which is the charge. It may just have been deemed it wasnt directed at him, that it wasnt worth a ban or that he misheard. Who knows, but it does raise doubts about the system as 8 games is a long ban.

Does anyone know if the Oldham physio has learning difficulties/disability? If he doesnt then that insult, whilst obviously not pleasant, is hardly on par with racial abuse given how it's sadly part of the modern lexicon of casual insults when someone does something stupid, like say run into you by accident. It's not nice but to put it on par with racism or homophobia is bizarre in this context. If the Oldham physio does have learning difficulties and the insult is tailored to their condition then fair enough, it should be taken more seriously.

There needs to be better guidance on this. We already seemingly (and rightly) accepted that abusing people because of their weight (Savelio calling Clubb a fat **** before he retaliated calling him a Polynesian ****) is ok and not as severe as racism. Should Savelio have also received a ban, albeit less games? Current abuse guidelines appear to be: fat abuse - 0 games, call someone a spastic - 8 games (or 0 games?, racism - 8 games.

Should there be grades of abuse like grades of foul play? Someone might tell me there already is but this case suggests it needs some refinement.

Edited by Tex Evans Thigh

Formerly Alistair Boyd-Meaney

fifty thousand Poouunds from Keighley...weve had im gid."

3736-mipm.gif

MIPM Project Management and Business Solutions "

Discounts available for forum members contact me for details

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Griff said:

Not really.  They either decide it's true (8 games) or it isn't (no games).

There's no middle ground in this case.

They don’t. They can decide that beyond reasonable doubt, an exchange occurred and bans could come from that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

41 minutes ago, gingerjon said:

The Oldham physio is a liar who makes things up.

Is the only explanation that fits for the change in verdict.

John. You've read enough of my bilge over the years to know where I stand politically and particularly to the care, development and opportunities for people with learning disabilities. It's my work. It's my passion.

Dane works with a group of people with LD and contributes a lot of his own time working with a client group who enjoy and are taking opportunities to work with Dane.

I assume you know what he was accused of saying? Given his work and background I really do not see him saying that. However, my thoughts and feelings are irrelevant. Dane was placed in a position of having to prove his innocence. No corroborative evidence was present and the initial judgement was based on who the panel believed the most.

Dane appeal and won. One assumes again there is no other evidence presented and given that, I'm assuming the panel took the opposing view that innocent until evidence is there to prove otherwise..... regardless of club affiliation, it has to be that fundamental principle that prevails.

Only Dane and the Oldham coach really know what was said.

Is he a liar? We'll never know. If he is found to be he should be thrown out of his job. People with LD face enough prejudice without someone making malicious allegations.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Tex Evans Thigh said:

 

Does anyone know if the Oldham physio has learning difficulties/disability? If he doesnt then that insult, whilst obviously not pleasant, is hardly on par with racial abuse 

Yeah it is mate. It really is

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Robin Evans said:

Yeah it is mate. It really is

Agree completely when directed at someone with LD and intending to hurt them based on their condition. Certainly not great in other circumstances either.

Formerly Alistair Boyd-Meaney

fifty thousand Poouunds from Keighley...weve had im gid."

3736-mipm.gif

MIPM Project Management and Business Solutions "

Discounts available for forum members contact me for details

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm glad Dane's had his name cleared.

I would like the RFL to explain how an alleged offence which took place on the 29th of August 2021 resulted in a ban of 8 match in late December which was quickly appealed, an appeal which was heard on the 28th January 2022 after the player had already served two matches suspension.

All disciplinary decisions are posted on the RFL website. Any link to this case greatly appreciated.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Kirmonds pouch said:

Correct and he should be sacked.

Unfortunately the knee jerk reaction these days to anything that some people don't like is to pull the race/gender/gay card. Not just in RL but in life and it's a disgrace, it's every bit as bad as the alleged offence, in fact its worse. The racist or homophobe is at least being honest, all be it from a very warped and tragic perspective, he/she may be a nasty nut job but they are expressing their truth. This on the other hand appears to be a total and vindictive lie, one that could have cost a man his livelihood and especially his reputation. Reputations can remain tarnished no matter how vindicated you are by a court and it's a huge problem for some people.

We need to put an end to this trial by media/social media, these allegations need to be tested to the limit before sentence and should never be made public until the appeal process has been completed. The RFL is not a Court of Law so it has no right to publicise damaging information until all lines of enquiry have been exhausted, this clearly wasn't the case.

They did none of those...

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure how the disciplinary appeal panel can go from 8 matches to zero without additional evidence being presented or they have found that the original panel are incompetent and they themselves should be disciplined.

