Baker banned for life

[damienc]

well hang on a minute.........

The former AFL tagger was found not guilty of striking and not guilty of charging, but was found guilty of a rough conduct charge despite a lack of video evidence. The three field umpires also told the hearing they didn't see anything.

so if no one saw anything how on earth can you come to a conclusion if two players smack heads and one ends up with a broken jaw

i know he has done some stupid things in his time, but seriously two players going for the ball and one is now rubbed out for life???

anyone see the incident?
seeing as no umps did and there was no video
hang on
i have a feeling of 'we've been here before??!'

Well said. Quite frankly I am surprised, shocked and a little ashamed at some of the attitudes of the so called St Kilda supporters on this forum who saw fit to kick Stevie Baker when he is down and out. This bloke was a warrior for the St Kilda football. Notice I said warrior not thug as some people on this forum think and say. He played hard and tough. That was what was asked of him by our various coaches. And if you were to ask them that is what they would tell you. So I say to hell with S Baker's detractors. This was a suburban football league kangaroo court. How could he be pinged when 1) there was no video evidence and 2) None of the three umpires saw a thing. Baker said it was a clash of heads. I believe him. I hope he appeals. He has been pinged on reputation clearly not on evidence. I think a life ban under the circumstances is a travesty and bloody ridiculous.

[8856brother]

Just read through the whole thread. Not one of you experts, who are happy to condemn him, actually saw the incident. Or have I read it incorrectly.

How can you have an opinion. Embarrassing really.

I was told Elvis is still alive.

[Dr Spaceman]

Just read through the whole thread. Not one of you experts, who are happy to condemn him, actually saw the incident. Or have I read it incorrectly.

How can you have an opinion. Embarrassing really.

I was told Elvis is still alive.

Don't think anyone saw Martin Bryant in 1996 either but it hasn't stopped a few on the other forum from having an opinion

[Bernard Shakey]

He should take up boxing instead.

Think you will find he is going to do some sort of martial arts very shortly. This may quicken it up. And even though I think Bakes is guilty and has done some stupid things in his career im unsure a life ban is the way to go.

Them's the rules! Very surprised you're not sticking up for the rules. He's a thug who would not have survived in the seventies, because someone would have whacked him into the next century. Lived a charmed life because nobody else was prepared to get 12 weeks for really thumping him. Typical bully boy!

[bobmurray]

well hang on a minute.........

The former AFL tagger was found not guilty of striking and not guilty of charging, but was found guilty of a rough conduct charge despite a lack of video evidence. The three field umpires also told the hearing they didn't see anything.

so if no one saw anything how on earth can you come to a conclusion if two players smack heads and one ends up with a broken jaw

i know he has done some stupid things in his time, but seriously two players going for the ball and one is now rubbed out for life???

anyone see the incident?
seeing as no umps did and there was no video
hang on
i have a feeling of 'we've been here before??!'

Well said. Quite frankly I am surprised, shocked and a little ashamed at some of the attitudes of the so called St Kilda supporters on this forum who saw fit to kick Stevie Baker when he is down and out. This bloke was a warrior for the St Kilda football. Notice I said warrior not thug as some people on this forum think and say. He played hard and tough. That was what was asked of him by our various coaches. And if you were to ask them that is what they would tell you. So I say to hell with S Baker's detractors. This was a suburban football league kangaroo court. How could he be pinged when 1) there was no video evidence and 2) None of the three umpires saw a thing. Baker said it was a clash of heads. I believe him. I hope he appeals. He has been pinged on reputation clearly not on evidence. I think a life ban under the circumstances is a travesty and bloody ridiculous.

I think Bakers interview with Mike Sheahan last year changed a lot of people's opinions on Bakes....

Definitely came across as a thug.....

Time for him to give it away, he belongs in a bygone era......

[Toy Saint]

I'm just a one-eyed Steven Baker fan, and I reckon he's been denied justice on numerous occasions.

The Jeff Farmer case would never have delivered a guilty verdict in a court of law. But alas, the tribunal is influenced by the AFL, and their rulings are biased.

We can all think of examples.

[Moods]

So. Are the ppl defending Bakes suggesting that he was found guilty on not a shred of evidence, purely on the injuries sustained by the bloke 'he ran into?'

It's amazing how Bakes always ends up the victim.

