Great damage control attempt by the NBL.

Once again Larry tries to pass the buck onto someone else.

What does Lk's Burner think....https://twitter.com/LknblB

#183 dumbest twitter account ever

Rugby league had serious problems, they had to implement those rules, basketball is not in that position. Surely no player should be allowed to be forced not play until at least a police investigation has taken place, anyone could make up any shit just to get players into trouble. Are there not afl players playing today that have chargers or investigations hanging over their heads?

So in your logic, "Koberulz (hypocrisy)" what would a 4 month investigation entail? It's clear, that it isn’t clear, so it’s time now that you sit this one out, previous threads demonstrated your lack of understanding on law and process.

I said no player stood down until a police investigation, no point standing down players just on a complaint. Yes basketball should do the correct thing once there is police proof, just don't stand down players on innuendo, in Creek case he should be stood down.
You seem to write a lot but your comprehension is not real good.

"Koberulz (hypocrisy)"

Oh you're still doing this bit?

232 - you say police proof.

Every case is different.

In some cases police proof is cctv footage, multiple independent witness statements, dna evidence and the like.

In cases like that a stand down might be quite appropriate.

In other cases people are charged with a criminal offence in complete "he said, she said" situations.

In the latter situation, then after an employer does its own due diligence and satisfies itself that their employee has a viable defence then a stand down can be deemed completely inappropriate.

It is rarely black and white. Most times there is a huge amount of grey.

Many interesting bits of info in that article.

I couldn't quite understand the apparent contradiction between these two statements:

", the NBL was legally forced to let him train and play after his lawyer questioned the league’s rules, which don’t include a stand-down policy like the NRL."

and

“the NBL still has the authority to reverse their position depending on the outcome of a court hearing on April 21.”

Why can’t they exercise their authority now? Isn’t the hearing simply to assess if the case should proceed to trial? I.e., just a confirmation of the police decision to level the various charges against Creek? How does it change the NBL’s ability to stand Creek down if there’s no stand down policy? It’s hard to understand what the true situation is.

You would think if it proceeds to trial that the police think they have a strong case and the nbl would probably stand him down, if it doesn't go to trial he can continue but also has continued playing in the meantime.

Thanks Anon.

My confusion is how the NBL would become legally empowered to stand Creek down (second statement) if the reason he's playing now is because they have no legal right to stand him down (first statement).

The only thing I can think of is if Creek changes his plea to 'guilty' at the hearing, then the NBL would become empowered to stand him down. Otherwise, I don't understand how the NBL's apparent lack of a legal right to stand him down would change, following the hearing.

Maybe it has something to do with if there's an actual criminal trial in progress? Maybe their rules allow for standing down a player in such circumstances (e.g., the rules around bringing the league into disrepute); or could they argue allowing him to play might affect the outcome of the trial (if it'd be a jury trial)?

It's hard to know what's going on behind the scenes.

"My confusion is how the NBL would become legally empowered to stand Creek down (second statement) if the reason he's playing now is because they have no legal right to stand him down (first statement)."

My reading of it is that the NBL referred to the matter to the BA Integrity Unit and they have no such powers to stand a player down while their investigation is ongoing. Their investigation was delayed due to the court hearing being delayed, so Creek's lawyers dug their heels in and demanded he be allowed to play.

Once the BA investigation is complete, meaning the initial hearing will determine what some of the evidence is and the likelihood of conviction, then BA can determine that Creek has breached the BA Code of Conduct or similar and he may me stood down again.

Failing that, the club or the league will make their own determination that Creek has brought the game into disrepute or breached his contract and stand him down or sack him. I think the league was caught with their pants down a little bit due to the delay in the hearing but my guess is their issues will resolve itself after the hearing.

https://australia.basketball/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/00b-Integrity-Framework-QA_WEBSITE-VERSION.pdf

This document outlines the investigation process. If BA determines that the evidence of their investigation (which will include matters presented at the court hearing) is enough to punish Creek then they can take further action and it sounds like they will.

Victoria Police prosecutors have withdrawn assault charges against NBL star Mitch Creek.

The 28-year-old, who plays for the South East Melbourne Phoenix, was facing charges of intentionally causing injury, recklessly causing injury and unlawful assault.

On Wednesday afternoon, prosecutors told a contest mention hearing at the Sunshine Magistrates' Court they would be withdrawing the charges.

The magistrate struck out all charges during the brief hearing.

Wonder if anyone throughout the multiple threads about Creek will issue any apologies after all charges were dropped?

Apologise for what?

Oh my, so how about all those people who don't abide by innocent until proven guilty?

#897 apologize for all comments made about Creek (plus SEM and the NBL) without knowing the full story (or any part of the story) and basing their comments on accusations that had not been aired in court or proven with evidence.

LV is going to have so much wood over this :)

He still should have been stood down until the matter was resolved.

No he should not have, innocent till proven guilty.