Guys keep this thread civil.

The question I have is what does the Basketball Australia's Integrity Unit do?

They were supposed to make an assessment of the player's fit to play NBL as a family oriented sport / entertainment.

Now they are just going to wait until the verdict.

So once the verdict is determined, what conclusion will the Basketball Australia’s Integrity Unit come up with if :

- The player is guilty and serves a custodial sentence. Let him play once he makes parole?
- The player is guilty and is handed down a suspended sentence. Let him play straight away?
- The player is guilty and is handed down a fine with no custodial sentence. Let him play straight away?
- The Player is not guilty.

I don't think the Basketball Australia’s Integrity Unit assessment is required at all once the verdict is read.

But KR, yesterday you told me Creek was done for the season?

Surely not, the fount of all Hoops wisdom was proven utterly incorrect in 24 hours?

De Goey has been playing for almost 12 mths since his indecent assault charge

In Melbourne there's a local councillor who's literally being investigated for fraudulently tampering with votes in a local election, yet he's still sitting in council meetings as we speak (Milad El Halabi, Moreland- look it up, beenreported regularly in The Age)

So the precedent here is, innocent until proven guilty

Move along, let things run their course.

In the meantime SEM are going to take some beating after Broekhoff finds his rhythm. All Vic GF coming up? every 12 years, we're due

I assumed the NBL wouldn't do something as thoroughly stupid as this.

The court case won't be finished until after the season is. Them lifting his suspension for absolutely no reason doesn't make me wrong about that.

[So the precedent here is, innocent until proven guilty

Move along, let things run their course.]

Btw not saying I agree with the Moreland councillor still standing either, as the investigation directly relates to the councillor's role and how he was elected

But in Creek's case he's been accused of a criminal charge and there's clear precedent

In the meantime SEM are going to take some beating after Broekhoff finds his rhythm. All Vic GF coming up? every 12 years, we're due

[I assumed the NBL wouldn't do something as thoroughly stupid as this.

The court case won't be finished until after the season is. Them lifting his suspension for absolutely no reason doesn't make me wrong about that.]

"I'm not wrong!!!! I'm not! I am right!!!"

You are a muppet and a know it all. Plain and simple.

[Let the records show there is a serious criminal matter where a woman has been assaulted.

And all you care about is your precious all Victorian GF.

You are pure trash]

Again De Goey.

There's a similar case in the NRL.

The principle is the principle. Why are you calling me trash for expecting the NBL to follow the precedent set in other sports? Pull your head in.

I would say the same thing if this was Bryce Cotton or Todd Blanchfield.

The AFL doesn't set precedents in the NBL. That's not how this works.

And I wasn't wrong. Anyone with any ability to actually comprehend English would realise that.

Lovebroker:

"Guys keep this thread civil."

5 minutes later

"you are pure trash for holding a different opinion to me, an opinion in line with the precedent set in Australia's most professional and biggest sporting leagues"

He announced when this started that he was pleading not guilty. Nothing has changed.

"you are pure trash for holding a different opinion to me, an opinion in line with the precedent set in Australia's most professional and biggest sporting leagues"

"he's innocent till proven guilty"

I am waiting for someone to present an argument against this.

My apologies if I was incorrect about the NRL

But really there's 2 options here

- Stand Creek down until court process completed

- Let Creek play and let justice run its course

Thing is, if Creek is guilty then he's guilty. He'll be punished accordingly. Why do people want to issue their own punishment- stopping him plying his craft in his short lived prime in his chosen career?

If he's found guilty, he'll do his time. Until and unless that happens he'll remain innocent in the eyes of the law.

We are not the justice system. We are basketball fans. He's a basketball player. Let him play basketball.

The right decision.

[You love using word play and hide behind misdirecting the conversation.]

When Cotton is accused and I argue he should be banned from playing, then you can label me whatever

Until then shut your mouth and keep it civil, you absolute hypocrite

"he's innocent till proven guilty"

I am waiting for someone to present an argument against this.

That makes it sound like you are criticising them for finally making the right decision.

"You are putting Creek on a pedestal because he plays for your team"

Isn't it well known around here that LV is a United fan? For someone making judgements, you seem poorly informed. Perhaps stick to making judgements based on evidence, which is exactly why we have a legal system, not a kangaroo court.

He announced when this started that he was pleading not guilty. Nothing has changed.

[Isn't it well known around here that LV is a United fan?]

And a St.Kilda fan who can't stand Collingwood

Yet I'm ok with one of their stars playing despite an indecent assault charge

But hey, why would the hoops peanut gallery let the facts get in the way of their attempts to replace the actual justice system with their own vigilante version?

I am happy to be proven wrong, but it would be nice to see the evidence of this, or even confirmation from LV himself, which might be salient considering that anon is the one projecting LV's own thought processes here. It's a surprising change in character for a notoriously one-eyed LV to develop allegiances to United's cross-town rival!

A bit of reason here surely.. you all know that there can be no absolutely perfect solution to a problem, and many possible answers that have their pros and cons yes?

Play Mitch, if he is innocent this prevents unfair harm being done to him, if he is not it very much sucks for the girl who might feel more pressure seeing his name still up in lights.

Don't play Mitch, if he is innocent this is pretty unfair to him, his team and their supporters, if he is guilty this would be a better outcome for the girl in question.

On one hand - innocent until proven guilty, on the other, organisations can formulate their own standards for how to handle incidents like this, but must always operate within the law, and follow fair contracting principles.

