CONFIRMED: We are appealing
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
-
- SS Hall of Fame
- Posts: 2154
- Joined: Mon 06 Aug 2007 1:53pm
- Location: SE Queensland
- Has thanked: 30 times
- Been thanked: 16 times
There was another bloke on SEN this morning who was at the tribunal to give evidence (same version as Ricky Nixon BTW) but was not required to appear as the Saints felt confident they were already in the clear.
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always so certain of themselves, and wiser people so full of doubts.
- Bernard Shakey
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11235
- Joined: Sun 18 Mar 2007 11:22pm
- Location: Down By The River 1989, 2003, 2009 & 2013
- Has thanked: 119 times
- Been thanked: 137 times
- yipper
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3967
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 8:18am
- Location: Gippsland
- Been thanked: 10 times
We did have a witness who saw it differently - AND he was an impartial one. We also had the "eye-witness" from Freo make a tosser of himself when he completely messed up his testimony and contradicted his own players testimony!!n1ck wrote:You mean like Ricky Nixon?bigcarl wrote:i'm glad we're appealing. all we need is a witness who saw something different to what the freo bloke saw.
I want to stand for something. I'm a loyal person and I think at the end of my career it will be great to look back and know that I'm a St Kilda person for life.
- Nick Riewoldt. May 19th 2009.
- Nick Riewoldt. May 19th 2009.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1059
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 8:29am
- Location: Mornington Peninsula
- Contact:
For more info www.saints.com.au
The above views are those of the author and not necessarily those of the clubs or the AFL.
The above views are those of the author and not necessarily those of the clubs or the AFL.
- yipper
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3967
- Joined: Wed 10 Mar 2004 8:18am
- Location: Gippsland
- Been thanked: 10 times
Exactly. And they should be able to..Bernard Shakey wrote:We don't need anyone to refute the Freo trainer's evidence.
The tribunal accepted Bakes' evidence.
We need to prove the tribunal was wrong, at law, in reaching the conclusion they did.
I want to stand for something. I'm a loyal person and I think at the end of my career it will be great to look back and know that I'm a St Kilda person for life.
- Nick Riewoldt. May 19th 2009.
- Nick Riewoldt. May 19th 2009.
- meher baba
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7196
- Joined: Mon 14 Aug 2006 6:49am
- Location: Tasmania
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 502 times
Good stuff: this was always the part of the process that worried me the most. If someone giving evidence to refute the charges against them is not warned in advance that they run the risk of incriminating themselves in relation to other charges not yet brought (ie, rough conduct), then that is clearly a denial of every sort of justice: natural or even unnatural (ie, AFL-style justice).
The Club has appealed on several grounds, including the ground that, having accepted Steven Baker's account of the incident, which was supported by other witnesses, the Tribunal should not have found Baker guilty or suspended him.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
- Jonathan Swift
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3792
- Joined: Tue 02 Aug 2005 10:24pm
Good ideaOneEyedSainter77 wrote:Thursday night... thanks a lot AFL.... you know what - I don't care about 2007 anymore... I say if we lose this appeal, we take it to court and forfeit the game against west coast if they won't move it to let us appeal.... OK, think the anger has set in too much now.... time for me to calm down.
![Smile :-)](./images/smilies/icon_smile.gif)
The extra day will allow us to mount a strong chellenge
Its gonna be all or nothing..we arent appealing the severity but the actual verdict...so it will be either thrown out or upheld IMHO
![Image](http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v131/littlemiter/66sig.jpg)
THE BUBBLE HAS BURST
2011 player sponsor
- The_Dud
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 13781
- Joined: Sun 27 May 2007 9:53pm
- Location: Bendigo
- Has thanked: 1313 times
- Been thanked: 2051 times
i'm sure they can argue strongly that the agreed events went exactly the same as the Whelan-Ball shepard, which he got nothing for, even tho the resulting injuries were worse
if he doesn't get off, he should at least get his sentence reduced
on the news they said its the largest sentence handed out by the tribunial in 10 years, since Diesel got 9 weeks for pushing the umpire
if he doesn't get off, he should at least get his sentence reduced
on the news they said its the largest sentence handed out by the tribunial in 10 years, since Diesel got 9 weeks for pushing the umpire
All posters are equal, but some posters are more equal than others.
- bigred
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 11463
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 7:39am
- Has thanked: 25 times
- Been thanked: 609 times
At the very least I would use it as an opportunity to grandstand...
Pay 10k and quite honestly stand up and give the panel, and the fkn system a red hot serve.
Pay 10k and quite honestly stand up and give the panel, and the fkn system a red hot serve.
"Now the ball is loose, it gives St. Kilda a rough chance. Black. Good handpass. Voss. Schwarze now, the defender, can run and from a long way".....
Sorry to shoot you down, but the evidence given by the trainer was discarded.JeffDunne wrote:I have a feeling the club will try and prove the trainer was lying.
If we can do that, I expect not only to have the sentenced overturned on appeal but to sue the lying sack of s***.
Bakes dobbed himself in.
__________________________________________
All things being equal, fat men use more soap.
All things being equal, fat men use more soap.
- meher baba
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7196
- Joined: Mon 14 Aug 2006 6:49am
- Location: Tasmania
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 502 times
- meher baba
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7196
- Joined: Mon 14 Aug 2006 6:49am
- Location: Tasmania
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 502 times
But that's a purely technical point, isn't it, given that Kirkwood's evidence was rejected by the Tribunal.Brewer wrote:Won't comment on whether Kirkwood's prior access to testimonies will be one of the grounds, but thought likely
Surely more to the point is the fact that Kirkwood's evidence was the main grounds for the case going to the Tribunal in the first place which brings us back to the point I raised earlier about Baker being convicted on his own evidence without (presumably) being advised that he was facing this risk.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
- Jonathan Swift