Athletes breaking the law

[BoyBrumby]

Haha nah most of us just didn't really care. Especially younger cricket fans. You compare it to drug-taking, I would compare it to something like pulling shirts at corners and getting away with it.

In take your point, but no football followers are seriously suggesting that shirt pulling is ok though; ditto union fans with #9s feeding their scrum. Both are obvious infringements that, for whatever reason (piss weak officiating is my personal guess) just aren't enforced.

I don't think any cricket followers were saying chucking was fine and groovy. Lots of otherwise sane people were sticking to the "tested in a lab, no change since, within fifteen degrees, yadda, yadda" lines. Admittedly others were probably in the "meh" camp, as were some cycling fans over Mr Armstrong.

I'm in no way suggesting that Ajmal has been a shop-steward for chucking in the same way as Armstrong was, but he's been merrily throwing away for over half a decade now and this obvious and continued transgression has undoubtedly benefitted Pakistani cricket.

 

[sledger]

Ched Evans?

 

[social]

Ched Evans?

Honestly wouldn't surprise me if he were innocent

 

[sledger]

Well, maybe. But that wasn't really the type of discussion I was looking to evoke. There's a lot of debate going on here about whether he should be banned from playing football ever again (assuming his conviction is safe - there's a fast track enquiry into this being made at present).

I'm very much of the opinion that there should be no prohibition imposed on him playing again. I'd have no problem with Sheff Utd sacking him, and if no other club wants to touch him with a barge pole then that is obviously fine as well. But I think it would be extremely wrong for any professional body to actively ban him. He has served the punishment imposed on him by the criminal justice system, and in my eyes that should be that. If you think he should have been punished more heavily in the first place (and I believe this can be quite convincingly argued) then this is a gripe to be had with the criminal justice system, not anyone else.

 

[Tom Halsey]

Yeah agree with Sledger.

I haven't looked into the case in too much detail but I have to confess I am confused as to how two men had *** with a woman and she was too drunk to consent for one of them but not the other.

 

[Pothas]

Yeah that has always been a little hard to understand but even if he is judged technically innocent after this latest appeal then his actions are still that of a complete ****.

He should definitely be allowed to play, just like most people I would never want him playing for my club.

 

[cpr]

Yeah agree with Sledger.

I haven't looked into the case in too much detail but I have to confess I am confused as to how two men had *** with a woman and she was too drunk to consent for one of them but not the other.

I guess if one of them was offside when they stuck it in....

 

[sledger]

I guess if one of them was offside when they stuck it in....

That would actually be a somewhat plausible explanation tbh. If you're implying what I think you are, anyway. Consent to one act is not a consent to all, after all...

That said, if the prosecution rested on the fact that she was too drunk to consent at all this wouldn't really make sense. Unless a higher standard of informed consent is required for different ***ual acts of course...

 

[Lillian Thomson]

Yeah agree with Sledger.

I haven't looked into the case in too much detail but I have to confess I am confused as to how two men had *** with a woman and she was too drunk to consent for one of them but not the other.

Perhaps it was the spiked bottle of brandy she drank in between bonks.

 

[sledger]

Perhaps it was the spiked bottle of brandy she drank in between bonks.

I heard the brandy was administered through a turkey baster.

 

[fredfertang]

Yeah agree with Sledger.

I haven't looked into the case in too much detail but I have to confess I am confused as to how two men had *** with a woman and she was too drunk to consent for one of them but not the other.

I haven't seen that satisfactorily explained anywhere - on the face of it the jury's verdict is perverse, a ground of appeal in itself, so there must be something more to it, and something that those in Mr Evans camp are not falling over themselves to point out

 

[sledger]

Yeah, the fact that no attempt was made (so far as I could see anyway) at an appeal is probably pretty telling.

 

[fredfertang]

I wondered briefly if it might have something to do with exactly where the forensic material was located .....................................................................

 

[GIMH]

For me the fact McDonald was found not guilty weighs against Evans.

But as Pothas said, rape or not what he did was despicable anyway.

 

[BoyBrumby]

It's the lack of remorse I find galling.

As Pothas & Coz have said, even if the conviction is overturned his actions are those of a scumbag ***ual predator.

Can't believe his missus has stood by him; best case scenario is he cheated on her with a random drunken lass his mate had pulled.

 

[GIMH]

It's the lack of remorse I find galling.

As Pothas & Coz have said, even if the conviction is overturned his actions are those of a scumbag ***ual predator.

Can't believe his missus has stood by him; best case scenario is he cheated on her with a random drunken lass his mate had pulled.

Yep even if he doesn't think it was rape he should still accept he took advantage and show remorse on that basis

 

[social]

The guy is obviously a low-life

Only quote I have read of his was something like "Sorry I cheated on my bird but the other one was definitely up for it"

I don't think that he should be banned (served his time, et) but I wouldn't want him at my club

 

[Quaggas]

https://www.insidehighered.com/news...-lawmakers-would-require-students-get-yes-***

 

[Magrat Garlick]

Yeah could you all please take the blurred lines stuff elsewhere? It's not really relevant to the topic and the court has made a decision in the particular case, having actually heard some evidence and ****.

Bringing us back, I'm slightly uncomfortable with the 'natural justice' line of thinking cpr and some others brought up: that basically enforces the morality of corporations with money. But yeah TINA...

 

[fredfertang]

I haven't seen that satisfactorily explained anywhere - on the face of it the jury's verdict is perverse, a ground of appeal in itself, so there must be something more to it, and something that those in Mr Evans camp are not falling over themselves to point out

But today I spoke to someone who was able to explain - the aggrieved went to the co-d's room and had *** with him whereupon Evans wandered in and decided to stir the porridge - So presumably the jury concluded that the aggrieved looked sufficiently sober on entering the hotel that they thought she might have consented to having *** with the first man (don't forget a reasonable doubt is all that is needed for an acquittal) but they found it a step too far that she was in a fit state to consent to his mate coming in and having a go - perfectly logical, in no way perverse and Evans clearly a total **** - I wish he'd shut up about this appeal because it's obviously going absolutely nowhere