If the league has no developed standard for this type of situation, that is known and agreed by the players association, it would appear that it would be right and proper for Mitch, the team, the NBL, and possibly the sponsors, to negotiate a mutually satisfactory outcome.

If the league has an agreed and known standard in operation prior to the incident.. just follow the directions that were laid down and agreed.

If the NBL has no such standard in place, that is negligent on their behalf.
If they are changing the standard on them fly, that is also poor practice on their behalf.

Whichever way they wish the standard to go.. stand down players under a cloud of serious allegations, or allow them to play until justice is resolved, is a matter for the players and the NBL to decide prior to the season commencing.

There are no absolutely right or wrong answers other than making things up as they go.
No matter the degree of guilt in this instance, either choice presents an opportunity for a person to be treated aggrieved.

It IS fundamentally violating a tenant of the justice system to subject a person to punishment prior to them being found guilty if other options exist, however professional athletes are generally understanding that certain requirements and conditions can be built into their contracts. The point there though is built in prior to an incident and consent has been obtained with a signature, not after the fact.

If rules are set in place prior to the season commencing, at least people can blame the circumstance, without feeling like they were singled out over the issue.

League/club/player realising that a resolution might not be as quick as thought?

In Australia our rule of law is innocent until proven guilty. A very dangerous path to go down if we start hanging people only to find out their innocence later on. There was a reason why we moved to the system we have now. It's not perfect but much better than shooting first and asking questions later. This could drag on for years and end in acquittal, so he should have the right to live his life if he is not in prison, just as everyone here would hope it would be for them if they were ever in a position and claiming innocence against accusations or charges brought against them.
Playing basketball is Mitch Creeks livelihood. The NBL would be in a very precarious position if they sacked or stood him down only for him to be found innocent. They would then probably be up for damages, loss of earnings, unfair dismissal, etc.

Won't be an all Victorian grand final

A bad thread to get emotive but I understand LV calling out KR given KR thrives on calling people out for making assumptions or any hint of inaccuracy. That is going to open him to a return serve.

We know NBL isn't a "Court of law" and can probably impose a higher standard on employees re allegations but a genuine question to ask - the factors and values which lead to the justice system implementing Innocent before proven guilty, why don’t they make a good argument for the same in respect of the league?

I understand the league would have values in respect of this, but so does the law hence why this situation exists, treating someone as innocent until proven otherwise doesn’t negate the value of the law alleged to be breached in the same way it arguably doesn’t contradict the values of the league.

[. It's a surprising change in character for a notoriously one-eyed LV to develop allegiances to United's cross-town rival!]

Tbh I haven't developed a distaste for SEM yet. I'm more of a parochial Victorian than anything, so I'd love to see SEM in the playoffs

But like I said, I'm also a Saints fan who dislikes Collingwood yet I back the AFL

People Are so inconsistent on this stuff. Wayne Carey has a violent history and multiple assault convictions. Why is he on our TVs every week? Where are the balls for replacing him with any other ex player who could do his job?

Yet Creek, who's been found guilty of precisely nothing is a criminal in the eyes of many.

Calls*

Does any thread on here not become a conversation about LV or have LV dominating it? Gee....

Anyway, NBL have ballsed this up big time. You don't come out with a strong, principled statement to then say "oh this is going to drag on so now we reinstate him".

Also the very last thing the Phoenix need (in this environment) while trying to build a brand. As a Phoenix member, utterly unimpressed and unsure whether I’ll attend the next few games.

" I am waiting for someone to present an argument against this."

Despite what I just wrote above, there are arguments.

That's a legal standard, in particular a legal standard attributed to crime.

Civil legal standard is balance of probabilities, less protectionist for the person - many criminal actions have a civil aspect to it (ie battery for assault), or, I suppose, more relevantly contractual.

Then there’s a type of regulatory standard, let’s use lawyers as an example, providing less protection as the standard is “of good character and standing”.

Whilst a lawyer can be struck off for actions without breaking a law, there are many reasons the higher standard exists and mostly attributed to being a profession.

Players in a league are generally held to greater standards as well, and similarly aren’t afforded protection of “beyond reasonable doubt” for their job - hence investigation and suspension and the like.

They are free to use the “let the law run it’s course” but equally free to hold their players to harsher standards. Sometimes public confidence plays a role in it - similar to the heightened standards for lawyers being important for trust in judiciary, a sporting league may impose it for confidence in their players as role models in society.

[You can't be serious? The AFL and their media continually get slammed for letting "boys will be boys" get away with all manner of things.]

I'm more referring to large parts of the public who have developed an inclination for hanging out to dry anybody who is accused of anything, or even those who utter comments deemed distasteful or offensive

Yet I rarely hear calls for someone with a proven violent past to be stood down.

Almost makes you suspect people are group thinkers who like joining together in mobs against the latest target. No, surely not!!

" This means the NBL still needs to ensure that it's players, coaches and administrators have a right to natural justice, which includes procedural fairness. If Creek is suspended and cannot play, but is later found not guilty then he would have a claim against the NBL."

Haha what shit are you talking?

Did you Google some key words or struggle with Admin law? (Wouldn’t blame you it’s painful)

Natural justice and procedural fairness are mechanisms for hearings and obligations of the Court and have nothing to with anything the NBL or SEM does.

NBL/SEM have nothing to do with Court bias, and has nothing to do with the way the hearing is run on a procedural level (procedural fairness).

You couldn’t possibly know that a claim could be made.

I can't help myself.

