CONFIRMED: We are appealing

[OnTheFence]

The relevance is that what Baker did,is by no means excusable and never has been and never will be considered acceptable in our game.

Excuse me Mr SplintersuptheAr$e, but what did Baker do exactly? The problem is that no-one really knows, Baker by his own admission was merely blocking Farmers run! That is completely acceptable in our game and always has been! I played the game as well and that is standard procedure everywhere our great game is played!!!!!

And therein lays the rub - he shouldn't be found guilty because there is no evidence, and he did nothing against the rules.

To put it in very simple layman's terms, he blind-sided another player and took him out of the game. By any reading of the available reports this is indisputably what happened.

If you are in denial you will never see that.

And Stinger you can put it up as many times as you like, the increased posts will no doubt get you to legend status.

I just choose to ignore you.

[hobbo]

lmao i love it

[aussierules0k]

[Dis Believer]

To put it in very simple layman's terms, he blind-sided another player and took him out of the game. By any reading of the available reports this is indisputably what happened.

FROGSHYTE:

He did not blindside anyone - Farmer ran into him - which part of that do you not get - the only report to the contrary was from the Freo runner who contradicted Farmers own testimony and proved unreliable as a witness. Which part of this do you not get - it is a fit up. Geez mate , get a clue. Big bad Baker did not do anything wrong - Freo lost again, missed the finals again as a result, and AGAIN went squealing to the AFL.

[saintsRrising]

Geez...I duck out to a work do...and yet another Freo Troll comes onto the forum..

Or is On The Fence just Perple haze by another name.

Fact 1/ We put Freo out of the finals. You are GONE!!! Deal with it.

Despite whatever the Tribunal says Farmer ran into Bakes and knocked himself out. Which sums up Farmers career.

Fact 3/ The only people that have lied through their teeth about this and have proven themselves to have NO morals are Freo's Trainer, Coach and Farmer....who have all ACTIVELY and blatantly lied.



Question or not whether Bakes should not have blocked ot not....but at least his action was in the heat of the moment.


Whereas Freos Coch, Trainer and player after due reflection have all conspired to blatantly lie through their teeth. Cowards and liers all. That is the type of weak pr***s you support

[QueenC]

By any reading of the available reports this is indisputably what happened.

OnTheFence, I can understand what you mean and agree with you, when you say that any player deliberately attacking another player anywhere on the field, but off the ball for these purposes, has no place in our game.

I was thrilled that Johnson copped the suspension that he did after watching his hit on Daniel Bell on Friday night. You are right - it has no place.

But the problem I have from here on out is that we (the public and the tribunal) actually have no independent proof that can make what happened in this particular incident indisputable. I have been arguing on Demonland (and I have been on the end of it quite a bit) with those that think that the decision was right because of the outcome and therefore they assume that Baker "sniped" Farmer. But assumption is all that we have.

Instead the Tribunal say that they believed Bakers account of the incident and he said that Farmer ran into the back of him after he stopped in front of him, most probably trying to impede Farmers forward run. We also don't know if he was looking to physically block him or just hold him up.

But there is a fundamental problem here that doesn't make any sense........
If they believe Baker is telling the gods honest truth then how is it that he still gets suspended?
If they don't believe him then why not just say so?
And if they really don't what is their proof that something else actually occurred?

The lack of evidence in this whole thing about the finer points of what actually happened is what is in dispute (Farmers injury cannot be factored in here either) and those finer points can never be proven one way or another.

Oh and I am not a Saints supporter so this is coming from someone fairly, or at least more, independent !!!

[aussierules0k]

[Grimfang]

The tribunal discarded Farmer's evidence as untrustworthy. They accepted Baker's version of events. Therefore, it does not discard the possibility that Farmer saw Baker move into his line and tried to flatten him but stuffed it up.


It also doesn't preclude Farmer having dazed himself in the collision with Baker and doing the majority of the damage when he hit the TD surface face-first.

The tribunal decision was reached on assumption and we all know what happens when you assume.....

[OnTheFence]

I would love to see a full transcript of this case, because it would show how much of the hysteria has been whipped up about what journalists have said vs what the tribunal said. e.g.

