Baker's case is underway - discussion

woooosaints · Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:05pm

man he is guilty of sin but i have no doubt in my mind if there was footage of this he would of got max 3 weeks + 1 week for his bad record 4 weeks minus the publicity

Dis Believer · Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:06pm

Is this for real - 7 weeks? Sorr but I am in Perth this week for work so SS is my source for keeping up.

If this is correct, and our spineless admin bends over takes this in the back end I am handing in my membership. We have tolerated a constant parade of foolish, non-sensical and downright stage-managed judiciary "decisions" over the past 5 to 10 years and this is surely the worst by a considerable margin. Considering the litany of mediocrity that has been served up recently that is quite an acheivement. If we accept this legally incorrect, clearly unjust, and downright biased bulls*** then we deserve whatever we get. For a man to cop 7 weeks with no evidence of wrongdoing, clearly compromised and variable testimony and no real charge of wrongdoing (what is he supposed to have done) is the most blatant piece of politicking that the most inept AFL administration in history has ever foisted upon us. The AFL judiciary continues every year to raise the bar in mediocrity and will oversee the death of the AFL.

The_Dud · Post: # 438832Post **The_Dud** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:06pm

so whats he actually been found guilty of? what are the version of events the tribunial thinks happened?

Krikkett · Post: # 438833Post **Krikkett** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:06pm

maysiemoo wrote:7 weeks for something with NO actual VISUAL EVIDENCE

oh.. my.. god....

there are no words to describe... feeling.. now... oh.. my.. gosh...

Really? Who said that?

RooandKosi · Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:07pm

DISGRACE!!!

AFL 7 why seven you ask?? make sure he doesnt play in the grand final scared we'll get there!!

those pricks!!

maysiemoo · Post: # 438836Post **maysiemoo** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:07pm

lool krikkett

I KNOW! hhahaha

ifonlybarkswashere · Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:07pm

woooosaints wrote:man he is guilty of sin

Guilty of sin? What are you, a preacher or something? Which sin? Did Bakes shag Farmer when we weren't looking. Sheesh.

Saints-06-Premiers · Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:08pm

The_Dud wrote:so whats he actually been found guilty of? what are the version of events the tribunial thinks happened?

oh its just whatever the dockers water boy decided to make up

The_Dud · Post: # 438842Post **The_Dud** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:09pm

Krikkett wrote:
maysiemoo wrote:7 weeks for something with NO actual VISUAL EVIDENCE

oh.. my.. god....

there are no words to describe... feeling.. now... oh.. my.. gosh...
Really? Who said that?

so what, theres some secret footage thats been hidden from everyone, that no one has heard of, and that everyone has said doesn't exist?

they only have the behind the goal footage if one of the clubs requests it, and neither did, so the cameras weren't there, which means NO FOOTAGE

its not rocket science.....

Krikkett · Post: # 438852Post **Krikkett** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:12pm

The_Dud wrote:
Krikkett wrote:
maysiemoo wrote:7 weeks for something with NO actual VISUAL EVIDENCE

oh.. my.. god....

there are no words to describe... feeling.. now... oh.. my.. gosh...
Really? Who said that?
so what, theres some secret footage thats been hidden from everyone, that no one has heard of, and that everyone has said doesn't exist?

they only have the behind the goal footage if one of the clubs requests it, and neither did, so the cameras weren't there, which means NO FOOTAGE

its not rocket science.....

Actually, the umpires use fixed camera's behind the goals for umpire training. They have a clear view of the entire ground.

satchmo · Post: # 438857Post **satchmo** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:12pm

Krikkett wrote:
maysiemoo wrote:7 weeks for something with NO actual VISUAL EVIDENCE

oh.. my.. god....

there are no words to describe... feeling.. now... oh.. my.. gosh...
Really? Who said that?

It was maysiemoo.

maysiemoo · Post: # 438858Post **maysiemoo** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:13pm

why dont they release it then?
itll stop the angry letters tomorrow?

Krikkett · Post: # 438863Post **Krikkett** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:15pm

maysiemoo wrote:why dont they release it then?
itll stop the angry letters tomorrow?

No idea mate, I agree. If that evidence is there, they need to release it.

satchmo · Post: # 438865Post **satchmo** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:15pm

maysiemoo wrote:why dont they release it then?
itll stop the angry letters tomorrow?

Who said that ?