" We have a British legal system. Not an American one"

That’s incorrect on multiple levels

#1 it’s English not British. Scottish law is not law in Australia.
#2 it’s called Common Law
#3 America is a common law country as well, regardless of trying their best to screw it up

[Also the very last thing the Phoenix need (in this environment) while trying to build a brand. As a Phoenix member, utterly unimpressed and unsure whether I'll attend the next few games.]

You're unsure if you'll attend the next few games because Creek's been charged with something and you perceive the response to have flip flopped, and you don't like Creek playing?

Who needs a court system when there's "fans" like you.

So incensed at your star player that you won't even watch him play? So incensed at your club for letting him play?

Really?

Its bizarre the change that has occurred in my life. Growing up it was the religious, the do gooders, the right wing who were known for being moralistic crusaders

Not suggesting that's no longer true, but I believe the biggest moralists these days are actually the enlightened, offended progressives and the inner city twitterati.

I believe the term some use these days is "the woke"

You're unsure if you'll attend the next few games because Creek's been charged with something and you perceive the response to have flip flopped, and you don't like Creek playing?

Who needs a court system when there's "fans" like you.

So incensed at your star player that you won't even watch him play? So incensed at your club for letting him play?

Really?


LV, you do realise the difference between an allegation and being charged by police. Right?
Allegation - anyone can make.
Charge - police believe there is enough evidence for them to get a conviction. And they're seeking just that.

No, I don’t like Creek playing. The club has tried to be a 'family’ club and a number of families had to sit their children down and speak about the Creek allegation. If he is proven innocent( fair enough but this reeks of desperation from the club. It isn’t aligned with the values they’ve tried to sell and I’m not sure I want to be cheering on someone who may have potentially done what the police say he has.

Again, not sure why ever thread seem to revolve around you on here but alas.
Considering the clubs crowds, I’d say the Phoenix and really every club needs ‘fans’ like me. I just prefer to avoid issues like abuse of women.

[What the fuck are you on about?]

The activists and the easily offended, the "woke"

The ones who called Scott Morrison an abominable misogynist because he dared reference a conversation with his wife and empathised with women through the lens of being a father

The ones who think gay guys jerking off in their bosses office is evidence of disrespect to women.... because their boss was a woman and they wouldn't ever do anything like that in a man's office....

The CEO of the law firm who thought she could bully a partner of said firm for merely advising a politician who was accused of rape


Those who think Amazon should ban a meticulously referenced, well researched,
Measured book on transgender issues but continue selling Mein Kampf

Those who think Margaret Court is a national disgrace rather than a national sporting hero

Need I go on? That's just a few examples of the crazy world we live in, from this year alone

And the reaction of some to Creek I place alongside these. Anyone accused of a crime is treated like a criminal. That's a regressive view imho , much like many "progressive" views these days.

He wasn't just charged, he was charged after a four month investigation.

Yeah, imagine giving a shit about other people.

And the reaction of some to Creek I place alongside these. Anyone accused of a crime is treated like a criminal. That's a regressive view imho , much like many "progressive" views these days.


LV - for someone who keeps going on about the legal system and weird tangents about the rule of law - you don't seem to know the difference between an accusation and being charged.

Those who think Amazon should ban a meticulously referenced, well researched,
Measured book on transgender issues but continue selling Mein Kampf

Those who think Margaret Court is a national disgrace rather than a national sporting hero

Creek is still being paid. Whatever the outcome of his trial, he should not be playing while it's ongoing. It's a terrible look for the club and league both. Honestly speechless, especially as there is no indication that this is due to anything outside of the trial being pushed back. Horrible decision.

"Allegation - anyone can make.
Charge - police believe there is enough evidence for them to get a conviction."

That doesn't make the charge anything more than an allegation though, that’s an administrative choice on behalf of the Police - who drop cases due to insufficient evidence all the time. I wouldn’t be putting much into creating a distinction there.

And LV, people reacting to law allegations occurred well before anyone knew what the word “woke” meant and is hardly a progressives attribute

And Creek's case may well end up getting dropped, and even if the Phoenix have some indication of that and can't say for obvious reasons, they are going to be taking a massive reputational hit right now.

Would this be happening if Creek wasn't the best player but rather a bench or development player? That’s probably an important question and the answer to that question might be rather telling....

Nope

Of course not. As always in professional sport there are a different set of rules for star players vs the rest. That's how the Kobe Bryant's and Jarryd Hayne's get created.

The NBL had it right when they made a strong statement to sit Creek on the same day of the national protests against domestic violence, this backflip now no doubt under pressure from the Phoenix makes the NBL look pathetic.

Wow. SEM & the league stood the player down asap when he got accused and was publicised. Both claimed high moral standards. Now they back track because of the court case will take time to proceed and claiming innocence until proven guilty. Call me cynical is their vested interest in the club as they need Creek and the league wants both Victorian teams in the finals. It just shows that their standards are Jack sh!t.

It's interesting that BA's CEO resigned today. Cant help but see a possible connection there, seeing it was their integrity unit overseeing this.

I am all for 'innocent until proven guilty' but I think the NBL messed up on this one. They either should not have suspended him and waited til they had some sort of verdict, or they should have suspended him and stuck with it. This current outcome is very flimsy and says they're not willing to stand by their decisions. And worse, it is completely out of step with the social climate of the day, and is basically begging for bad press that could damage the brand.

He was "charged" not merely accused. Yes.

But I don't know what actually occurred, or how this will play out. Neither do any of you. Neither do the police.

