Goodes Cleared

bendigo bob · Tue 01 Apr 2008 5:24pm

What a joke. Same bloke who got Hall off.

esaint66 · Post: # 540724Post **esaint66** » Tue 01 Apr 2008 5:24pm

bendigo bob wrote:What a joke. Same bloke who got Hall off.

Jesus christ. Must be a life member of the swans by now.

Post: # 540725Post **n1ck** » Tue 01 Apr 2008 5:25pm

Did we expect anything else?

Fair dinkum.

esaint66 · Post: # 540727Post **esaint66** » Tue 01 Apr 2008 5:28pm

n1ck wrote:Did we expect anything else?

Fair dinkum.

I expected a match at least.

clear contact to the head and thomas was clearly hurt.

If not we better take simon o'donnels nickname off him and give it to thomas.

esaint66 · Post: # 540729Post **esaint66** » Tue 01 Apr 2008 5:29pm

In case you didnt know it was scuba.

guessing you probably all did.
i'll shut up now

super dooper · Tue 01 Apr 2008 5:31pm

Honestly doesnt suprise me what so ever, they are a protected species up north of this state and get everything they ask for.

On a bright side, he is in my afl DT, but still it is shocking how he always gets off

Milne · Post: # 540733Post **Milne** » Tue 01 Apr 2008 5:33pm

I want to know who honestly thought he wouldn't get off.
I'll never see a stkilda player in my life time not get at least one week for what he did.

Mr Magic · Post: # 540734Post **Mr Magic** » Tue 01 Apr 2008 5:36pm

Apparently (according to Ch9) the Tribunal decided that the 'hit' was an accident.

This is not an April Fool's Day joke - they seriously ruled that the strike was an accident!

St. Luke · Post: # 540737Post **St. Luke** » Tue 01 Apr 2008 5:45pm

Typical double standard from the AFL. Apparently he gets off because the video evidence wasn't clear enough - however, IT DIDN'T STOP THE MONGRELS RUBBING BAKER OUT!!

GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

esaint66 · Post: # 540739Post **esaint66** » Tue 01 Apr 2008 5:49pm

Mr Magic wrote:Apparently (according to Ch9) the Tribunal decided that the 'hit' was an accident.

This is not an April Fool's Day joke - they seriously ruled that the strike was an accident!

ACCIDENT

what?

i suppose they probably thought he was a puppet and someone else was controlling him.

Whatever happened to those carry over points he had

What about cam howat? that footage was so poor and he got 2 origanally then 3 in the end.

get you act together afl you d**kheads.

Post: # 540740Post **n1ck** » Tue 01 Apr 2008 5:49pm

St. Luke wrote:Typical double standard from the AFL. Apparently he gets off because the video evidence wasn't clear enough - however, IT DIDN'T STOP THE MONGRELS RUBBING BAKER OUT!! GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR

Its stunning, isnt it?

st_Trav_ofWA · Tue 01 Apr 2008 5:54pm

i would of though at least one week for it

esaint66 · Post: # 540745Post **esaint66** » Tue 01 Apr 2008 5:57pm

st_Trav_ofWA wrote:
i would of though at least one week for it

that should have been what it should have been downgraded to

Solar · Post: # 540754Post **Solar** » Tue 01 Apr 2008 6:15pm

absolute joke, should have got at least a week maybe two because of his carry on points.

Anyone wonder why we can't select our best tagger this week?

Saints Premiers 2008 · Tue 01 Apr 2008 6:38pm

well at least the football world know what he is...a cheap sniper attempted goody goody racial vilifcation promoter come whinging jackass

iwantmeseats · Tue 01 Apr 2008 6:44pm

n1ck wrote:
St. Luke wrote:Typical double standard from the AFL. Apparently he gets off because the video evidence wasn't clear enough - however, IT DIDN'T STOP THE MONGRELS RUBBING BAKER OUT!! GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Its stunning, isnt it?

Video evidence was inconclusive in both cases. BUT bakes ADMITTED he had made contact, so that was it for him, he was gone from then on. Not his fault, I think it may have been sheldon that f***ed up and gave him s*** advice. Jeebus, we could really do with him in the side at the moment!