The_Dud · Post: # 438887Post **The_Dud** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:19pm

Krikkett wrote:
The_Dud wrote:
Krikkett wrote:
maysiemoo wrote:7 weeks for something with NO actual VISUAL EVIDENCE

oh.. my.. god....

there are no words to describe... feeling.. now... oh.. my.. gosh...
Really? Who said that?
so what, theres some secret footage thats been hidden from everyone, that no one has heard of, and that everyone has said doesn't exist?

they only have the behind the goal footage if one of the clubs requests it, and neither did, so the cameras weren't there, which means NO FOOTAGE

its not rocket science.....
Actually, the umpires use fixed camera's behind the goals for umpire training. They have a clear view of the entire ground.

so, wheres this mystical footage?

why is it that only you know about it, and everyone else in the football media does not?

if this footage exists, lets see it

but since it doesn't, we won't.....

mcadam05 · Post: # 438889Post **mcadam05** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:19pm

this is some of the gold from dockerland

http://www.dockerland.com/cgi-bin/teemz ... iscussions

satchmo · Post: # 438902Post **satchmo** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:22pm

mcadam05 wrote:this is some of the gold from dockerland

Tell them they can have september off this year to look for a coach that doesn't want to go to essendon.

jk23 · Post: # 438913Post **jk23** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:25pm

Channel 10 were correct when they said just before the game, when ever the saints play the dockers something always controversial happens.............. Was that an under statement or what !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am still in shock at the outcome...

Krikkett · Post: # 438915Post **Krikkett** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:26pm

The_Dud wrote:
Krikkett wrote:
The_Dud wrote:
Krikkett wrote:
maysiemoo wrote:7 weeks for something with NO actual VISUAL EVIDENCE

oh.. my.. god....

there are no words to describe... feeling.. now... oh.. my.. gosh...
Really? Who said that?
so what, theres some secret footage thats been hidden from everyone, that no one has heard of, and that everyone has said doesn't exist?

they only have the behind the goal footage if one of the clubs requests it, and neither did, so the cameras weren't there, which means NO FOOTAGE

its not rocket science.....
Actually, the umpires use fixed camera's behind the goals for umpire training. They have a clear view of the entire ground.
so, wheres this mystical footage?

why is it that only you know about it, and everyone else in the football media does not?

if this footage exists, lets see it

but since it doesn't, we won't.....

I'm not the only one that knows about it...in fact I thought it was common knowledge until I came onto the forum tonight.

As it stands, I don't know if that was the evidence used or not...but it would make sense.

milney044 · Post: # 438918Post **milney044** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:27pm

rot in hell fremantle i hope the hit did permanent damage, although its probably an improvement on farmer's behalf. to think i hated farmer before, i just cant stand their frickin team and what they get away with. or more, what we have to put up with. i still dont get it, what was he charged with? hitting someone behind play because the freo trainer said so? i just dont get it.

Sxc_Sainter · Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:29pm

this has GOT to be a joke...
how can u convict someone without evidence?
what ever happened to innocent until proven guilty?
didn't realise you could convict someone based on hearsay.
It's funny how Bakes can be convicted without evidence, whilst Des Headland can just claim provocation and get off with nothing.
the inconsistency is disgraceful.
we should appeal immediately.

What's worse is, if we should make it, it takes away Bakes' opportunity to be a premiership player.

Nick_Dal_Santo = ChAmPiOn · Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:29pm

does any1 know where abouts in WA that lying scumbag gay purple idiot runner lives?

id love to pay him a quicck visit

Mr Magic · Post: # 438928Post **Mr Magic** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:30pm

According to Mat Thompson on SEN (he was the reporter at the Tribunal), when the Guilty verdict was handed down Saints Lawyer asked the Tribunal

Whose version of events did you believe? Bakers or Freo Trainers?

Tribunal replied Bakers!

Based on Baker claiming he ran at Farmer, stopped and Farmer cannoned into the back of him, he was found guilty of 'reckless conduct'.

UNBELIEVABLE!

fonz_#15 · Post: # 438929Post **fonz_#15** » Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:30pm

i have never been this angry in my life. yeh i know sad that im this p!ssed off over sport but f**k me this is so pathetic.

its over for me, 8 years an afl and sants member, i will keep my club membership but i'll be F**ked if i pay those pricks any of my hard earned ever again. no more games that dont involve the saints and no more saints away games.

CORRUPT CHEATING ...............

saintsRrising · Tue 21 Aug 2007 10:50pm

sainter58 wrote: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

Well the Tribunal believed Bakes and Nixon....that the contact was Farmer running into Baker...but found that Baker was reckless for stopping.

That is the version I have heard from everyone else that saw it including my wife.

Yours is the only version that had Baker striking Farmer with an elbow.