There are many possibilities around what happened and will happen.

It's not our role to play judge, jury and executioner.

If he's found guilty in court, he'll be punished. And Phoenix/NBL can deal with their guilty man appropriately at that time.

Let it be.

If you read the statement from a fortnight ago this isn't as much of a "backflip" as people like KR are suggesting.

The NBL never said he'd been sidelined until the court process was complete. At the time, I read it as a "oh let's take time to think about this"

Perhaps reinstating him wasn't wise in the current social climate.

But if you're complaining today then you're part of that social climate. You're veering out of your lane and deciding someone's guilt or innocence without knowing the facts, other than "the police thought there was enough evidence to charge him". You're part of the problem here.

Even if Creek plays he's going to get it from the crowd the team plays away. SEM just damaged their brand. Wonder what their female supporters thinks about this?

Yes, it's definitely those people that are the problem and not the ones who keep raping and killing people.

Interesting that the NBL chose Twitter to announce it rather than FB - that is very telling in itself. Not a peep on FB.

KR one day you'll grow up.

Until then, spare us from your "thoughts".

;-) Too obvious that one

KR one day you'll grow up.

Guys, the NBL and SEM are taking this VERY seriously. He's no longer co-captain and won't participate in any community activities.

Yes, very seriously.

Koberulz v LV.
My winner is Konberulz.

LV is guilty of spruiking an all Victorian grand final. ( it won't happen)
Is he inspired by the mighty eagles winners in 1994, 2006 and 2018.

"so he doesn't have to defend himself from saying an all Melbourne GF is more important to him than holding people accountable for domestic violence."

At the risk of being criticised for sounding like I am defending LV, and continuing to make this thread about LV personally, this comes across as a weak strawman argument just to pound LV. Notice how many anon accounts are taking potshots. At no point did he suggest or imply relative importance of a GF possibility and domestic violence. LV isn't saying that Creek shouldn't be held accountable. He is saying that the legal system already exists as Australia's way of handling these matters and until there is a verdict, it's innocent until proven guilty. The topic is that Creek will play, not the details of the allegations. I doubt whether we can even discuss that here. LV has mentioned multiple times in other threads about the possibility of an all-Melbourne GF, which seems to be as much about continuing a historical numerical pattern as anything else. IIRC, his profession relates to data, so this isn't surprising that numbers and patterns might interest him.

Given my long history of political debates with LV in another forum, it does feel topsy-turvy to be apparently defending LV on political matters. Perhaps this demonstrates how extreme and absurd the plague of the extreme woke and cancel culture has become, such that people of traditionally opposing political opinions can find so much common ground.

Mitch Creek is an employee. The NBL is his workplace. Like any business the NBL is subject to workplace laws. If he was sacked prior to any findings they could be in trouble for unfair dismissal, etc and then be subject to a range of penalties.

Well said rjd. I do indeed like data. And yes there's a divide between the traditional liberals of the old left- who are more principled regarding individual freedoms and more inclined to take a "live and let live approach- and the group thinking, mob rule modern woke left.

[Mitch Creek is an employee. The NBL is his workplace.]

On this topic, I assume Creek was contractually obliged to disclose the charge to his employer?.

If you are a "normal" person- a tradie or an engineer or an accountant- You probably wouldn't disclose the charge until absolutely required. Many people would just take a day of annual leave for their first court appearance and see how they go. Perhaps Creek's travel schedule didn't allow for this, but it's an interesting thought anyway.

SEM clearly has an interest in knowing moreso than a typical employer, hence why I assume Creek would be contractually obliged to fess up. Given his employment takes place in the public eye, perhaps sacrificing his right to privacy is a fair and necessary trade off.

Why the fuck are people hung up over who plays in the NBL grand final?

If it's all Victorian good for those clubs, if it’s not good for whomever makes it.

[Are you guys seriously talking about wokeness and cancel culture as a reason people have responded the way they have done to LV?]

It would be nice if people at least tried responding to the substantive points I've made (and others too) about innocence until proven guilt, and the relationship between the justice system and Creek's ongoing employment.

No such luck so far.

[I've made a number of comments about your choice to celebrate the possibility of an all Melbourne GF as an immediate response to Creek being reinstated]

Incorrect- my first response was to note the precedent set in Australia's biggest sport, and the concept of innocence until proven guilt

Following this I merely mentioned, in passing, that Creek's presence on court increases the chances of SEM succeeding.

Naturally the Hoops peanut gallery has since sidetracked the thread with constant references to this, as if I don't care about the allegations or the alleged victim (again despite the fact I've made many substantive points about the role of the justice system and the fact that Creek can be dealt with appropriately should he be found guilty).

People ignoring the issues and getting fixated on putting words into my mouth, in other words. Typical of the Hoops peanut gallery!

Legalities aside, if it's true that Creek has been reinstated to bolster SEM's performance and possible crowd attendance (this is all speculation) that's poor. From a league and team's point of view, something like this is always going to be badly timed and SEM need to suck it up that a star player isn't available for the foreseeable future.

Terrible but completely unsurprising decision by the NBL and the club. It would be a poor decision in any time, but in the current climate they're literally asking for bad press.

LV bringing in completely irrelevant topics like a charge against a councillor then getting on his soap box about those damn woke lefties is even less surprising.

[You chose to ignore the potential seriousness of a DV charge]

Sure

If your definition of "ignore" is "suggest the charge is dealt with appropriately through Australia's justice system and that Creek's employer should apply the same principles and values underpinning that justice system".

