Lovett on Rape Charge
Moderators: Saintsational Administrators, Saintsational Moderators
Lovett on Rape Charge
Hi
I thought I would post the link to the story today, because this is the first I've seen definitely saying he has been charged.
Sorry if it is elsewhere... I didn't see it.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/s ... 5830569433
I thought I would post the link to the story today, because this is the first I've seen definitely saying he has been charged.
Sorry if it is elsewhere... I didn't see it.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/s ... 5830569433
"Don't give up, never give up" - Robert Harvey.
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 965
- Joined: Tue 03 Feb 2009 4:25pm
- Has thanked: 24 times
- Been thanked: 9 times
Re: Lovett on Rape Charge
Was up earlier. Mods must have deleted it. Tells us what most people were suspecting. The next step that St Kilda football club takes will be of interest.markinUSA wrote:Hi
I thought I would post the link to the story today, because this is the first I've seen definitely saying he has been charged.
Sorry if it is elsewhere... I didn't see it.
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/sport/afl/s ... 5830569433
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 5410
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 10:29am
- Has thanked: 33 times
- Been thanked: 47 times
i wonder if he can now be sacked? he still may be found innocent. so it will be interesting as what the saints will do.markp wrote:Can we sack him now?St Kilda Football Club is expected to release a statement this afternoon on the player’s future.
Yup, will be interesting....
I'm glad the saints indefinately suspened him. at least the we have not been relying on him over the preseason.
- degruch
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8948
- Joined: Mon 19 May 2008 4:29pm
- Location: Croydonia
- Has thanked: 146 times
- Been thanked: 237 times
I suspect there will be a reconfirmation of his suspension - can't imagine the club can do much else unless he is proven guilty, unfortunately. He has a contract, I'm sure it still stands, charges or not. However, you'd hope the AFL Grievance process and the AFLPA will stop their action.saintly wrote:i wonder if he can now be sacked? he still may be found innocent. so it will be interesting as what the saints will do.markp wrote:Can we sack him now?St Kilda Football Club is expected to release a statement this afternoon on the player’s future.
Yup, will be interesting....
I'm glad the saints indefinately suspened him. at least the we have not been relying on him over the preseason.
- Eastern
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 14357
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 1:46pm
- Location: 3132
- Been thanked: 1 time
It would definately be a "trigger point". His appearance in the Magistrates Court on Friday will be another.markp wrote:Can we sack him now?St Kilda Football Club is expected to release a statement this afternoon on the player’s future.
Yup, will be interesting....
The club would be receiving very good advice from both their lawyers and the AFL. The release should not be far away !!
NEW scarf signature (hopefully with correct spelling) will be here as soon as it arrives !!
![Image](http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o23/saintbrat/9c94369c.jpg)
![Image](http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o23/saintbrat/9c94369c.jpg)
I will have a guess that nothing changes in the short term He will stay suspended but in the longer term they come to a financial agreement. I think we can just about be 100% assured that we will never see him again in a Saints jumper but I reckon most of us thought that on the 23rd of December.Eastern wrote:It would definately be a "trigger point". His appearance in the Magistrates Court on Friday will be another.markp wrote:Can we sack him now?St Kilda Football Club is expected to release a statement this afternoon on the player’s future.
Yup, will be interesting....
The club would be receiving very good advice from both their lawyers and the AFL. The release should not be far away !!
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3356
- Joined: Wed 12 Sep 2007 5:30pm
- Has thanked: 169 times
- Been thanked: 516 times
- ThePunter
- Club Player
- Posts: 742
- Joined: Mon 16 Jun 2008 12:43pm
- Location: Level 2 Half Forward Flank Lockett End
- Contact:
I'm going to make a possibly contraversial point. It may get taken down, may get me infracted, but it's a well thought out point and it needs to be said.
A player has now been charged. Whether he has broken the law will now be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or not.
However, this player did something. He hasn't been arrested out of thin air. Something has made the police lay the charge. I must stress that I am not suggesting that he committed the crime which with he is now charged.
As an organisation, I think St Kilda will look to hold this player to a higher standard, with regards to his employment, than a court of law will hold a person with regards to his freedom.
And that is why this player has played his last AFL game.
A player has now been charged. Whether he has broken the law will now be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or not.
However, this player did something. He hasn't been arrested out of thin air. Something has made the police lay the charge. I must stress that I am not suggesting that he committed the crime which with he is now charged.
As an organisation, I think St Kilda will look to hold this player to a higher standard, with regards to his employment, than a court of law will hold a person with regards to his freedom.
And that is why this player has played his last AFL game.
- Eastern
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 14357
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 1:46pm
- Location: 3132
- Been thanked: 1 time
That would be the VERY BEST outcome for St Kilda in the short to medium term !!older saint wrote:Hopefully the AFL will now step in a temporaroily deregister him pending the outcome. This will protect their brand and also avoid StKilda being sued down the track by Lovett for a contract breach if he is acquitted.
NEW scarf signature (hopefully with correct spelling) will be here as soon as it arrives !!