Why did Bakes say, 'for once in my life I wish there was video evidence of the incident.' ? Does that mean he was glad there was no video evidence of the Farmer incident? Another incident in which he adamantly claimed he was innocent. How can he be believed on anything after that interview on Open Mike? He can't have his cake and eat it too. He can't play the tough hitman, for the TV audience and then expect the same public to believe him when he's involved in these sorts of things.

Of course Sorrento put in an appeal. An ex AFL player playing for their club who is 31/32 years old. They're probably paying him about $1500 a game. I'd appeal to. Too late to recruit someone else and use that money which they were paying Bakes. That money is effectively wasted.

[Saint Bev]

Spot on Bob Murray, that interview was a shocker and did him no favours. Could never understand why he said the things he said. As for the Jeff Farmer case, he has admitted he was guilty, (not at the time) but its no secret.

[Moods]

Spot on Bob Murray, that interview was a shocker and did him no favours. Could never understand why he said the things he said. As for the Jeff Farmer case, he has admitted he was guilty, (not at the time) but its no secret.

Really Bev? When did he admit that?

As you said, 'not at the time.' And as we sit here now he's professing his innocence. He may admit guilt 12 months down the track on the Jerry Springer show or to Caroline Wilson or whoever, but right now he says he's innocent. It's the whole reason why he doesn't have any credibility left. He's left us with nothing to hang our hat on.

[whiskers3614]

Well said. Quite frankly I am surprised, shocked and a little ashamed at some of the attitudes of the so called St Kilda supporters on this forum who saw fit to kick Stevie Baker when he is down and out. This bloke was a warrior for the St Kilda football. Notice I said warrior not thug as some people on this forum think and say. He played hard and tough. That was what was asked of him by our various coaches. And if you were to ask them that is what they would tell you. So I say to hell with S Baker's detractors. This was a suburban football league kangaroo court. How could he be pinged when 1) there was no video evidence and 2) None of the three umpires saw a thing. Baker said it was a clash of heads. I believe him. I hope he appeals. He has been pinged on reputation clearly not on evidence. I think a life ban under the circumstances is a travesty and bloody ridiculous.[/quote]

So we can judge people's behaviour by the colour of the jumper they wore.
In order to be a loyal supporter you have to excuse/ignore any wrongdoing on the basis of "he's one of ours"
I bet you wouldn't have this attitude if your sonj was victim to Baker's thuggery on field or off.

[sunsaint]

Spot on Bob Murray, that interview was a shocker and did him no favours. Could never understand why he said the things he said. As for the Jeff Farmer case, he has admitted he was guilty, (not at the time) but its no secret.

Really Bev? When did he admit that?

.

during the Sheehan interview,
those of you having problems with this, its easy
all you have to do is picture him in a collingwood jumper

[Viking3]

Jim O'Dea, 1972, no report, no evidence and obviously no video = 14 weeks.
It's been happening for a long, long time.
I'm not necessarily talking about injustices to St.Kilda players but anyone hard done by under these circumstances.
We have had our share of them though.

[Terrance80]

From all reports has very good grounds to appeal... Conflicting stories from the red hill camp...some say king hit, others say elbow, one said clenched fist and others say legitimate bump..agree he has done himself no favours with his priors but really? Who gets 6 weeks for rough conduct? Unheard of.... The league obviously had to pin him for something otherwise they look like fools after the whole channel 7 news trial by media sympathy story with the red hill player.. I don't like seeing players get hurt and I don't agree with some of the things bakes has done on the field but this just down right stinks... If there is strong evidence to suggest that it was a king hit or an elbow then he should cop his right whack and I agree with a life ban ,but don't cave to public pressure and ban a guy just because you assume he has done the wrong thing

[andrewg]

I dont agree with how the Herald Sun have reported this. It sucks that the heading "Life Time Ban" is attached to a player wearing a St. Kilda jumper. It isn't any good for our brand. While the more educated football supporter can make the distinction between past and present players this isn't the case for all.

Anyway just a mini rant from me

[Terrance80]

Been a good week by the herald sun... Monday it was saints back line crisis on the back page.. Next it's a big picture of Kosi saying how its controversy how the veteran may not be in the rd 1 side... Got a feeling we are in the gun this year... They are waiting for this resilient group to crumble... Hope the boys stick it up them!!!!

