CONFIRMED: We are appealing

Stephen Theodore · Wed 22 Aug 2007 1:14pm

bigcarl wrote:
i'm glad we're appealing. all we need is a witness who saw something different to what the freo bloke saw.

I thought Ricky Nixon was that person. Am not sure if Baker did himself any favours with his own evidence either !

Brewer · Post: # 439533Post **Brewer** » Wed 22 Aug 2007 1:17pm

There was another bloke on SEN this morning who was at the tribunal to give evidence (same version as Ricky Nixon BTW) but was not required to appear as the Saints felt confident they were already in the clear.

Bernard Shakey · Wed 22 Aug 2007 1:18pm

We don't need anyone to refute the Freo trainer's evidence.
The tribunal accepted Bakes' evidence.

We need to prove the tribunal was wrong, at law, in reaching the conclusion they did.

yipper · Post: # 439536Post **yipper** » Wed 22 Aug 2007 1:18pm

n1ck wrote:
bigcarl wrote:i'm glad we're appealing. all we need is a witness who saw something different to what the freo bloke saw.
You mean like Ricky Nixon?

We did have a witness who saw it differently - AND he was an impartial one. We also had the "eye-witness" from Freo make a tosser of himself when he completely messed up his testimony and contradicted his own players testimony!!

chook23 · Post: # 439541Post **chook23** » Wed 22 Aug 2007 1:21pm

JeffDunne wrote:I have a feeling the club will try and prove the trainer was lying.

If we can do that, I expect not only to have the sentenced overturned on appeal but to sue the lying sack of s***.

clearly been mentioned that tribunal weighted their decision on what Baker actually said.

Davo027 · Post: # 439544Post **Davo027** » Wed 22 Aug 2007 1:23pm

http://saints.com.au/Season2007/News/Ne ... wsId=49523

yipper · Post: # 439545Post **yipper** » Wed 22 Aug 2007 1:24pm

Bernard Shakey wrote:We don't need anyone to refute the Freo trainer's evidence.
The tribunal accepted Bakes' evidence.

We need to prove the tribunal was wrong, at law, in reaching the conclusion they did.

Exactly. And they should be able to..

Brewer · Post: # 439547Post **Brewer** » Wed 22 Aug 2007 1:25pm

Ken Sheldon on SEN now

Brewer · Post: # 439550Post **Brewer** » Wed 22 Aug 2007 1:26pm

appeal to be on several grounds, including that the tribunal says they accepted Bakers version and should therefore not find him guilty of an offence

meher baba · Post: # 439551Post **meher baba** » Wed 22 Aug 2007 1:27pm

The Club has appealed on several grounds, including the ground that, having accepted Steven Baker's account of the incident, which was supported by other witnesses, the Tribunal should not have found Baker guilty or suspended him.

Good stuff: this was always the part of the process that worried me the most. If someone giving evidence to refute the charges against them is not warned in advance that they run the risk of incriminating themselves in relation to other charges not yet brought (ie, rough conduct), then that is clearly a denial of every sort of justice: natural or even unnatural (ie, AFL-style justice).

Brewer · Post: # 439554Post **Brewer** » Wed 22 Aug 2007 1:28pm

feels Baker gave a good account, it was accepted, supported by witnesses inc Nixon, not guilty of any offence.

We will appeal on several grounds

Brewer · Post: # 439558Post **Brewer** » Wed 22 Aug 2007 1:29pm

Appeal thursday night 5.30pm

Brewer · Post: # 439562Post **Brewer** » Wed 22 Aug 2007 1:30pm

Won't comment on whether Kirkwood's prior access to testimonies will be one of the grounds, but thought likely

Post: # 439568Post **n1ck** » Wed 22 Aug 2007 1:31pm

Thursday night?

Doesnt allow much time for court proceedings if thats what it comes down to, does it?

OneEyedSainter77 · Wed 22 Aug 2007 1:35pm

Thursday night... thanks a lot AFL.... you know what - I don't care about 2007 anymore... I say if we lose this appeal, we take it to court and forfeit the game against west coast if they won't move it to let us appeal.... OK, think the anger has set in too much now.... time for me to calm down.

saint66au · Post: # 439591Post **saint66au** » Wed 22 Aug 2007 1:41pm

OneEyedSainter77 wrote:Thursday night... thanks a lot AFL.... you know what - I don't care about 2007 anymore... I say if we lose this appeal, we take it to court and forfeit the game against west coast if they won't move it to let us appeal.... OK, think the anger has set in too much now.... time for me to calm down.

Good idea

The extra day will allow us to mount a strong chellenge

Its gonna be all or nothing..we arent appealing the severity but the actual verdict...so it will be either thrown out or upheld IMHO

The_Dud · Post: # 439598Post **The_Dud** » Wed 22 Aug 2007 1:42pm

i'm sure they can argue strongly that the agreed events went exactly the same as the Whelan-Ball shepard, which he got nothing for, even tho the resulting injuries were worse

if he doesn't get off, he should at least get his sentence reduced

on the news they said its the largest sentence handed out by the tribunial in 10 years, since Diesel got 9 weeks for pushing the umpire

Halo Halo · Post: # 439626Post **Halo Halo** » Wed 22 Aug 2007 1:51pm

Im glad we are appealling this f@cked tribunal decision. If we didnt I would have been p@ssed at the club for being gutless.. Its about time we stood up to them.. Regardless of the outcome I am glad we are showing them (THE AFL) that we have had enough of the crap they dish out!!

HarveysDeciple · Wed 22 Aug 2007 1:55pm

Bottom line is they said he initiated contact.......like every player who has ever applied a shepherd has done.
And every forward who has put on a 'screen' so another forward can lead into space.
Nothing indicates it is anything other then a free kick.

bigred · Post: # 439640Post **bigred** » Wed 22 Aug 2007 1:58pm

At the very least I would use it as an opportunity to grandstand...

Pay 10k and quite honestly stand up and give the panel, and the fkn system a red hot serve.

cowboy18 · Post: # 439651Post **cowboy18** » Wed 22 Aug 2007 2:02pm

I still think we should gamble and use the outcome as a sponsorship opportunity.

Caps and shirts from these guys for Bakes, Archie and Rod?

Krikkett · Post: # 439658Post **Krikkett** » Wed 22 Aug 2007 2:06pm

JeffDunne wrote:I have a feeling the club will try and prove the trainer was lying.

If we can do that, I expect not only to have the sentenced overturned on appeal but to sue the lying sack of s***.

Sorry to shoot you down, but the evidence given by the trainer was discarded.

Bakes dobbed himself in.

meher baba · Post: # 439661Post **meher baba** » Wed 22 Aug 2007 2:07pm

Can we still name Baker in the team pending the result of the appeal? If not, then he would presumably be forced to miss the game against the Eagles regardless of the outcome of the appeal.

HarveysDeciple · Wed 22 Aug 2007 2:08pm

Krikkett wrote:

Bakes dobbed himself in.

for a non-reportable offence...

meher baba · Post: # 439665Post **meher baba** » Wed 22 Aug 2007 2:10pm

Brewer wrote:Won't comment on whether Kirkwood's prior access to testimonies will be one of the grounds, but thought likely

But that's a purely technical point, isn't it, given that Kirkwood's evidence was rejected by the Tribunal.

Surely more to the point is the fact that Kirkwood's evidence was the main grounds for the case going to the Tribunal in the first place which brings us back to the point I raised earlier about Baker being convicted on his own evidence without (presumably) being advised that he was facing this risk.