*Did the tribunal say they accepted Baker's version of events or they relied upon it in determining the case? I haven't seen a quote that said they believed everything he said.
*What exactly did the Freo trainer say he saw? It was demonstrated that he was not accurate with where the play was, does that make him a liar or mistaken?
* Did the tribunal actually discard all of Farmer's testimony? Did they say it was untrustworthy because he was a player or because of what he said? Other posters are making a big issue of Farmer either not seeing or supposedly lying about not seeing Baker in front of him, if Baker had been in front of Farmer but to one side out of his line of sight he would not have seen him.
*Did Farmer say he was standing still or did a journalist add that. In the only quote I have seen Farmer says he was watching the play.

And what lie did Mark Harvey tell? I heard him give an opinion that Michael Voss may not want to testify because of the complication of his brother playing for the Saints. Is that his big sin?

[Grimfang]

From Baker has four points with appeal

"At the prompting of tribunal chairman John Hassett, a retired Victorian County Court judge, jury spokesman Wayne Henwood said the panel accepted Baker's evidence over Fremantle's."

[megs4#31]

I was discussing this with my dad last night who is what you could call a bombers supporter if that and we decided that:

Farmer musn't have been looking where he was going otherwise he would've known bakes was nearby and been aware.
This incident isn't very much different to the Kosi/Gian incident except that was intentionaly worse.
If this doesnt set a precendent for basically knocking out sheparding of the game then its just the stkilda tribunal crap again.
Demetriou is destroying this game!

and i also want to know.

how much damage was inflicted due to farmer hitting bakes head and how much damage was made hitting the TD ground? how can they deem how much of farmers injuries are bakes actual fault?

stupid afl, i'm starting to get disappointed with them. will never stop supporting my boys but at this rate i'm not going to enjoy any game i watch ever again.

[mandystkilda]

I think it really suxs what has happened to Baker. I hope the appeal is in our favor. I have only been a saints fan for 10 years and going games for 5, can some one please answer me this question. When was the last time an opposition player was suspended for knocking out, knocking unconscious, smashing collar bones or just causing harm to a st kilda player? If we are such a clumsy team if it is always our fault when we get hurt/ injured the other teams must be damn losers when we beat them. Just one more thing, If you are a saints fan be at the Telstra Dome on friday night be loud, scream, cheer and make some noise. Lets smash the Eagles like we did in Round 9 2004 Telstra Dome
St Kilda 26/13/169 D West Coast 9/14/68 by 101 points. Success is the best revenge

[Saints94]

obvisoly we need him for argublay a mini final against a quality side in the weagles with maxy and harves out its a must for us to contest bakers 7 week suspension

[saint66au]

I would love to see a full transcript of this case, because it would show how much of the hysteria has been whipped up about what journalists have said vs what the tribunal said. e.g.

*Did the tribunal say they accepted Baker's version of events or they relied upon it in determining the case? I haven't seen a quote that said they believed everything he said.
*What exactly did the Freo trainer say he saw? It was demonstrated that he was not accurate with where the play was, does that make him a liar or mistaken?
* Did the tribunal actually discard all of Farmer's testimony? Did they say it was untrustworthy because he was a player or because of what he said? Other posters are making a big issue of Farmer either not seeing or supposedly lying about not seeing Baker in front of him, if Baker had been in front of Farmer but to one side out of his line of sight he would not have seen him.
*Did Farmer say he was standing still or did a journalist add that. In the only quote I have seen Farmer says he was watching the play.

And what lie did Mark Harvey tell? I heard him give an opinion that Michael Voss may not want to testify because of the complication of his brother playing for the Saints. Is that his big sin?

*They accepted Bakers version of events, ergo Farmerws evidence was discounted as ity wildly conflicted.

* Freo's trainer's version of events was discounted because it was proven via photographic evidence that the ball was NOT where the trainer said it was. He also admitted that his view was obscured, after previously stating he had a clear view of the incident.

* Mark Harvey queried the morality of Voss giving evidence on family grounds, yet pumped the tyres of his own trainer for coming forward. Blood ties apart, Michael Voss is still a registered Brisbane player..you know , Brisbane, the side needing St Kilda to drop games so they can make the eight!!

