Baker's case is underway - discussion

milnedog · Post: # 438463Post **milnedog** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 7:14pm

rodgerfox wrote:
milnedog wrote:
rodgerfox wrote:
saintdooley wrote:obviously baker has done something wrong!
Why 'obviously'?
Well they wouldn't take it to the tribunal if any of the afl's "reliable" witnesses had said there was nothing in it.
Wouldn't they?

I did use quotation marks around "reliable" didn't I? FFS if this is the evidence that forced them to the tribunal they seriously must be joking?

Post: # 438467Post **n1ck** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 7:16pm

Grimfang wrote:Freo trainer has said Baker supposedly laid a hip-and-shoulder on him but has also admitted his view of the incident was obscured.

Case has to be thrown out. What a crock.

But it wont.

I can just see Baker missing the rest of the season, just like Johnson will.

Absolute disgrace allowing testimony from an official of one of the sides - no matter how pointless or unconvincing it is.

Fact is, now that the 'expert witness' has said hes not sure, Bakes will get rubbed out because the tribunal have to protect themselves after wrongly interviewing Voss, and now this Freo official.

St. Luke · Post: # 438471Post **St. Luke** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 7:19pm

Seriously, if it were any other team it'd be over by now and the whole thing dismissed. Stick a bit of Red. White & Black in there and it's on for young and old. Baker doesn't need to admit or own up for anything!

saintsRrising · Tue 21 Aug 2007 7:20pm

The freo trainer...whata tosser.

Basically saw nothing except Bakes running 45 degrees towards Farmer before...
Well helo sunshine.... Baker was PLAYING on him. FOOL!!!!!!!!!!

What a joke.

Based on the evidence put up....should NEVER have come to the tribunal. Is a disgrace.

fonz_#15 · Post: # 438474Post **fonz_#15** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 7:22pm

well they were both high contact and they were both forceful so tell me why there is a huge difference milnedog

mullet · Post: # 438477Post **mullet** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 7:24pm

so now farmer remembers that there was no one in front of him and that baker was at him all day. ffs I give up on this game its rigged

Mr Magic · Post: # 438478Post **Mr Magic** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 7:24pm

fonz_#15 wrote:well they were both high contact and they were both forceful so tell me why there is a huge difference milnedog

Can you 'prove' Farmer didn't run into Baker?

mullet · Post: # 438479Post **mullet** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 7:25pm

Mr Magic wrote:
fonz_#15 wrote:well they were both high contact and they were both forceful so tell me why there is a huge difference milnedog
Can you 'prove' Farmer didn't run into Baker?

farmer is now saying that he remembers there was no one in front of him, reported on ch 7

fonz_#15 · Post: # 438481Post **fonz_#15** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 7:27pm

Mr Magic wrote:
fonz_#15 wrote:well they were both high contact and they were both forceful so tell me why there is a huge difference milnedog
Can you 'prove' Farmer didn't run into Baker?

sorry mr.magic i was referring to the johnso and rowe cases, have a look on page 1 of this thread to see what im talking about

ausfatcat · Post: # 438482Post **ausfatcat** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 7:27pm

So my understanding is a tribunal hearing based on, not anyone seeing the incdent that someone saw baker running in a different direction that what Baker said he was...... THAT IS bulls***, even if they believe him how can someone be suspended for that.

kaos theory · Tue 21 Aug 2007 7:28pm

This is a kangaroo court!!!

What a disgrace!!

How can someone (other than the players) associated with one of the clubs give 'evidence'???

If baker is suspended (possibly for 4+ weeks) on this garbage, it could potentially cost us the game against the eagles...If that is the case, then we don't make the finals and miss out on critical revenue.

This is a serious mis-carrage of justice!

Post: # 438484Post **n1ck** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 7:30pm

Lets face it, Baker has been tried in the public forum already.

Hes been found guilty and hung out to dry ever since about 4:30 on Saturday afternoon.

St. Luke · Post: # 438485Post **St. Luke** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 7:30pm

Apparently they want to bring in the head of the Freo cheer squad now!

...then if that doesn't work Buckley said he'll come in and give reason as to why Baker should be suspended!

saintsRrising · Tue 21 Aug 2007 7:30pm

ausfatcat wrote:So my understanding is a tribunal hearing based on, not anyone seeing the incdent that someone saw baker running in a different direction that what Baker said he was...... THAT IS bulls***, even if they believe him how can someone be suspended for that.

That plus it is somehow a "criminal" offence fora defender to pick up the forward that he is playing on

I mean Bakes was obviously meant to according the feo not pick up his man!!!!!!!!

Mr Magic · Post: # 438488Post **Mr Magic** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 7:31pm

fonz_#15 wrote:
Mr Magic wrote:
fonz_#15 wrote:well they were both high contact and they were both forceful so tell me why there is a huge difference milnedog
Can you 'prove' Farmer didn't run into Baker?

sorry mr.magic i was referring to the johnso and rowe cases, have a look on page 1 of this thread to see what im talking about

My apologies

Mr Magic · Post: # 438495Post **Mr Magic** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 7:36pm

****Breaking News****

Still photos tendered by teh Saints prove that Freo Trainers claim of where the footy was is incorrect.

First he didn't see the contact
Now he doesn't know where the footy is.

I hope he's getting good recompense from Freo because he is starting to look like a complete idiot.

fonz_#15 · Post: # 438497Post **fonz_#15** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 7:37pm

what a joke this is.......

Post: # 438500Post **n1ck** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 7:38pm

Fair dinkum, should be thrown out right now.

St. Luke · Post: # 438501Post **St. Luke** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 7:38pm

They're currently speaking to NASA to see if there was a satellite in the area with Infra-red capabilities as the roof was shut!

joffaboy · Post: # 438503Post **joffaboy** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 7:40pm

Just reported that the Saints have proven that Kirkwood's evidence of where the ball was is incorrect from stills and video.

So he didn't see the impact, he is wrong where the ball was and he is the only person who saw the incident say that Baker ran toward Farmer.

The guy is obviously a liar and a fool.

If I had a kid going to his school i would pull them out of his classes. He is not the type of character whom I would want influencing my children.

If Baker doesn't get off it is a complete disgrage.

If he gets anything, this gutless bunch of squibs that call themselves a board better take it to the Supreme court.

A load of bulls.hite and Fremantle should be ashamed of their crap.

FullMonty · Post: # 438504Post **FullMonty** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 7:40pm

Pathetic!
Give us back the 4 points for defamation of character.

Post: # 438505Post **n1ck** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 7:41pm

Give Bakes the Brownlow already.

MC Gusto · Post: # 438506Post **MC Gusto** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 7:41pm

joffaboy wrote:Just reported that the Saints have proven that Kirkwood's evidence of where the ball was is incorrect from stills and video.

So he didn't see the impact, he is wrong where the ball was and he is the only person who saw the incident say that Baker ran toward Farmer.

GET IN

ALL OVER RED ROVER

THEY CANNOT POSSIBLY FIND HIM GUILTY

Post: # 438509Post **n1ck** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 7:42pm

MC Euro Gusto wrote:
joffaboy wrote:Just reported that the Saints have proven that Kirkwood's evidence of where the ball was is incorrect from stills and video.

So he didn't see the impact, he is wrong where the ball was and he is the only person who saw the incident say that Baker ran toward Farmer.

GET IN

ALL OVER RED ROVER

THEY CANNOT POSSIBLY FIND HIM GUILTY

You watch... they will.

saintDal · Post: # 438510Post **saintDal** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 7:43pm

Bakers account on the events is he is not sure where contact was made but he has a tender bump on his head. He was trying to bloke Farmers run when it happened.