Saints Premiers 2008 · Tue 01 Apr 2008 6:50pm

political correctness gone mad...

saintbrat · Post: # 540778Post **saintbrat** » Tue 01 Apr 2008 7:10pm

Nick D'arcy neeeds his legal team

Ralphy · Post: # 540782Post **Ralphy** » Tue 01 Apr 2008 7:14pm

its stupid, baker gets 7 weeks for the same type of thing and doesnt get off,

goodes won 2 brownlows gets off

its stupid

LENNY LEADS THE WAY · Tue 01 Apr 2008 7:18pm

ralphysaints35 wrote:its stupid, baker gets 7 weeks for the same type of thing and doesnt get off,

goodes won 2 brownlows gets off

its stupid

esaint66 · Post: # 540784Post **esaint66** » Tue 01 Apr 2008 7:18pm

ralphysaints35 wrote:its stupid, baker gets 7 weeks for the same type of thing and doesnt get off,

goodes won 2 brownlows gets off

its stupid

hey hey hey stupid descison i know but lets not make it stupid from your end by makeing it rascist.

Enrico_Misso · Tue 01 Apr 2008 7:18pm

ralphysaints35 wrote:its stupid, baker gets 7 weeks for the same type of thing and doesnt get off,

goodes cause he is black most likely and won 2 brownlows gets off

its stupid

Baker gets rubbed out for attempting to strike.
Goodes gets let off because it was "unintentional"

Baker plays for StKilda
Goodes is black and plays for the AFL's b@stard love child.

LENNY LEADS THE WAY · Tue 01 Apr 2008 7:20pm

Enrico_Misso wrote:
ralphysaints35 wrote:its stupid, baker gets 7 weeks for the same type of thing and doesnt get off,

goodes won 2 brownlows gets off

its stupid
Baker gets rubbed out for attempting to strike.
Goodes gets let off because it was "unintentional"

Baker plays for StKilda
Goodes plays for the AFL's b@stard love child.

Mr Magic · Post: # 540788Post **Mr Magic** » Tue 01 Apr 2008 7:22pm

iwantmeseats wrote:
n1ck wrote:
St. Luke wrote:Typical double standard from the AFL. Apparently he gets off because the video evidence wasn't clear enough - however, IT DIDN'T STOP THE MONGRELS RUBBING BAKER OUT!! GRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
Its stunning, isnt it?
Video evidence was inconclusive in both cases. BUT bakes ADMITTED he had made contact, so that was it for him, he was gone from then on. Not his fault, I think it may have been sheldon that f***ed up and gave him s*** advice. Jeebus, we could really do with him in the side at the moment!

But, without wishing to go over old ground, he should have never been made to testify.

The Tribunal case was based on an AFL Investigation into what happened. It, the Tribunal case, was called based solely on the evidence of the Freo Trainer who claimed he saw Baker strike Farmer.
When he was cross-examined by Baker's lawyer he, the Freo Trainer, admitted he never actually saw Baker 'strike'. The Tribunal case should have ended there and then because it had been convende under false evidence - that the trainer saw Baker 'strike' when he in fact admitted that he didn't.

Baker should never have been then forced to give his evidence as there should not have been a case.

I'm not a lawyer but I reckon Baker could have easily had the Tribunal decisoin overturned by a Court.

BUT, there is no doubt in my mind he is a 'target' for the AFL because of 4 previous issues
1. When he struck Johnson and GT tried to soften the blow by publicly claiming he was concussed at the time.
2. When he niggled Judd so effectively that Judd lashed out and got rubbed out.
3. WHen his lawyer successfully argued that he shouldn't get punished twice for incidents in the same game, therby making the Tribunal and the AFL Rules look like idiots.
4. When he was given weeks for kicking Alessio when Alessio was standing on his foot. The general uproar over the Tribunal decisoin made both the AFL and Tribunal look like idiots.

In every case he has 'humiliated' either the Tribunal or the AFL itself and the AFL has shown a severe dislike for anybody or anything that humiliates them.

He has been given inordinate punishments in comparison to other players and the only blame that can be laid at his feet is that he continues to put himself into situations that allow the Tribunal/AFL to 'whack' him..

Ralphy · Post: # 540789Post **Ralphy** » Tue 01 Apr 2008 7:24pm

what post

Goodes Cleared

Goodes Cleared

Re: Goodes Cleared