Baker's case is underway - discussion

Solar · Post: # 438683Post **Solar** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 9:21pm

take it to the courts, boycott everyone AFL, this is a disgrace at the highest level. Right decision hey plugger66??? Come on, we all knew that we would be bent over....

F&*KING DISGRACE!!!

yipper · Post: # 438684Post **yipper** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 9:21pm

Sheesh, we either need a new defence lawyer or the system was tainted.

woooosaints · Tue 21 Aug 2007 9:22pm

oh god we all know baker hit him in the face he deserves to be punished get over it lets be honest here baker isnt the stopper he once was he is easily replaced

saintbart · Post: # 438687Post **saintbart** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 9:22pm

woooosaints wrote:oh god we all know baker hit him in the face he deserves to be punished get over it lets be honest here baker isnt the stopper he once was he is easily replaced

go back in your hole, troll

Solar · Post: # 438688Post **Solar** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 9:23pm

woooosaints wrote:oh god we all know baker hit him in the face he deserves to be punished get over it lets be honest here baker isnt the stopper he once was he is easily replaced

did you see him hit him cause NO ONE did??

IDIOT!

Saints Premiers 2008 · Tue 21 Aug 2007 9:23pm

i expected it...it would have been put up to the tribunal if there was nothing in the incident

and people should not get cranky at jeff farmer either...blood noses and being stunned on the ground doesnt happen over nothing...whether intentional or not

and no alcoholic jokes about farmer either...its been done to death

luke.l_26 · Post: # 438691Post **luke.l_26** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 9:24pm

yipper wrote:Sheesh, we either need a new defence lawyer or the system was tainted.

I'm inclined to think the latter. It's a bit strange how these things pan out for us... there was no video evidence,a testimony of a trainer who "is believed to have seen the incident"... I mean.. how about we get the 24,000 other people at the stadium watching the game testify? That's the way things work now isn't it?

Oh When the Saints · Tue 21 Aug 2007 9:25pm

No abuse please guys, despite the anger ...

When do they announce the penalty? I imagine that will play a significant part in the decision as to whether the Saints appeal or not.

HarveysDeciple · Tue 21 Aug 2007 9:26pm

Well it will be at least 2 weeks no doubt because of that earlier suspension hanging over his head with 150 odd points.

meher baba · Post: # 438695Post **meher baba** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 9:26pm

woooosaints wrote:oh god we all know baker hit him in the face he deserves to be punished get over it lets be honest here baker isnt the stopper he once was he is easily replaced

I understand that people are upset, but this poster probably has a point that - on this season's form - Bakes isn't going to be quite the loss that he would have been a year or two ago.

Also, even though I don't think it is at all fair for a player to be cited and then suspended in the absence of an umpire's report or video evidence, Bakes does seem to have a record of putting himself in harm's way: and there clearly was an off the ball incident and Farmer ended up with a broken nose. These sorts of things don't ever seem to happen involving too many other players on our team.

Iceman234 · Post: # 438696Post **Iceman234** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 9:26pm

Will be great reading to see what the defence was and who presented it.

Will be great reading to see the prima facie case.

Will be great reading about the reverse onus AFL ruling.

Will be great reading to see the ...... what?

What was there?

What is going to be interesting to read?

How those poor hearts Freo bleated like stuck pigs to the AFL yet again.

How the AFL bowed to the wishes of the pathetic p1ss@nt Shockers YET AGAIN and presented Bakes on ..... ummm..... ummmmm..... rough conduct -even without video evidence - but it's ok - there was a Freo waterboy - some nu-nu purple wearer who saw it - or did he?

FFS let's grab those behind posts from Moorabbin - obviously RL saw a good use for them - and place them in the four most appropriate places we can find.....

The_Dud · Post: # 438698Post **The_Dud** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 9:27pm

i think that'll now make Baker's record 10 times charged, 10 times found guilty....

this verdict sounds ridiculous considering the evidence

saintdooley · Tue 21 Aug 2007 9:27pm

can they just get a lie detector and test baker?

Saints Premiers 2008 · Tue 21 Aug 2007 9:28pm

its funny about freo...they are so far away from a flag its hilarious

in my opinion essendon is closer which is saying something

Stephen Theodore · Tue 21 Aug 2007 9:29pm

Who on here seriously didn't expect this to be the result?

There must have been more evidence than a dodgy trainer to convict him. Must have !!

Pwoit · Post: # 438703Post **Pwoit** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 9:29pm

How I feel right Now F$#%^#$&#$%^&#$%*$%*^K!!!!!!!!!!!

woooosaints · Tue 21 Aug 2007 9:29pm

im no troll ur a idiot if you think baker is innocent.

St. Luke · Post: # 438705Post **St. Luke** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 9:29pm

Oh When the Saints wrote:No abuse please guys, despite the anger ...

When do they announce the penalty? I imagine that will play a significant part in the decision as to whether the Saints appeal or not.

I think they should appeal even if he was suspended for half a match. You can't convict someone without sufficient evidence! Just look at that scum sucking mongrel Greg Domaszewicz for an example!!!!

It's horseshyte and that's the only fact present!!! Hmmmm I think I'm taking a carefully worded banner to the game on Friday night!!!!

woooosaints wrote:im no troll ur a idiot if you think baker is innocent.

Did you see it???

Krikkett · Post: # 438706Post **Krikkett** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 9:29pm

Who has said that there isn't video?

The AFL has stationary camera's with a wide view for umpire training...I'd suggest they picked up the incident.

Saints Premiers 2008 · Tue 21 Aug 2007 9:31pm

St. Luke wrote:
Oh When the Saints wrote:No abuse please guys, despite the anger ...

When do they announce the penalty? I imagine that will play a significant part in the decision as to whether the Saints appeal or not.
I think they should appeal even if he was suspended for half a match. You can't convict someone without sufficient evidence! Just look at that scum sucking mongrel Greg Domaszewicz for an example!!!! It's horseshyte and that's the only fact present!!! Hmmmm I think I'm taking a carefully worded banner to the game on Friday night!!!!

too far buddy comparing a football incident to a person who might have murdered a young child

yeh real smart

saintbart · Post: # 438710Post **saintbart** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 9:31pm

woooosaints wrote:im no troll ur a idiot if you think baker is innocent.

Sorry - you ARE a troll if you think baker is guilty and didnt see the incident. Go away and come back when you have something logical to say.

Mr Magic · Post: # 438711Post **Mr Magic** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 9:31pm

Krikkett wrote:Who has said that there isn't video?

The AFL has stationary camera's with a wide view for umpire training...I'd suggest they picked up the incident.

Well if they did they didn't produce it as evidence tonight.

And you would think if they had photographic evidence they would produce it.

meher baba · Post: # 438712Post **meher baba** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 9:31pm

Krikkett wrote:Who has said that there isn't video?

The AFL has stationary camera's with a wide view for umpire training...I'd suggest they picked up the incident.

If there was video, then why the farce with M Voss, R Nixon and the Freo trainer?

sainter58 · Post: # 438714Post **sainter58** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 9:32pm

i posted it earlier. I saw what happened and he is guilty. You can all be judges but did any of you see the incident.

I DID

Krikkett · Post: # 438716Post **Krikkett** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 9:32pm

meher baba wrote:
Krikkett wrote:Who has said that there isn't video?

The AFL has stationary camera's with a wide view for umpire training...I'd suggest they picked up the incident.
If there was video, then why the farce with M Voss, R Nixon and the Freo trainer?

Why rely on one piece of evidence...especially a wide angle view.