[What about the alleged victim? Have you considered how this decision makes this incident potentially more difficult to deal with?]

Yes, it probably would and that is unfortunate.

But then, if Creek is forced to spend substantial time on the sidelines in the short prime of his career and then ultimately found not guilty by the justice system, how is that fair?

There's no simple, easy way to deal with this situation is there?

But these things have been discussed for hundreds of years by deeper thinkers than me. I'm merely suggesting SEM and the NBL apply the same principles and values thst have endured through generations and underpin our legal system.

[You obviously still can't see that, as you just described the impact to the victim as "unfortunate" before immediately bringing Creek's POV back into it.]

Stop trolling from an anonymous account

Discuss the issue seriously or get outta here. Cheers.

[They said that you only looking at the issue from Creek's POV]

I'm pretty sure you're just trolling, but in any case, this is such laughable nonsense.

Primarily I've looked at the issue through the lens of the justice system being the appropriate area to deal with a charge, rather than vigilante justice which pre-emptively assumes the outcome in advance.

[No one asked you to deal with it.]

No one asked any of us to deal with it! I'm suggesting Creek continue playing, others are suggesting he is banished until the courts adjudicate. Guilty until proven innocent, in other words.

Both views are requesting a certain action from the NBL/SEM.

Hoops would be better if anonymous trolls were banned

Not suggesting all anons are trolls, but there's obviously a few

"[You obviously still can't see that, as you just described the impact to the victim as "unfortunate" before immediately bringing Creek's POV back into it.]

Stop trolling from an anonymous account"

This anon clearly wasn't trolling. They made a great point. All you have done is look at how this will affect the alleged criminal and given only passing acknowledgement to the alleged victim. This is the pattern we see in cases like this over and over again.

Famous athlete/entertainer is credibly charged with offense against a woman:

"We have to think about how this will affect his career"

[All you have done is look at how this will affect the alleged criminal and given only passing acknowledgement to the alleged victim. This is the pattern we see in cases like this over and over again.]

I said very clearly, that regardless of which way this goes- someone can potentially be dealt with unfairly. Whether the alleged victim or the alleged perpetrator. That is unavoidable.

The question is which way we go and why. Which risk do we take- the risk of being unfair to whom?

My question is why we ourselves are viewing ourselves as judge and jury when there's a court system designed to play that role? What benefit is there?

A potential benefit you're suggesting is less trauma for the alleged victim.

But, the principle of our legal system and the foundational moral philosophy is that it's preferable to let a guilty person go free than lock up an innocent person. Yet that's exactly what many here are happy to risk doing- pre-emptively locking up an innocent person by stopping their career in it's tracks. Why? What are the principles behind your attempt at doing this? What long term benefit is there?

Someone needs to provide a solid answer to that question, and stop accusing me of not responding to things.

Of course he can pick and choose, that's what happens when you argue to validate your own position rather than on the merits of the actual situation as a whole.

[What long term benefit is there?]

To be clear, I'm asking what are the long term benefits and consequences for society if we start throwing out this age old principle and applying vigilante justice instead?

[Of course he can pick and choose, that's what happens when you argue to validate your own position rather than on the merits of the actual situation as a whole.]

What are you even talking about? Be clear.

What are the "merits of the actual situation" that you speak of?

The social climate? Yes- I agree. The NBL's decision might not be a wise one.

But, perhaps we should do the right, principled thing instead of worrying about upsetting the baying mob on Twitter?

Literally nobody is advocating to lock up Creek before a trial. Nobody.

As we've seen time and time again, the man's career is more important than the woman's wellbeing. This is just another example.

"What long term benefit is there?"

Oh, I don't know, perhaps an end to a culture where women are afraid to speak up because they'll cop endless abuse for ruining a man's career.

The whole "stopping their career" thing is even bullshit. Ask Wayne Carey.

"What are the "merits of the actual situation" that you speak of?"

That Creek has been charged with a serious offense and is on paid leave while the legal process plays out? As much as you love the 'locked up' imagery, no one is suggesting that should happen, just that he should not be playing or involved with the SEM Phoenix until that is resolved. If he's innocent then he has his own legal avenues he can explore. That's the system.

[Literally nobody is advocating to lock up Creek before a trial. Nobody.]

No, but you're advocating that his career- which by it's very nature means he'll have a max of another 8 or 9 years, and another 4 or 5 in his prime- be stopped before he's found guilty of anything.

[The whole "stopping their career" thing is even bullshit. Ask Wayne Carey.]

Carey has multiple convictions. Creek has none.

[Oh, I don't know, perhaps an end to a culture where women are afraid to speak up because they'll cop endless abuse for ruining a man's career.]

Ironically you're the one suggesting someone's career be ruined. Not the woman, who I hope is receiving huge support.

"[The whole "stopping their career" thing is even bullshit. Ask Wayne Carey.]

Carey has multiple convictions. Creek has none."

ah yeah....thats kind of my point. Poor Carey must be jobless and on the street with all the woke lefties not letting him get on with his life....

"Ironically you're the one suggesting someone's career be ruined. Not the woman, who I hope is receiving huge support."

hahahahaha

I do wonder if Carey's misdemeanours occurred today whether he'd ever commentate again. Interesting question that. The social climate has changed.

But like I said earlier, I don't like the fact that Carey is on TV. But the key difference is he has multiple convictions.

Creek has been charged and may yet be found guilty or innocent by the justice system.

Let it be.