[damienc]

Well said. Quite frankly I am surprised, shocked and a little ashamed at some of the attitudes of the so called St Kilda supporters on this forum who saw fit to kick Stevie Baker when he is down and out. This bloke was a warrior for the St Kilda football. Notice I said warrior not thug as some people on this forum think and say. He played hard and tough. That was what was asked of him by our various coaches. And if you were to ask them that is what they would tell you. So I say to hell with S Baker's detractors. This was a suburban football league kangaroo court. How could he be pinged when 1) there was no video evidence and 2) None of the three umpires saw a thing. Baker said it was a clash of heads. I believe him. I hope he appeals. He has been pinged on reputation clearly not on evidence. I think a life ban under the circumstances is a travesty and bloody ridiculous.

So we can judge people's behaviour by the colour of the jumper they wore.
In order to be a loyal supporter you have to excuse/ignore any wrongdoing on the basis of "he's one of ours"
I bet you wouldn't have this attitude if your sonj was victim to Baker's thuggery on field or off.[/quote]


That is just a ridiculous comment. You are assuming he is guilty because of his 'reputation' just like the kangaroo court that imposed the life ban. I am simply pointing out there is NO evidence of any kind that he did anything wrong. Unlike you I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt and NOT hang him simply for having a bad reputation.

[plugger66]

Well said. Quite frankly I am surprised, shocked and a little ashamed at some of the attitudes of the so called St Kilda supporters on this forum who saw fit to kick Stevie Baker when he is down and out. This bloke was a warrior for the St Kilda football. Notice I said warrior not thug as some people on this forum think and say. He played hard and tough. That was what was asked of him by our various coaches. And if you were to ask them that is what they would tell you. So I say to hell with S Baker's detractors. This was a suburban football league kangaroo court. How could he be pinged when 1) there was no video evidence and 2) None of the three umpires saw a thing. Baker said it was a clash of heads. I believe him. I hope he appeals. He has been pinged on reputation clearly not on evidence. I think a life ban under the circumstances is a travesty and bloody ridiculous.

So we can judge people's behaviour by the colour of the jumper they wore.
In order to be a loyal supporter you have to excuse/ignore any wrongdoing on the basis of "he's one of ours"
I bet you wouldn't have this attitude if your sonj was victim to Baker's thuggery on field or off.

That is just a ridiculous comment. You are assuming he is guilty because of his 'reputation' just like the kangaroo court that imposed the life ban. I am simply pointing out there is NO evidence of any kind that he did anything wrong. Unlike you I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt and NOT hang him simply for having a bad reputation.[/quote]


Which court imposed a life ban? he got 6 weeks and you havent heard the evidence at all. Neither has probably anyone here. This guy is the unluckiest guy to ever play the game. Pity he told us differently on a TV show.

And im unsure you should be banned for life but them the rules. maybe every case should be looked at individually.

[matrix]

the farmer incident he stopped and propped in front of him when farmer was running and flung his weight back
like a backwards shirt front when you aren't watching...kinda
created the back of his head to cannon into farmers face knocking him into the middle of next week

and no
the MS interview did him no favors at all


im guessing him getting picked every week to play for us had nothing to do with ability and everything to do with smashing people???

of course he was a hard bloke on the field
or course he did things that were nasty and under handed
dont need to be smart to figure that out

but conflicting reports from red hill
no umps saw it
no vid footage of it
not even evidence from a runner this time?

nahh
his history is the proof
ban him for life

[saintbrat]

any word on the appeal?

[satchmo]

all you have to do is picture him in a collingwood jumper

Better still, picture you in a collingwood jumper.

[satchmo]

any word on the appeal?

Not yet.

Sorento are cashed up, so it might be interesting.

[damienc]

Well said. Quite frankly I am surprised, shocked and a little ashamed at some of the attitudes of the so called St Kilda supporters on this forum who saw fit to kick Stevie Baker when he is down and out. This bloke was a warrior for the St Kilda football. Notice I said warrior not thug as some people on this forum think and say. He played hard and tough. That was what was asked of him by our various coaches. And if you were to ask them that is what they would tell you. So I say to hell with S Baker's detractors. This was a suburban football league kangaroo court. How could he be pinged when 1) there was no video evidence and 2) None of the three umpires saw a thing. Baker said it was a clash of heads. I believe him. I hope he appeals. He has been pinged on reputation clearly not on evidence. I think a life ban under the circumstances is a travesty and bloody ridiculous.

So we can judge people's behaviour by the colour of the jumper they wore.
In order to be a loyal supporter you have to excuse/ignore any wrongdoing on the basis of "he's one of ours"
I bet you wouldn't have this attitude if your sonj was victim to Baker's thuggery on field or off.

