I just had a look at the article: https://www.theage.com.au/sport/afl/why-swans-stood-down-taylor-but-pies-let-de-goey-play-20200916-p55wcl.html.
There is some serious disingenuity. It is repeatedly stated that Collingwood and De Goey don't know anything about the details of the crime he is charged with. For instance:
Collingwood, on the other hand, do not know the detail of the allegations against their player. De Goey and his lawyer Tony Hargreaves have not yet received the brief for the charge, despite several requests.
Collingwood's position is that they cannot stand down De Goey when the club does not know the nature of the allegations. De Goey has told the club he does not know what happened to bring the charges.That the police have not yet detailed the charges against De Goey has taken the decision on his immediate playing future out of Collingwood's, and the AFL's, hands.
Once the Magpies know what's been alleged against their star, they will have to make a call. It's easy to let him play when there's nothing specific to defend.
This is such bollocks! While it is possible De Goey has not received the brief of evidence, he and his lawyer will certainly have a copy of the facts the police alleged when the charge was laid. This will set out the details of the crime the police are alleging. Without this the charge could not have been laid. The brief contains the evidence and gives a clearer indication of the strength of the case, not the details of the allegations.
Despite this, there are some valid points and it may well be a reasonable decision not to stand De Goey down. If the club have no idea of the strength of the case and he could be facing years before the case is resolved and he may or may not ever be found guilty, I think that is a reasonable basis to allow him to keep playing in the interim.
Bookmarks