Make a decision at the appropriate time after justice has run its course.

I'm not the justice system. None of us are.

"But like I said earlier, I don't like the fact that Carey is on TV. But the key difference is he has multiple convictions."

Thats only key insofar as it reinforces how "you have to think of his career!" nonsense by the likes of you is a steaming pile.

[Most are probably accepting that he is innocent until proven guilty but are mainly disappointed that the NBL reversed its decision]

Disappointed that the NBL won't banish him before he's had a chance to defend himself through the appropriate process?

Ah, gotcha.

[that the NBL reversed its decision (to stand him down until their investigation would be complete)]

Perhaps their investigation concluded and they decided the right path forward was that Creek continues playing.

The right decision has been reached, perhaps via a convoluted process with poor media messaging. but the right decision nonetheless.

At what point does everyone acknowledge that nobody gains anything furthering the LV vs the World battle royale.

"The Last Word" means nada in a forum tbh and I think it has exhausted its value if there was any to be had anyway

Nobody is talking about sacking him, so no, that doesn't make any sense at all.

"Thats only key insofar as it reinforces how "you have to think of his career!" nonsense by the likes of you is a steaming pile"

Hold on, this only applies if you make the assumption that he is guilty. The argument in support of allowing Creek to play is that he should be considered innocent until proven guilty. There is a legal process in motion to determine this.

Now if Creek's verdict is guilty, then everything obviously changes. But as far as I can see, nobody is making a claim that Creek's career should be protected in the case he is guilty.

A lot of people here are making claims on the assumption of guilt. I'm sure Isaac will not want anyone to discuss details of the case nor specific indicators of guilt, but there are a lot people chiming in speaking as if they do know this. When Creek gets a guilty verdict, then that's when the vilification is welcome.

"Hold on, this only applies if you make the assumption that he is guilty. "

Not true. Its clear that being found guilty of an offense is not a career killer. Being accused and charged and the case either being dropped, settled or cleared even less so. The idea that his career is being put in jeopardy simply because the league/club makes the decision to stand him down pending a trial doesn't hold water. Its acknowledgement that they're serious claims and that your organisation treats them with respect deserved. They're just undone that.

"When Creek gets a guilty verdict, then that's when the vilification is welcome."

Ahem...*if

If the verdict is guilty, no thread discussing the guilty verdict will be allowed.

"Glen Rice jr never played another game in that season for the breakers...a precedent has been set by the NBL for Creek"

That's right, this appears to be a reasonable recent precedent to use. But it has a few significant differences. The nature of the Rice incident was that it had verifiable witnesses for the Breakers to make their own assessment. I lack knowledge of the Creek incident, but perhaps others in this thread must know whether SEM is able to do the same. You would also expect the Breakers -- if they were smart last year, which is arguable -- wrote in a contractual obligation for Rice to stay out of trouble given that Rice has a very long and troubling criminal record. So was Rice dismissed due to the charge or due to breaking contract? There is a difference.

This is obviously a topic of serious interest for NBL fans. Please, where possible, try to keep the discussion reasonable - there are a number of angles that (I'm guessing) are fair discussion without judging the specifics of a case. e.g., should a player be stood down pending investigation, should the NBL pay much heed to larger leagues in following their practices and so on.

It does amaze me though how quickly people leap to extremes in arguing what is clearly a bit of a grey area. Hopefully anyone with a position can appreciate the arguments of the other side.

" Mitch Creek is an employee. The NBL is his workplace. Like any business the NBL is subject to workplace laws. If he was sacked prior to any findings they could be in trouble for unfair dismissal, etc and then be subject to a range of penalties."

"The nature of the Rice incident was that it had verifiable witnesses for the Breakers to make their own assessment."

Ah, right, some men saw what happened, so it must be true. I get it

"Not true. Its clear that being found guilty of an offense is not a career killer."

* is *sometimes* not a career killer.

Regardless, I don't see anyone arguing this.

If anyone involved thought this court case would resolve itself in time for Creek to resume playing, they're too stupid to keep their jobs.

And no, Isaac, there is no grey area here. The grey area was two weeks ago. They picked their side, now they're backtracking. It's gutless, spineless bullshit.

"Ah, right, some men saw what happened, so it must be true. I get it"

That's weak. Stop this rubbish. I'm suggesting that if an employer wishes to make a judgement on guilt prior to the trial, there are some offenses that are clearly easier to verify. I'm not suggesting clubs should do this, nor that any particular kind of charge is more or less likely to be true.

If one were to make an independent judgement prior to the criminal judgement -- let's call it, pre-judicial (sounds a lot like "prejudiced", right?) -- then it makes sense to base it on facts of the case.

So the fact he's been charged by police, who clearly believe they have the evidence to convict isnt enough? Its just he said she said, so obviously we believe him and thats all fine as usual huh?

What conversation could they possibly have had now that they couldn't have had two weeks ago?

"So the fact he's been charged by police, who clearly believe they have the evidence to convict isnt enough? Its just he said she said, so obviously we believe him and thats all fine as usual huh?"

There you again. Proposing that the legal system determine guilt is "believing" in the system; it's also "believing" police and "believing" the accuser because it supports the right to prosecute the accused. Nobody is suggesting that Creek's charges should be dropped.

Who needs the legal system when we have people who are ready to pronounce guilt on the basis of the police deciding to charge someone.

Stuff it, get rid of courts. Judges. Juries. Who needs em anyway?

Since when was "letting the appropriate process take place" akin to "believe him and that's all fine".