That is just a ridiculous comment. You are assuming he is guilty because of his 'reputation' just like the kangaroo court that imposed the life ban. I am simply pointing out there is NO evidence of any kind that he did anything wrong. Unlike you I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt and NOT hang him simply for having a bad reputation.

Which court imposed a life ban? he got 6 weeks and you havent heard the evidence at all. Neither has probably anyone here. This guy is the unluckiest guy to ever play the game. Pity he told us differently on a TV show.

And im unsure you should be banned for life but them the rules. maybe every case should be looked at individually.[/quote]

OK. Point taken. He was rubbed out for 6 weeks and that put him over the suspension limit hence the life ban. But I stand by my original point and reason for posting. It is neither right, nor proper, nor following due process to suspend a player on zero evidence which ends up turning into a life ban. Unlike many here and putting his stupidity to one side I still have a great deal of respect for Bakes who I believe gave his all for the St kilda football club. But even if I didn't have that opinion, to hand down a hefty penalty to any player when no evidence of any kind of wrong doing is offered is a serious stand alone miscarriage of justice. IMO. I hope he appeals because I would like to think he has an excellent chance of winning.

[plugger66]

So we can judge people's behaviour by the colour of the jumper they wore.
In order to be a loyal supporter you have to excuse/ignore any wrongdoing on the basis of "he's one of ours"
I bet you wouldn't have this attitude if your sonj was victim to Baker's thuggery on field or off.

That is just a ridiculous comment. You are assuming he is guilty because of his 'reputation' just like the kangaroo court that imposed the life ban. I am simply pointing out there is NO evidence of any kind that he did anything wrong. Unlike you I am prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt and NOT hang him simply for having a bad reputation.

Which court imposed a life ban? he got 6 weeks and you havent heard the evidence at all. Neither has probably anyone here. This guy is the unluckiest guy to ever play the game. Pity he told us differently on a TV show.

And im unsure you should be banned for life but them the rules. maybe every case should be looked at individually.

OK. Point taken. He was rubbed out for 6 weeks and that put him over the suspension limit hence the life ban. But I stand by my original point and reason for posting. It is neither right, nor proper, nor following due process to suspend a player on zero evidence which ends up turning into a life ban. Unlike many here and putting his stupidity to one side I still have a great deal of respect for Bakes who I believe gave his all for the St kilda football club. But even if I didn't have that opinion, to hand down a hefty penalty to any player when no evidence of any kind of wrong doing is offered is a serious stand alone miscarriage of justice. IMO. I hope he appeals because I would like to think he has an excellent chance of winning.[/quote]

Im guessing and I reckon it is a pretty good guess that if the shoe was on the other foot and Bakes jaw was broken by another player we wouldnt be looking for proof. Bakes did himself no favours with the Mike Sheahan interview and also with all his suspensions. The guy whose jaw was broken said it was delibrate on the news after it happened. he maybe a moron but odds suggest Bakes, who I really like, is one too.

And i still dont think it should be a life ban.

[WellardSaint]

Like some people, I have great admiration for Bakes, he did his job for the club every time he pulled on the jumper. He did shameful stuff, but so do heaps of others. He was more focused. But admitting it in the public domain was wrong. Should be at a pub, and whispered only.

[saintbrat]

Baker appeals career-ending banThomas Dullard | April 3, 2013

FORMER St Kilda serial pest Steven Baker faces a life ban from any form of football if a six-week suspension is upheld.

He will front the AFL Victorian Country appeals board on Thursday night.

The Sorrento Football Club and Baker (pictured) will look to reduce or overturn the career-ending sanction after officially lodging an appeal for the suspension he received after an incident that left Red Hill player Blake Thompson with a broken jaw on March 9.

"The case is open and will go to the AFL Victoria Country appeals board," Mornington Peninsula Nepean Football League chief executive Jeff Jones said.

The appeal has been passed on to AFL Victoria Country and Baker is required to attend, according to documents released to the MPNFL.

"From our perspective the decision handed down by the individual tribunal board still stands and the decision lies with the AFL Victorian Country appeals board," Jones said.

The AFL tagger faces a life ban because his recent suspension takes him beyond a nationwide 16-week career limit.

During his controversial 203-game career at the Saints, he was suspended for a total of 28 weeks, but that total is halved at amateur level, placing him on 14 weeks when he joined Sorrento.

Baker needs the suspension to be overturned or lowered to two weeks at the appeal, to be held at the Frankston Dolphins clubrooms, if he is to play again.
http://www.weeklytimesnow.com.au/articl ... ticle.html