![Image](http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o23/saintbrat/9c94369c.jpg)
![Image](http://i116.photobucket.com/albums/o23/saintbrat/9c94369c.jpg)
- bozza1980
- Club Player
- Posts: 1688
- Joined: Thu 27 Jan 2005 3:42pm
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 6 times
As a preface I must say I have no knowledge, inkling or belief as to the guilt or innocence of Andrew Lovett. I am making comment on the options as I see them for the St Kilda Football Club in response to this terrible situation.saintly wrote:i wonder if he can now be sacked? he still may be found innocent. so it will be interesting as what the saints will do.markp wrote:Can we sack him now?St Kilda Football Club is expected to release a statement this afternoon on the player’s future.
Yup, will be interesting....
I'm glad the saints indefinately suspened him. at least the we have not been relying on him over the preseason.
If the reports are correct and he has been charged I think the club would be within their rights at this point to sever ties with him.
As the burden of proof is to prove someone guilty, being found Not Guilty is different to being proven Innocent. As such, I don't think the club should fear any backlash legally if he was not convicted and we had sacked him on the evidence of him being charged.
Life is very short and there's no time for fussing and fighting my friends.
- degruch
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 8948
- Joined: Mon 19 May 2008 4:29pm
- Location: Croydonia
- Has thanked: 146 times
- Been thanked: 237 times
Well, they did so for Cousins (but not others), they didn't for Stokes, so there's hardly a reliable precendent...who knows what they'll do? Given the nature of the charges and the AFL's stance against abuse to women, they should take the most stringent path possible.Eastern wrote:That would be the VERY BEST outcome for St Kilda in the short to medium term !!older saint wrote:Hopefully the AFL will now step in a temporaroily deregister him pending the outcome. This will protect their brand and also avoid StKilda being sued down the track by Lovett for a contract breach if he is acquitted.
- markp
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 15549
- Joined: Mon 26 Mar 2007 4:22pm
- Has thanked: 62 times
- Been thanked: 81 times
Agree with all of the above... my expectation is that the club will sack him as soon as their advice (legal, AFL) tells them they can.plugger66 wrote:I will have a guess that nothing changes in the short term He will stay suspended but in the longer term they come to a financial agreement. I think we can just about be 100% assured that we will never see him again in a Saints jumper but I reckon most of us thought that on the 23rd of December.Eastern wrote:It would definately be a "trigger point". His appearance in the Magistrates Court on Friday will be another.markp wrote:Can we sack him now?St Kilda Football Club is expected to release a statement this afternoon on the player’s future.
Yup, will be interesting....
The club would be receiving very good advice from both their lawyers and the AFL. The release should not be far away !!
Which may very well be now.
- bozza1980
- Club Player
- Posts: 1688
- Joined: Thu 27 Jan 2005 3:42pm
- Location: Melbourne
- Has thanked: 6 times
- Been thanked: 6 times
I agree with you.ThePunter wrote:I'm going to make a possibly contraversial point. It may get taken down, may get me infracted, but it's a well thought out point and it needs to be said.
A player has now been charged. Whether he has broken the law will now be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or not.
However, this player did something. He hasn't been arrested out of thin air. Something has made the police lay the charge. I must stress that I am not suggesting that he committed the crime which with he is now charged.
As an organisation, I think St Kilda will look to hold this player to a higher standard, with regards to his employment, than a court of law will hold a person with regards to his freedom.
And that is why this player has played his last AFL game.
With regard to the courts and the like, Lovett deserves and retains the presumption of innocence as does every other person who finds themselves in his position.
At the end of the day though the burden of proof to lose your freedom is different to the burden of proof to lose your job.
This is not to say that he will lose his job, but just to say, that being found Not Guilty doesn't make your employers decision, to fire for being charged with the crime, an illegal decision.
I will be interested to see what decisions are made by the club, Lovett and/or the AFL in the coming days.
Life is very short and there's no time for fussing and fighting my friends.
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3356
- Joined: Wed 12 Sep 2007 5:30pm
- Has thanked: 169 times
- Been thanked: 516 times
Using that theory there may be 2 current saints no longer with us. Different administration I know but need to be careful on this type of stuff as it must have a flow on effect both forward and back.ThePunter wrote:I'm going to make a possibly contraversial point. It may get taken down, may get me infracted, but it's a well thought out point and it needs to be said.
A player has now been charged. Whether he has broken the law will now be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or not.
However, this player did something. He hasn't been arrested out of thin air. Something has made the police lay the charge. I must stress that I am not suggesting that he committed the crime which with he is now charged.
As an organisation, I think St Kilda will look to hold this player to a higher standard, with regards to his employment, than a court of law will hold a person with regards to his freedom.
And that is why this player has played his last AFL game.
-
- SS Life Member
- Posts: 3356
- Joined: Wed 12 Sep 2007 5:30pm
- Has thanked: 169 times
- Been thanked: 516 times
-
- Club Player
- Posts: 1928
- Joined: Sun 22 May 2005 11:42pm
- Has thanked: 7 times
- Been thanked: 90 times
Gotta be careful - if we sack him too soon and he's found not guilty it might cost a packet. If we suspend his pay and then wait and if he's convicted, we could escape the contract without the risk.bozza1980 wrote:I agree with you.ThePunter wrote:I'm going to make a possibly contraversial point. It may get taken down, may get me infracted, but it's a well thought out point and it needs to be said.