Goodness me.

Who needs the legal system when we have people who are ready to pronounce guilt on the basis of the police deciding to charge someone.

Stuff it, get rid of courts. Judges. Juries. Who needs em anyway?

[Can you highlight where someone has said the accused should be declared guilty right now and locked up right now?]

Everybody who wants him stood down wants him suffering significant consequences for something the courts are yet to adjudicate on.

That may not equate to a "declaration of guilt" but it does mean punishing someone whose guilt or innocence is yet to be determined through due process.

He'd still be getting paid, I assume. The "significant consequences" would be reputational damage which occured the second the story broke in newspapers and carry through publicity from the police investigation. Flip-flopping on the "can't play or train" decision put it back in the papers too. Otherwise, those particular consequences are separate to his being shelved, right?

Other consequences might relate to being an MVP chance or prestige of winning a championship. Otherwise, he's likely being paid not to work. He can still shoot around and go to the gym, so I'm not sure that the Boomers angle is as significant.

The major consequences pertaining directly to the stood-down decision probably rest more so with the Phoenix. Reiterating that his reputational damage is separate. In fact, volunteering to stand down might've helped in the first instance.

Phoenix might've pointed to AFL instances as precedent from major leagues? One case was referenced in the newspaper article about this flip-flop today.

Creek is not currently eligible for Boomers selection, and that remains true regardless of his reinstatement in the NBL.

https://www.news.com.au/sport/basketball/nbl-2021-mitch-creek-could-be-stood-down-again-by-nbl-pending-the-result-of-his-next-hearing/news-story/8fbc94aaf5f924e06cd9235cd7b6a286

Having originally stood the 28-year-old down, the NBL was legally forced to let Creek train and play after his lawyer questioned the league's rules, which don’t include a stand-down policy like the NRL.

As a result, Creek’s representatives stressed there were no legal grounds to stop the Phoenix forward from playing.

So the stand over stuff came from Creek's lawyers not SEM's? Interesting.

Still absolutely gutless.

So Creek's lawyers presumably have a good case that the NBL lacks grounds to stand him down.

Why does it then say the NBL could reverse on April 21? Is there an NBL policy that could come into play at that specific point for some reason?

(After the next hearing)

Gutless if their lawyers advised them they'd be unlikely to win that case? Better to comply and introduce a formal stand-down rule later maybe.

Imagine how much bad PR the NBL and Phoenix could have saved themselves by actually saying that in the first place, instead of just citing the adjournment.

I mean, their lack of a stand-down policy is itself a PR issue but FFS guys, but bloody hell.

Gutless if their lawyers advised them they'd be unlikely to win that case? Better to comply and introduce a formal stand-down rule later maybe.

Wasn't that like, Cousins 14th strike before the 3 strike policy eventually came in?

Assuming the initial reporting was correct, the NBL, Phoenix and Creek agreed that he would stand-down for that period. So potentially the timeline is that they had consensus, then Creek/lawyer changed their mind, NBL complied (possibly on legal advice).

"Gutless/stupid" strike me as a bit unfair on the league trying to work through this.

Isaac, what path could the NBL have taken through this process, that would have made them look worse than the path they did take?

Short of coming out in actual support of domestic violence, I struggle to think of one.

They should have had a policy in place.
If there wasn't anything allowing them to suspend him, they shouldn't have suspended him.
In announcing the suspension, they should have made it seem like it was a short term meaningless thing.
In announcing his reinstatement, they should have cited the lack or a policy instead of the adjournment.

They've screwed this up at literally every step.

[Short of coming out in actual support of domestic violence, I struggle to think of one.]

You are such a hack.

Cousins has such a long history of misdemeanours that its hard to remember what occurred when. Cousins was on his final straw before his drink was half empty.

A different situation to somebody who's been charged with offences relating to one incident.

A totally different situation with a different surrounding context and facts.

I think there's any number of possibilities around what occurred between Creek and the alleged victim, and it isn't my role to adjudicate about that without having the evidence or any understanding of the situation whatsoever. Nor is it the NBL's role.

Of course the NBL may know much more than what we do. But either way the courts are the place where these matters are dealt with.

Not unless the NBL have the full brief of evidence in front of them, a detailed understanding of the situation and confidence in their own ability to accurately and fairly assess that evidence, no.

[Not unless the NBL have the full brief of evidence in front of them, ]

And by full brief, I include that the NBL would need statements from all parties and to undertake a detailed and thorough investigation. Not merely the police evidence.

What then?

If it becomes bleeding obvious that Creek is guilty then the NBL could be justified in taking action.

But how could they know that without the full court process and judgement taking place?

The victim statements and a full examination of the circumstances are crucial to understanding the event and whether there were any mitigating factors or anything which would reduce Creek's guilt or help understand his actions.

In other words, the NBL needs to be as thorough as a court. If they're not in a position to do that, don't go there, simply let the court do its job.

Mitigating factors? Are you fucking serious?

Stop pretending this is about due process and just admit you don't have a problem with punching women, dude.

[When the truth comes out there is going to be a lot of embarrassed people. ]

You don't know what the truth is.

If you're suggesting guilt then so be it. After the process takes place, Creek can be dealt with by the justice system and NBL/SEM can deal with him in accordance with knowing he's been found guilty rather than accused.

As far as I can see, this is the fairest way to play it. It may not appease everyone but it seems fair and principled.

Perhaps a difference between suspending someone and coming to an agreement with them that they would be suspended. Where the Phoenix sit on this might become apparent with his getting a DNP or not against the Hawks?