[saintsRrising]

So summing things up..

M Voss lies about having seen something

Freo Trainer lies through his teeth..and is provena lier by the still cameras
Farmer lies...

Yet Baker tells the truth.....but suspends him anyway just because Farmer had a broken nose.


Reason for the suspension is not what Baker did....but the outcome to Baker.



Now if Baker had gone to the tribunal and LIED.....

Lewis, who was also an AFL investigator, said Baker could have said he felt contact to the back of his head and didn't know who it was until he looked around and saw Farmer.

"He could have also said he was merely standing there and Farmer ran into the back of him," he said.

"What evidence have they got to contradict him."


....and if he had the Tribunal would happily have thrown out the case.



So go figure eh????????????????????

[saintDal]

On the radio over here in Perth I heard that Baker risks getting more weeks.

Is this true or this just some idiot who has no idea?

[n1ck]

I dont think thats possible.






..... is it?

[Brewer]

*Did the tribunal say they accepted Baker's version of events or they relied upon it in determining the case? I haven't seen a quote that said they believed everything he said.

The tribunal accepted Baker's version of events as true.

*What exactly did the Freo trainer say he saw? It was demonstrated that he was not accurate with where the play was, does that make him a liar or mistaken?

It doesn't matter. It makes him a useless witness either way.

* Did the tribunal actually discard all of Farmer's testimony? Did they say it was untrustworthy because he was a player or because of what he said? Other posters are making a big issue of Farmer either not seeing or supposedly lying about not seeing Baker in front of him, if Baker had been in front of Farmer but to one side out of his line of sight he would not have seen him.

Farmer's version did not agree with EITHER Kirkwood's version OR Baker's version, OR Nixon's version (which agreed with Baker's). Therefore, Farmer is EITHER lying OR mistaken and again, that means his testimony isn't worth squat.

*Did Farmer say he was standing still or did a journalist add that. In the only quote I have seen Farmer says he was watching the play.

He said he was STANDING watching the play.

And what lie did Mark Harvey tell? I heard him give an opinion that Michael Voss may not want to testify because of the complication of his brother playing for the Saints. Is that his big sin?

Harvey implied that Voss would have agreed with (one or other of) Freo's versions, but that he is somehow staying quiet for the benefit of his little brother. There was absolutely no basis for putting this rubbish out there, it is not true, Voss did NOT see the actual incident, he said TWICE on the night that he didn't see it, and THAT is why he is not testifying.

Voss is guilty of making a stupid statement on the night, to the effect that Baker would be in trouble if there was video footage. Then he realised he should shut his fat mouth because he DID NOT see the actual incident and if it was found that Baker didn't do anything wrong, the lawyers might be interested in speaking to Voss.

Nice try to make it all seem like poor little Freo are being fitted up by a Vic conspiracy, but it's all crap I'm afraid.

[stinger]

[

And Stinger you can put it up as many times as you like,

I just choose to ignore you.

that ignoring me is it...you are as thick as two short planks you little troll turd......ffs.....

[Mr X from the West]

I think what s***s us most about the decision to rub Bakes out for 7 weeks is that everyone, initially, thought that there had been an incident behind the play (king hit?) and that Bakes was "gorn".

Then we find out that Bakes didn't in fact hit Farmer at all but rather that there was a clash of heads, Bakes gets a lump on the back of his and Farmer gets concussion. On hearing this, we all breathe a collective sigh of relief.

But he then gets rubbed out for 7 weeks.

How? Why? What did he do wrong? I'm still yet to hear a coherent explanation of how Baker can get rubbed out for 7 weeks for not hitting anyone. I need the tribunal to explain to me EXACTLY what happened and why Baker should be rubbed out for 7 weeks. I don't want mumbo jumbo explanations about recklessness and blocking, I want them to explain PRECISELY what happened, and what Baker is guilty of, without cloudy, meaningless, vague reference to AFL rules.

[Halo Halo]

well the appeal starts in fifteen minutes - Im hoping it doesnt go half as long as the last Tribunal appearance..

