AFL Investigations and no early plea discount flaw!

[saintspremiers]

The Baker case showed up a huge and unfair flaw in the tribunal process.

Any situation that the AFL decides should be investigated if found to have a case to answer goes straight to the tribunal, therefore eliminating the 25% early plea discount option.

Sure, if the MRP finds a case whereby it sends it straight to the tribunal then I can understand no early plea discount, but not when the MRP miss it (ie. Bakes) and the investigators from the AFL look into it.

It's is grossly unfair and predujiced against the player.

Don't know if Bakes would've accepted say 5 weeks instead of 7 with an early plea, but the fact is he never even had that option.

Let's take the forkers to court once the season is over and draw has been released on this point IMO.

[JeffDunne]

Yep, but apparantly our QC believes there weren't grounds to challenge their system.

Throw in the fact the 'evidence' used to lay the charge in the first place was proven to be a lie but they continued the hearing regardless.

And while I'm ranting, Barry Kirkwood was given a copy of Baker's statement to the investigators.

No grounds to challenge? I'd like to know why.

[meher baba]

Look, the whole current AFL tribunal system is a farce, as was the previous one involving Mr Collis QC (so who'd trust a QC anyway).

The AFL has never really thought through why it has a tribunal system or what it is trying to achieve with it. The whole system has evolved through an endless process of ad hocery.

The whole idea of a discount for a "guilty plea" sucks anyway. If you are going to appoint people to a tribunal, why not get them to make decisions. It's not like a court where there is a massive cost for all concerned associated with every day that passes before it is resolved. Here we are simply talking about players receiving their final sentences on a Monday instead of a Tuesday.

The Barry Hall case showed that the AFL had no qualms about manipulating the system to achieve whatever outcome it desires. The Baker case last week was simply another example: the AFL really would much prefer to see Baker back playing for Colac or wherever it is he came from. And yet Baker is a far cleaner player than Hall or Buchanan or many other Swans, and rubbing him out for 7 weeks does nothing to promote fair play in the code.

Buchanan should have gotten a longer suspension as an example. He should certainly have at least missed a finals game.

What a load of garbage.

[Mr X from the West]

Look, the whole current AFL tribunal system is a farce, as was the previous one involving Mr Collis QC (so who'd trust a QC anyway).

The AFL has never really thought through why it has a tribunal system or what it is trying to achieve with it. The whole system has evolved through an endless process of ad hocery.

The whole idea of a discount for a "guilty plea" sucks anyway. If you are going to appoint people to a tribunal, why not get them to make decisions. It's not like a court where there is a massive cost for all concerned associated with every day that passes before it is resolved. Here we are simply talking about players receiving their final sentences on a Monday instead of a Tuesday.

The Barry Hall case showed that the AFL had no qualms about manipulating the system to achieve whatever outcome it desires. The Baker case last week was simply another example: the AFL really would much prefer to see Baker back playing for Colac or wherever it is he came from. And yet Baker is a far cleaner player than Hall or Buchanan or many other Swans, and rubbing him out for 7 weeks does nothing to promote fair play in the code.

Buchanan should have gotten a longer suspension as an example. He should certainly have at least missed a finals game.

What a load of garbage.

Absolutely correct.

The only point you didn't raise is that the AFL can also manipulate the Tribunal to carry out its agenda (ie stamp out by applying ridiculous punishment any incident involving head high contact).

[Carl Mynott]

I thought Mr Anderson was hired because he was a legal guru,he in fact must have been a leagle laughing stock,hence the reason he chose to work beside dumbwit and turn a mockery into a farce......

[my les foote]

Baker was stitched up from the start.

Like most tribunal / MRP decisions, they work out the penalty first then they manipulate their incredibly vague criteria to give the appropriate number of weeks.

Or in the case of Barry Hall they want to be seen to be punishing the player by giving him a week or two but leave a loop hole that you can drive a semi trailer through. In that way they take the focus off the other criteria that they have bent to give him such a small penalty to start with. Then the Swans lawyers can come in and say according to your laws, he was actually "in play"

I'm sure the AFL DO have film of the Farmer incident but chose not to show it because it didn't support their aganda of getting rid of Steven Baker for 7 weeks.

So they open an investigation into the incident based on testimony that is later shown to be inaccurate.

They provide Baker's statement to the other witnesses.

They withhold the vital evidence that would have exonerated Bakes.

I've seen enough episodes of Rafferty's Rules to know that this is just not on.