David EdwardsNick D'Arcy; AOC vs NRL
June 17th 2008 02:08
Nick D'Arcy's Beijing aspirations have finally been quashed, with a 5 hour CAS meeting yesterday ending any hopes the swimmer had of competing in the Olympics this year. Several appeals by D'Arcy have been met with the same response, a definitive no - and it is now doubtful whether D'Arcy will continue to "chase the black line", perhaps ending a swimming career before it had a chance to fully develop.
SportingMind thinks this is a fantastic outcome for sport, and emphasises the massive gulf between swimming and sports such as rugby league - in terms of how disciplinary matters are dealt with. D'Arcy had (and exercised) the right to appeal to many different boards and tribunals, however in the end was unsuccessful in all his attempts. Whilst he was kicked off the team by John Coates, Chairman of the AOC, Coates was deemed to not have the authority to do so upon appeal by D'Arcy to the Court Abitration of Sport. Thus it was forwarded to the AOC executive, who agreed that D'Arcy should be kicked off the team. D'Arcy's final appeal yesterday ended the saga, and now D'Arcy awaits a far different court hearing, that of his assault charges - which will be conducted after the other athletes leave for Beijing.
SportingMind particularly enjoyed the images of a repentant D'Arcy over the last month or so, clad in suit with spiky hair matted down in a side-part, which obviously gave the viewer the impression that he was a reformed man who had simply had a (Barry Hall) brain-snap. After all, since when has anyone with side-parted hair ever committed a felony/misdemeanour?
The difference between Rugby League and the Olympics is that Rugby League is our own little 'backward' sport, that we play in our own backyard, and all indiscretions are not parlayed to the international public. If D'Arcy was to go to the Olympics, it would further enhance the Australian international image as being a nation of rough, cockney, brutal yobbos - which is something that we as Australians should try and hide from the International community, however true this thesis may be. Conversely, if a Rugby League player is on trial for rape (i.e. Michael Crockett), he is allowed to play professional footy in the meantime, as was Anthony LaFranchi, who similarly was on a rape charge. LaFranchi was cleared of rape, when a judge found that yes, the woman was drunk, but was able to make decisions at the time. A clear cut case, get off LaFranchi's back!! LaFranchi was allowed to play footy all the way through-out the case, in fact impressing selectors so much that he was selected for the State of Origin series. Who cares about what he does off the field, as long as he's playing good footy! LaFranchi should be commended for being able to judge that the woman was not too drunk for him to guilty about taking advantage, not drunk enough to know what she was doing. As Chandler once said in Friends - "that's the perfect amount". Not sure if Mrs LaFranchi would have the same sentiments regarding her husband's actions..
SportingMind is not insinuating anything in the above paragraph, but merely highlighting the difference between the two codes. Ray Chesterton wrote a great article today in the Daily Telegraph about the image of Rugby League, and also touching on the financial greed and disloyalty of players to their clubs. Chesterton writes:
"Sexual assault allegations are too frequent, flare-ups at nightspots are commonplace, outspokenness, greed, disloyalty and anti-social attitudes invade us."
League players are unintelligible throwbacks who have been thrust into the modern world with all its temptations and pitfalls. Who knows if Dally Messenger might have got frisky with a certain Iron-lady in a Clovelly nightclub if he had the opportunity? But for SBW, a certain camera phone saw to the fact that his well-documented tryst be displayed all over the country. League players just don't realise that with cameras everywhere and men trying to pick fights with them in pubs, that they need to just settle down and realise they are merely civilians of a normal society.
So while its easy to throw the book at Nick D'Arcy, it is worth juxtaposing the treatment of rugby league players by the NRL with the treatment of D'Arcy by the AOC. SportingMind will put his hand up and say that perhaps he was one of the first to laugh and ridicule D'Arcy for his bar-room brawl, but when you compare this with the current NRL, we realise how truly backward Rugby League is.
SportingMind thinks this is a fantastic outcome for sport, and emphasises the massive gulf between swimming and sports such as rugby league - in terms of how disciplinary matters are dealt with. D'Arcy had (and exercised) the right to appeal to many different boards and tribunals, however in the end was unsuccessful in all his attempts. Whilst he was kicked off the team by John Coates, Chairman of the AOC, Coates was deemed to not have the authority to do so upon appeal by D'Arcy to the Court Abitration of Sport. Thus it was forwarded to the AOC executive, who agreed that D'Arcy should be kicked off the team. D'Arcy's final appeal yesterday ended the saga, and now D'Arcy awaits a far different court hearing, that of his assault charges - which will be conducted after the other athletes leave for Beijing.
SportingMind particularly enjoyed the images of a repentant D'Arcy over the last month or so, clad in suit with spiky hair matted down in a side-part, which obviously gave the viewer the impression that he was a reformed man who had simply had a (Barry Hall) brain-snap. After all, since when has anyone with side-parted hair ever committed a felony/misdemeanour?
The difference between Rugby League and the Olympics is that Rugby League is our own little 'backward' sport, that we play in our own backyard, and all indiscretions are not parlayed to the international public. If D'Arcy was to go to the Olympics, it would further enhance the Australian international image as being a nation of rough, cockney, brutal yobbos - which is something that we as Australians should try and hide from the International community, however true this thesis may be. Conversely, if a Rugby League player is on trial for rape (i.e. Michael Crockett), he is allowed to play professional footy in the meantime, as was Anthony LaFranchi, who similarly was on a rape charge. LaFranchi was cleared of rape, when a judge found that yes, the woman was drunk, but was able to make decisions at the time. A clear cut case, get off LaFranchi's back!! LaFranchi was allowed to play footy all the way through-out the case, in fact impressing selectors so much that he was selected for the State of Origin series. Who cares about what he does off the field, as long as he's playing good footy! LaFranchi should be commended for being able to judge that the woman was not too drunk for him to guilty about taking advantage, not drunk enough to know what she was doing. As Chandler once said in Friends - "that's the perfect amount". Not sure if Mrs LaFranchi would have the same sentiments regarding her husband's actions..
SportingMind is not insinuating anything in the above paragraph, but merely highlighting the difference between the two codes. Ray Chesterton wrote a great article today in the Daily Telegraph about the image of Rugby League, and also touching on the financial greed and disloyalty of players to their clubs. Chesterton writes:
"Sexual assault allegations are too frequent, flare-ups at nightspots are commonplace, outspokenness, greed, disloyalty and anti-social attitudes invade us."
League players are unintelligible throwbacks who have been thrust into the modern world with all its temptations and pitfalls. Who knows if Dally Messenger might have got frisky with a certain Iron-lady in a Clovelly nightclub if he had the opportunity? But for SBW, a certain camera phone saw to the fact that his well-documented tryst be displayed all over the country. League players just don't realise that with cameras everywhere and men trying to pick fights with them in pubs, that they need to just settle down and realise they are merely civilians of a normal society.
So while its easy to throw the book at Nick D'Arcy, it is worth juxtaposing the treatment of rugby league players by the NRL with the treatment of D'Arcy by the AOC. SportingMind will put his hand up and say that perhaps he was one of the first to laugh and ridicule D'Arcy for his bar-room brawl, but when you compare this with the current NRL, we realise how truly backward Rugby League is.
| 37 |
| Vote |
Shared on
Subscribe to this blog
