Reply to thread

Message: [QUOTE="Porthoz, post: 3039940, member: 2221"] A professional sportsman can only maintain or increase his value by playing, while not doing so definitely decreases his market value. There is a difference between the right to play and being prohibited from playing. His club already made clear they would play him if they were allowed to. Preventing that does in my opinion amount to restriction of trade. The "no fault policy" clause is absolute bullshit. It amounts to a guilty verdict by media trial, while in my opinion no business interests should ever trump a person's presumed innocence. If a person hasn't been denied bail, isn't in a position that could allow them to interfere with their case (police, lawyer, pollie, etc...) or put other people in danger (doctor accused of malpractice, airline pilot accused of a serious breach, etc...), they shouldn't suffer the consequences of an accusation until proven guilty. Whether his and his lawyer's approach was the best strategy is of course up in the air, but the line about not making waves bringing a very high profile court case, is typical of making it very hard for people to argue against minor offenses and/or administrative measures in Australia without recurring to a court. Unless you want to hire a lawyer and take time off work to fight for your rights, you should be docile, bend over and take it like a bitch. FTR, I feel dirty about discussing this, because if all the allegations are true, I hope they lock him up, throw away the key and keep his arse nice and smoothly shaved for his prison mates... P.S. A bit unrelated to the matter at hand, but I wish every single traffic fine was fought in court, until they were clogged up for years and years in arrears, so they would be forced to provide a proper recourse for people to appeal to... [/QUOTE]

Verification

Active Now

No members online now.

Total: 21 (members: 0, guests: 21)

Reply to thread

Log in

Active Now