Further Legal action possible RB

[JeffDunne]

What if Bakes goes back top the tribunal and claims he lied in his evidence, there was no contact....cops a 7.5grand fine for lying and the case has to be thrown out for insufficient evidence ?

Actually makes a lot of sense, I think you may be onto something

It would be thrown out if it made sense.

Knowing this corrupt organisation, they'd simply say Baker is lying now and told the truth in the tribunal and rather than give him the 15K they'd add two weeks to his suspension.

Fancy expecting one of our players to get a judgement based on precendent.

[Teflon]

Theres a difference between lying and simply NOT testifying that incriminates you.

Surely a half decent QC would have at least advised him NOT to say certain things........

sometimes its better to spend 6 yrs at the school of hard knocks I think...you learn more....

[kalsaint]

if someone runs into the back of your car you dont say its my fault i shoved the brakes on suddenly & call in a witness to say you did that..you stfu & let the person who ran up your arze try to get out of it

our qc's noddy & bigears have been walking around in wigs & dresses for too long

I didnt think Bakes said it was his fault. The only faults Bakes had were:
1 He was at the scene of the incident,
2 He stopped.

He did not change direction, no witness clearly saw the contact, the usual standard of vision used as evidence was not available and Farmer cant recall events. The unfortunate situation is that someone was hurt.

Was it deliberate? Was it intentional? Was it a standard defensive play used 50 times per game? No one can say. Bakes has told the truth. Real standards applied will find him not guilty.

Sadly the QC will now have to disgrace the tribunal ruling to prove this point now. Ha ha. This wont be good for the game overall though.

[Riewoldting]

Damned if he did, damned if didn't really.

Even Bakes had not testified, the only evidence would have suggested that on the balance of probabilities he had lined Farmer up and taken him out with head-high contact.

Remember the standard of proof was on the balance of probs ... if "beyond reasonable doubt", then absolutely, shut up entirely.

But the balance of probs his only reasonable course was to give evidence to say "it was a block only, not a deliberate head-high bump"

My 2c

[Grimfang]

I notice nothing has been said about how it came to pass that Kirkwood had copies of the testimonies that witnesses had given to the investigator, prior to his having to give evidence?

Is this even going to be looked at? Cause it stinks to high heaven.

[Grimfang]

If we get an injunction, does it prevent the AFL from imposing the current ban or does it prevent the AFL from imposing any ban until the case is decided?

If it's the first option, you can guarantee the AFL will dedicate a camera to Baker's every move on the field; looking for absolutely anything to nail him on.

[satchmo]

If it's the first option, you can guarantee the AFL will dedicate a camera to Baker's every move on the field; looking for absolutely anything to nail him on.

That's going to happen anyway; Bakes will be under more scrutiny than pickett was for the rest of his carreer.

[cowboy18]

His testimony and his defence are irrelevant.


He was guilty the moment he got his points earlier this year. What was done, what was presented, what was said did not mean a thing.

[tribunalsux]

This is the last straw for me in an extreamly crap performance by the AFL this year. I am calling on all saints memebers and supporters to do something about this baker fiasco!

St.kilda MUST take this further do we need a petition?? Send one around tommorow night to convince the club we need more action!

Lets not lie down like we did with the Fremantle draw (which would have seen us in the top four) or the Gheric JUMPER PUNCH fiasco. To many times St.Kilda has been known as the nice club. Nice does not win grand finals nice is rubbish nice is for losers!

ACTION IS A MUST!! St.Kilda fans must stand united!

[QueenC]

Saints may call lawyer over Baker
By Guy Hand
August 23, 2007

ST Kilda refused to rule out legal action to have player Steven Baker's seven-match ban overturned after the AFL appeals board threw out his bid to beat the suspension.

St Kilda president Rod Butterss said the club would now think about its options after the appeals board backed the AFL Tribunal's ruling earlier this week that Baker was guilty of rough conduct over an incident which left Fremantle's Jeff Farmer with facial injuries.

Baker's seven-match ban is the biggest AFL suspension in a decade.

Not since Carlton's Greg Williams was given nine weeks for pushing a field umpire in 1997 has a player been hit so heavily, though a fair chunk of the penalty was activated by Baker's poor previous disciplinary record.

Butterss wasn't ruling out court action to have Baker's suspension overturned, and said the club would now consider its next move.

"We are extremely disappointed. We are going to go away and have a little think about it," Butterss said.

With official AFL avenues exhausted, the Saints' next step to free Baker would have to be through the legal system - a move which could open a minefield for the league's judicial process.

An ashen-faced Baker left the marathon three-hour hearing without comment, while Butterss consulted with the Saints legal team for several minutes after the hearing in a private room before emerging.

Baker will miss the Saints' final two home-and-away matches of the season, starting with its clash with West Coast at Telstra Dome.

He could also miss the first five rounds of next year should the Saints not make this season's finals.

St Kilda's legal team unsuccessfully argued the tribunal's original finding showed "considerable unfairness" in convicting Baker on the basis of his own evidence that he moved into Farmer's path to block him while the Dockers player was running at pace.

Saints counsel Philip Priest told the appeals board Baker's hefty ban for effectively telling the truth to AFL investigators and the tribunal could act as a deterrent to players doing the same in the future.

"If Mr Baker comes along and tells the truth and gets a seven-match suspension, what message does that send to players?" he told the board.

The AFL's legal counsel Andrew Tinney said Baker's admitted actions had led to Farmer's broken nose and concussion.

"He took a step which caused a violent collision. He knew the player was behind him and running fast," Tinney told the appeals board.

"He caused the collision, and the collision led to serious injury."

The Saints was also unable to convince the three-man appeals board the tribunal had erred in law by finding Baker guilty of rough conduct over the incident.

AAP
http://www.foxsports.com.au/story/0,865 ... 11,00.html