As others have said only the 2 individuals involved know what happened and therefore you can’t suggest the Oldham physio is a liar but only that there wasn’t witnesses to the incident that could verify either account of the event.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Jughead said:

They don’t. They can decide that beyond reasonable doubt, an exchange occurred and bans could come from that. 

It's not a criminal law court. Beyond reasonable doubt doesn't come in to it.

They decide whether he said it - yes or no - based on the evidence.  If yes, 8 matches, if no, no matches (although to be fair, the fella's already done two).

There's no "well, maybe he said it, so would four games be fair?".

  • Like 1

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Griff said:

It's not a criminal law court. Beyond reasonable doubt doesn't come in to it.

They decide whether he said it - yes or no - based on the evidence.  If yes, 8 matches, if no, no matches (although to be fair, the fella's already done two).

There's no "well, maybe he said it, so would four games be fair?".

https://amp.theguardian.com/sport/2021/may/04/wigans-tony-clubb-handed-eight-game-ban-for-racial-abuse-of-andre-savelio

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Griff said:

There's no "well, maybe he said it, so would four games be fair?".

In effect what they've said is....."he's been accused of it so a two game ban is fair." 

What codswallop.

  • Like 1
  • Confused 1

"Out of the way,son. Where's my medal?" Alex Murphy's immortal words as David Hobbs scores his 2nd try in the '83 Cup Final!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Griff said:

It's not a criminal law court. Beyond reasonable doubt doesn't come in to it.

They decide whether he said it - yes or no - based on the evidence.  If yes, 8 matches, if no, no matches (although to be fair, the fella's already done two).

There's no "well, maybe he said it, so would four games be fair?".

Exactly right.  The way you go from 8 to 0 is guilty or not guilty.

If an offence is worth 8 games then he gets 8 games if found guilty, if he is subsequently acquitted of the offence then he gets 0.  Not sure how anyone can think it is anything in between.

"The history of the world is the history of the triumph of the heartless over the mindless." — Sir Humphrey Appleby.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Griff said:

Thanks for that.

What's your point ?

Because it looks like what I said.  It's either yes or no.  No middle ground. 

It’s not. The panel in Clubb’s case “were satisfied the words were said”. That’s not as black and white as you’re saying. The panel on Chisholm’s case could have been “satisfied” that an exchange occurred and/or those words were said and Chisholm’s ban could have come from that instance. The satisfaction of the panel in Clubb’s case and quite possibly Chisholm’s, had it gone that way, is not absolute confirmation, as you are suggesting. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Jughead said:

It’s not. The panel in Clubb’s case “were satisfied the words were said”. That’s not as black and white as you’re saying. The panel on Chisholm’s case could have been “satisfied” that an exchange occurred and/or those words were said and Chisholm’s ban could have come from that instance. The satisfaction of the panel in Clubb’s case and quite possibly Chisholm’s, had it gone that way, is not absolute confirmation, as you are suggesting. 

Could have been but it wasn't.

I have no real interest in whether Chizzy said it or not as, unless there's a massive raft of postponements or we draw them in the Cup, Chizzy would be available to play against us anyway. Nor have I heard the evidence in either case so I have no opinion. What matters is that the Tribunal decided Tony was guilty and Chizzy wasn't.

I'm far from saying that this is absolute confirmation. Either or both Tribunals could be wrong. Who knows?

But I'd be grateful if you'd just read what I post and not make your own stuff up.

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, roversspud said:

In effect what they've said is....."he's been accused of it so a two game ban is fair." 

What codswallop.

No, he was guilty when the games were played. That's the system. It's to stop players making spurious appeals to pick and choose the games they play in. Which used to happen a lot.

What if the ban had been held over until the appeal and Chizzy lost? He'd've played in two friendlies but been suspended for eight proper games instead of six.

How's that for codswallop?

"We'll sell you a seat .... but you'll only need the edge of it!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Griff said:

No, he was guilty when the games were played. That's the system. It's to stop players making spurious appeals to pick and choose the games they play in. Which used to happen a lot.

What if the ban had been held over until the appeal and Chizzy lost? He'd've played in two friendlies but been suspended for eight proper games instead of six.

How's that for codswallop?

It is codswallop! It should have been held over. If he's not guilty now, then he was not guilty before, and should not have been banned before his appeal. If the system was brought in to prevent spurious appeals then an increased ban should follow any upholding of bans. That will sort out the spurious appeals from the genuine ones. If Chizzy's had been banned for twelve games because his appeal had been spurious you can bet he wouldn't have appealed.

"Out of the way,son. Where's my medal?" Alex Murphy's immortal words as David Hobbs scores his 2nd try in the '83 Cup Final!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...