Im leaving work now - Im sure I will hear the outcome on the radio - Good Luck Bakes (I reckon you might need it mate)

[OnTheFence]

Here are a few more details for you. I don't expect it to change anyone's opinion, but maybe there are some open minds out there.

The Fremantle trainer saw the incident. He did not later change that to he didn't really see it, he added that he did not see the actual point of impact because it was obscured by Farmer's body. It was proven that he was mistaken about where the actual play was, big deal. That just shows he wasn't watching the play, because he was watching the collision. His testimony was discounted because he said Farmer was running while Farmer said he wasn't, also big deal. Farmer was concussed and is under a percieved obligation to muddy the waters anyway. After the whole Campbell Brown affair you would have thought Farmer's testimony wouldn't have even been called on.

The trainer said that Baker came at Farmer from a 45 degree angle, consistent with Baker's reports of a bump on the back left side of his head (Real Footy 22/8, reported elsewhere as behind the ear). If Baker had been directly in front and Farmer had just cannoned into him, as has been suggested, the bump would be right at the back of the skull.

The whole "stop and prop" defense is actually a furphy:
Baker said he had initially been about five metres ahead of Farmer but when the Docker forward got within about a metre of him he checked his stride and jumped into Farmer's path. Real Footy 22/8

Baker himself gives the game away under cross-examination:
"You on your own account gave him no chance of avoiding coming into contact with you?" Tinney asked, to which Baker replied: "That's right." Herald Sun 21/8

http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/ ... 61,00.html
http://www.realfooty.com.au/articles/20 ... 65162.html

My opinion? (as if anyone cares) Your little Stevie Baker split Farmer up the middle with a good old fashioned shirt-front, off the ball, while he wasn't aware that he should be expecting contact. The resulting head-clash was probably inconsequential, as I would suspect that there is a tooth mark on the top of Baker's shoulder where it connected with Jeffrey's mouth.

Anyway, with the appeal result all will be much clearer won't it?

I will now leave you all to get on with your bleating. Thank you for allowing me to "troll" your site free from the mindless abuse that sometimes happens when you allow people who haven't yet reached puberty to have access to a computer.

Oh, and Stinger, I also choose when to ignore you.[/url]

[Mr Magic]

Goodbye Mr Splinterupthear$e.

If I was you I would have that piece of timber removed because it is obviously diseased and impairing your thought processes. Do you reckon it became diseased before or after you sat on it?

Why on earth any sane person would come on to an opposition fan forum, post his bile, and expect to sway any opinions defies logic. But then again you are affected by the 'purple haze' aren't you?

In the words of your beloved, history infused, Freo theme song

Heave Ho
Way to go
Splinter up the Ar$e
Is a numbnuts ho

Heave Ho
Way to go

We are the Freo Wankers

[Mr X from the West]

"The trainer said that Baker came at Farmer from a 45 degree angle, consistent with Baker's reports of a bump on the back left side of his head (Real Footy 22/8, reported elsewhere as behind the ear)".

How the f*** is the bump on Baker's head consistent with him approaching Farmer at 45 degrees? Where is the nexus between those two things? What is the freeking relevance of Baker's angle of approach?

Mate, you've been watching too many episodes of "Air Crash Investigations".

If you're going to come on here speaking s***, at least make it funny or otherwise remotely sensible.

[QueenC]

how much damage was inflicted due to farmer hitting bakes head and how much damage was made hitting the TD ground? how can they deem how much of farmers injuries are bakes actual fault?

Hell, Farmer could have been abducted by aliens and dropped back to earth for all we know.

If Baker had attacked Farmer then he deserves all he gets, but no-one can prove that that actually happened.

Bakers own testimony, which is being used to hang him (I find this ironic) states that he stopped in front of Farmer, and him crashing into the back of him is what that caused the injury.

But unfortunately there is an assumption of guilt, it happens a lot (we tend to get it where Pickett is concerned. He is who is is so he must be guilty of something), it is in the general footy public and also in the tribunal.

Unfortunately that assumption seems to trump basic common sense in that to condemn anyone of any wrong doing in this world you really should have proof of the offence.

I'm sorry guys, I really am .........