[you don't have a problem with punching women, dude.]

Oh dear.

Time for you to take a deep breath and go watch your favourite comedy special on Netflix.

Use your imagination.

Or Google it.

This may be crossing a line that Isaac would prefer isn't crossed. So I'll just point out that you don't know exactly how the injuries were suffered, so saying "smashing a woman's face in" is not necessarily an accurate depiction.

But, I'll stop there.

In fact I think everyone should stop dealing in assumptions and guesswork.

Stay in your lanes.

Let the process take place.

[a lot of things are unknown and shouldn't be assumed.]

No! Surely not?

Everything is known by some on this thread, with so little information.

I wish I had their abilities of analysis and reaching conclusions so quickly with so little data. I'd be incredibly successful in life if I did.

Number of posts deleted and minimum privilege to post a reply has been raised.

Please avoid discussing the case itself. I have explained why previously in another thread. The discussion here needs to be about how this directly pertains to the NBL, Phoenix, etc.

---

Opinion: Gutless Basketball Australia's ignorance exposed after Mitch Creek decision

Not sure how in-depth this article is, but this line stood out:

And in this case Victorian Police did a four-month investigation into the South East Melbourne star, which finally led to him being charged.

Fair enough on deleting posts Isaac.

But since you've deleted a few of mine (and I have no qualms with you doing so) you might want to also delete KRs post where he accused me of not having an issue with violence against women.

It is difficult resisting the temptation to abuse the keyboard warrior turd that he is for making a comment like that.

Actually scrap that, just leave it. I see you left my right of reply above. People can read KR's appalling nonsense and recognise what a sad person he is.

Anyway, it's all been said in this thread. There's not much more to add.

Certainly an emotive issue and given the current political events, March for justice, etc, I'll predict other leagues will follow the NRL's suit with a "no fault" policy in coming years.

You believe there can be mitigating circumstances. Therefore you believe it is on some occasions acceptable to assault women. Your words.

It's not actually an "assault" in that case.

Not my words. Just how the legal system works.

But hey don't let the facts get in the way of the fuzzy feelings you get from trashing others on an internet forum.

Well yes, if you define it as not assault it isn't assault, but that doesn't actually change the behaviour.

Provocation is not a defense. Get your "maybe she deserved it" bullshit the fuck out of here.

Behold, folks.

Rarely will you experience somebody as confidently wrong as KR.

To be fair LV I've defended you in the past just seeing you an argumentative one-eyed Victorian but I read your post in full before it was trimmed and it was shameful, I typed up a response at the time suggesting you probably should be banned for it and then decided not to post it as it would likely set off more BS.

Under no circumstances is domestic violence excusable.

I never said domestic violence was "excusable".

Goodness me, how do we end up with so many seemingly intelligent adults incapable of following the logic of ssomeone else's argument. The education system needs refreshing.

For the record, I said the NBL should continue allowing Creek to play, unless or until either 1. The full court process has been completed OR 2. The NBL has successfully undertaken the near- impossible task of thoroughly replicating the court process with a detailed examination of all evidence and circumstances and come to the confident conclusion that Creek will be found guilty.

This is not "excusing" anything, it's conducting a fair review of a situation with conflicting understandings about what occurred from relevant parties ie the accused/charged and accuser/ victim.

If your view is "someone had facial injuries therefore the other party should be banished until found not guilty, since they were charged" fair enough, this is a simplistic view to me, but I can understand why a "no fault" policy might exist. But please don't throw unnecessary comments at people who have painfully and in great detail explained why they reasonably disagree.

And to be 100% clear, my comments about "mitigating factors" were in the CONTEXT of my suggestion that a full replication of the legal process by the NBL is the only alternative to the actual legal process.

In other words if there are reasonable doubts about what occurred and Creek's guilt, then Creek should be allowed to continue participating.

This is not the same as suggesting Creek is totally blameless.

KR, Zodiac and everyone- In future, please make better attempts at following the thread of other people's arguments before hitting "post". Cheers.

And lastly, I would again caution aboutbcoming to conclusions based on inadequate information. We need less of that, not more. Cheers.

"Someone else did it" is not a mitigating factor.

There are no mitigating factors.

To clarify: either he did what he's accused of doing, in which case there are no mitigating factors, or he didn't do what he's accused of doing, in which case it's an exonerating factor.

While the legal system may have to get bogged down in the exact details of the incident in terms of addressing sentencing and such, the NBL really has no such issue. If he did this, he's done. Regardless of whether he gets a six-month sentence or a six-year one.

The NBL is not a court of law, it's making these decisions based on ethical concerns. And if he's assaulted a woman badly enough to leave serious injuries, then he can GTFO, end of story, no matter what other things may have also occurred.

The AOC appear to have a process by which a charge of assault renders the athlete ineligible. They use the metric of "charged by police" to find a middle ground and assign responsibility to a group with some level of investigatory power.

The article posted earlier suggests that police investigated for four months before coming to a decision.


Looks like tonight the Phoenix played him, so while the NBL may have been under legal pressure to rescind their suspension, the Phoenix have done it voluntarily.

Looks like tonight the Phoenix played him, so while the NBL may have been under legal pressure to rescind their suspension, the Phoenix have done it voluntarily.

Will the Melbourne derby be renamed?

He hasn't played in a couple of weeks, so I wouldn't read much into him coming off the bench.

Musashi has replaced Creek with Broekhoff in their ads.