Byrnes gets 10 Weeks

[Gnostic]

Interesting that a few people seem to have forgotten that John Eales, Nobody himself, made allegations in exactly the same manner in the 99 RWC. Were those allegations followed by formal proceedings? Should John appologise to the Frogs for his complaint?

I see no problem with the making of a complaint and the white card is a great way of ensuring that complaints regarding foul play are refered if no evidence is immediately available to take action. If evidence from a video is immediately available I would like to see the TMO advise the ref accordingly and suggest Red cards. Foul play like this needs action ASAP.

 

[waratahjesus]

I agree gnostic, I think its an area that the NRl has got right were the ref can ask the TMO for his opinion on a piece of play. Aything outlandish that's missed on the field can be punished on the spot.

 

[Moses]

I'm loving the Byrnes defence, is this really what his lawyers are arguing?

"I'm not saying I said it, I'm not saying I didn't say it, but can you prove that I did say it?"

 

[Braveheart81]

I'd be surprised if the journalist, Jamie Pandaram who wrote the article doesn't come out with something.

Every comment in the article was in quotation marks indicating that they were direct quotes from Byrnes. If I was the journalist, I wouldn't want the association that things I quoted weren't actually said.

Given the volume of direct quotes in the article, it would actually be surprising if it hadn't been recorded at the time.

 

[Tiger]

Braveheart - that may be all entirely correct but the issue may be whether the tribunal can now hear evidence from Pandaram or whether the hearing has finished.

 

[fatprop]

Braveheart - that may be all entirely correct but the issue may be whether the tribunal can now hear evidence from Pandaram or whether the hearing has finished.

It will be fun either way if Pandaram has a tape of the conversation

 

[Tiger]

Agreed - this could be a bit of a balls up by SANZAR (or whoever it is that is charging him)

 

[barbarian]

I have heard the specifics of the Rebels claims, and it is quite unprecedented.

Apparently the person who Pandaram interviewed was NOT Adam Byrnes. Rather it was his evil identical twin, Vladimir Byrnes. Easy mistake to make, and the judiciary now understand the situation.

.

 

[Braveheart81]

They've reserved their decision. I imagine from here they will do more detective work to confirm that he actually said what he was quoted as saying and then rule on that basis.

If they can determine that he definitely made those statements I am sure they will find him guilty and just reject his defence.

I can't imagine they'll require another hearing.

They could just find him guilty on the assumption that they were accurate quotes. If that happens and Byrnes and the Rebels still believe he didn't say that stuff he could try suing the Telepgrah for defamation.

 

[Tiger]

No no - that's not the point - the point is whoever is charging him hasn't proved he said those words. I've got no doubt that he said them, but if all the prosecutor is relying upon is the newspaper article then Byrnes' team are entirely correct to say that's not evidence that Byrnes said it. His team is not saying that he didn't say the words, they are simply saying "you haven't proved that he did". It's very different.

PS. I'd be surprised if the tribunal could go off and do its own investigation but I'm happy to be proved wrong on that point. Anyone know for sure?

 

[Moses]

If asked, I'd expect Pandaram to protect his sources with a healthy "no comment".

This defence could rival the chewbacca...

 

[Braveheart81]

20.1.6 shall not publish or cause to be published criticism of the manner in which
Council or any other rugby disciplinary body handled or resolved any
dispute or disciplinary matter resulting from a breach of the Bye-Laws,
Regulations, or Laws of the Game;

20.1.7 shall not engage in any conduct or any activity on or off the field that may
impair public confidence in the honest and orderly conduct of a Match,
tour, tournament or Series of Matches (including, but not limited to, the
supply of information in relation to the Game, directly or indirectly, to
bookmakers) or in the integrity and good character of any Person;


From this, I don't think the burden of proof is on the SANZAR judiciary to prove that he said those things verbatim. It would seem that the fact that those comments were published would mean the judiciary only needs to be convinced that Byrnes had some involvement in them being published. I.e. being interviewed by Jamie Pandaram.

 

[vidiot]

Byrnes and the Rebels provided the defence that there was no proof that Byrnes actually said the various defamatory and inflammatory statements to the journalist that printed them.

I liked Byrnes better when he was only a weasel on the field.

 

[Ruggo]

This is a tough one. Both sides of the argument are valid. I can understand somebody being upset if accused of such a foul offence then found innocent. Mud does stick sadly. Just as important, such accusations need to be reported and tested by authorities. What I find of concern is the level of dicresion these incidents have been handled with.

 

[p.Tah]

Why are they doing this? sometimes it's better to cop it on the chin. I think people gave Byrnes the benefit of the doubt after SANZAR dismissed the 10 week ban.

Now they're going for a technicality. I may be the only one but it doesn't sit well with me. Is that what Byrnes wants to be remembered for? I had fond memories of him at the RWC cup and encouring the RUssians to come to OZ, now I just think of him fighting SANZAR? Im sure he is a decent bloke, but stop dragging this out further.

 

[Slim 293]

It's Sanzar dragging this on...

 

[Braveheart81]

Why are they doing this? sometimes it's better to cop it on the chin. I think people gave Byrnes the benefit of the doubt after SANZAR dismissed the 10 week ban.

Now they're going for a technicality. I may be the only one but it doesn't sit well with me. Is that what Byrnes wants to be remembered for? I had fond memories of him at the RWC cup and encouring the RUssians to come to OZ, now I just think of him fighting SANZAR? Im sure he is a decent bloke, but stop dragging this out further.

Exactly. The judiciary overturning the ban on appeal said more than anything Byrnes could ever have said.

Coming out and publicly attacking Carter did nothing for his reputation. He could have instead said to Jamie Pandaram that he is glad that justice had been done as he was confident he had not committed the eye gouge and everyone would have moved on and forgotten about the incident.

 

[fatprop]

If asked, I'd expect Pandaram to protect his sources with a healthy "no comment".

This defence could rival the chewbacca...

His source was supposedly Byrnes, who is denying the comment

 

[Braveheart81]

Melb Rebel Adam Byrnes fined for comments

Melissa Woods

May 2, 2012 - 10:39AM

AAP
Melbourne Rebels lock Adam Byrnes has been fined $7500 by SANZAR for his "unwarranted and serious verbal attack" on NSW centre Tom Carter.
Byrnes, who hasn't played since their round-two match after injuring his elbow, was found by judicial officer Nigel Hampton to have committed an "act of misconduct" for his comments published in Sydney's Daily Telegraph newspaper in March.
Hampton found that the interview contained "an unwarranted and serious verbal attack by Mr Byrnes on the integrity and good character of another player (Waratahs player Tom Carter), an attack such as well might impair public confidence in that other player's character and integrity".
Advertisement: Story continues below
Byrnes's comments came after Carter alleged he was eye-gouged by the Russian international during the game.
Byrnes was initially found guilty but successfully appealed the 10-week ban, with the SANZAR judiciary admitting there was no conclusive evidence.
He said Carter's actions were a "disgrace".
"I give him credit as a player, but to carry on in terms of bringing another player down and potentially ruining their livelihood, it is a very poor quality to have as a human being," Byrnes said in the interview of Carter.
"To be falsely accused with such a slanderous tag as Tom has said is extremely poor form."
Hampton said he gave credit to Byrnes' long unblemished career, but found there was no remorse shown or apology issued.
He was ordered to pay a fine of $5000 and $2500 in costs.
Byrnes has resumed full training and is hopeful of making his return to playing with the Rebels next week.

 

[Moses]

so, can he appeal the fine?