A player has now been charged. Whether he has broken the law will now be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or not.
However, this player did something. He hasn't been arrested out of thin air. Something has made the police lay the charge. I must stress that I am not suggesting that he committed the crime which with he is now charged.
As an organisation, I think St Kilda will look to hold this player to a higher standard, with regards to his employment, than a court of law will hold a person with regards to his freedom.
And that is why this player has played his last AFL game.
With regard to the courts and the like, Lovett deserves and retains the presumption of innocence as does every other person who finds themselves in his position.
At the end of the day though the burden of proof to lose your freedom is different to the burden of proof to lose your job.
This is not to say that he will lose his job, but just to say, that being found Not Guilty doesn't make your employers decision, to fire for being charged with the crime, an illegal decision.
I will be interested to see what decisions are made by the club, Lovett and/or the AFL in the coming days.
I imagine it gives the club an excuse to suspend his pay, but sacking him going over the top - legally, and not morally, of course.
But that's a guess.
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 6043
- Joined: Mon 21 May 2007 5:31pm
- Location: Currumbin, Quoinslairnd
So where are all the 'you wait and see the charges a gonna be dropped the cops have nuthin' to go on' types now?
pffft.
pffft.
"The inches we need are everywhere around us. They're in every break in the game. Every minute, every second. On this team we fight for that inch. On this team we tear ourselves and everyone around us to pieces for that inch. We claw with our fingernails for that inch. Because we know when we add up all those inches that's gonna make the f***in' difference between winning and losing! Between living and dying!'
- meher baba
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7196
- Joined: Mon 14 Aug 2006 6:49am
- Location: Tasmania
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 503 times
Thanks goodness that policeman finally got back from his holidays (and thank goodness for the police that the now charged individual didn't commit any other alleged offences over the 6+ weeks)!!
(Of course I'm being unfair to the boys in blue, aren't I: obviously some new evidence has suddenly come to light that enabled charges to be laid.
)
Anyway, end of story I would hope. He will remain suspended until a trial takes place, which presumably won't be for some time. We can all move on now.
(Of course I'm being unfair to the boys in blue, aren't I: obviously some new evidence has suddenly come to light that enabled charges to be laid.
![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
Anyway, end of story I would hope. He will remain suspended until a trial takes place, which presumably won't be for some time. We can all move on now.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
- Jonathan Swift
- meher baba
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7196
- Joined: Mon 14 Aug 2006 6:49am
- Location: Tasmania
- Has thanked: 1 time
- Been thanked: 503 times
What exactly was it that you are alleging was "settled out of court"?older saint wrote:True but allegedly there was an out of court settlement regarding those matters which would imply something. Civil burden of proof is less than the criminal one
At around the time of the M&M allegations, three high profile players from other clubs were alleged to have made a large ($200k) out of court settlement in a civil case launched by a woman in Adelaide.
I do not recall any suggestion that St Kilda paid anybody anything in 2004: I'm not saying it didn't happen, but all I recall is that the police eventually dropped the charges for insufficient evidence.
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."
- Jonathan Swift
- Jonathan Swift
news flash
club confirms that lovett was charged and the club is still working out what they will do. Will let the media know if anything else comes to light....
club confirms that lovett was charged and the club is still working out what they will do. Will let the media know if anything else comes to light....
FQF
loyal in the good times and bad
In richo I trust
2013 trade/draft best ever?
Billings - future brownlow medallist Longer - future best ruck
Dunstan - future captain Eli - future cult hero
Acres - future norm smith
loyal in the good times and bad
In richo I trust
2013 trade/draft best ever?
Billings - future brownlow medallist Longer - future best ruck
Dunstan - future captain Eli - future cult hero
Acres - future norm smith
-
- Saintsational Legend
- Posts: 7282
- Joined: Tue 09 Mar 2004 9:31am
- Has thanked: 11 times
- Been thanked: 142 times
I actually don't think there were that many.....Thinline wrote:So where are all the 'you wait and see the charges a gonna be dropped the cops have nuthin' to go on' types now?
pffft.
I must admit all along I was not of the view he was guilty because of his priors brigade either...their were many who had and have him guilty before court case...
I have said in many threads just let it take its course through the courts
I don't have access to the facts etc so I can't have opinion of guilt or innocence............that will be left to the jury
saint4life
a shedload of circumstantial evidence and no actual wrongdoing, maybe?ThePunter wrote:A player has now been charged. Whether he has broken the law will now be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, or not.
However, this player did something. He hasn't been arrested out of thin air. Something has made the police lay the charge.
sure, he may well be guilty of something. but him being charged is no proof of absolutely anything. police, like the rest of us, can make mistakes. the courts exist so that once all the evidence is collected there's a body which decides if he did anything.
this changes absolutely nothing. he was under investigation. now he's been charged. neither of those should be grounds for the termination of his employment - that would be a horrible violation of his rights. much as i want it all to go away, this just shouldn't change a thing.