SA Footy

My view - One mistake, missing Beijing was his punishment. He took it, he came back, won his spot in the Aussie side again and then punished for a second time for the same crime. It's carp IMO. I thought the initial punishment was harsh in missing the olympics. However, in no way am i codoning his actions.

This is something like double jeopardy, isn't it?

Have to disagree. To represent your country is the ultimate honour - a serious criminal offence might be a mistake of youth, but a grave mistake nonetheless. There are countless examples where a conviction for a criminal offence precludes you from other activities in life and sentencing is intended to be a deterrent to future similar actions. If this decision deters other Australian representatives from following a similar path, then well and good.

Similar. Just the AOC gave the first punishment, Swimming Australia handed out the second. Penalties from 2 different organisations apparently! I think it's a load of carp.

Double jeopardy is where u are convicted of a crime that you have not committed, then serve your time, and when u get out u commit that exact crime. Eg: A convicted of killing B, A gets 20 years, A serves 20 years, A then is released and then actually kills B who was never killed in the first place.

And squawk, its supposed to be a deterrant for that person more then anything else. If u committed the same act on a weekend and got a suspended sentence, would ur work suspend u? would ur local club suspend u? i dnt think so. i just think he has served his crime from a sporting sense

CoverKing wrote:Similar. Just the AOC gave the first punishment, Swimming Australia handed out the second. Penalties from 2 different organisations apparently! I think it's a load of carp.

Double jeopardy is where u are convicted of a crime that you have not committed, then serve your time, and when u get out u commit that exact crime. Eg: A convicted of killing B, A gets 20 years, A serves 20 years, A then is released and then actually kills B who was never killed in the first place.

And squawk, its supposed to be a deterrant for that person more then anything else. If u committed the same act on a weekend and got a suspended sentence, would ur work suspend u? would ur local club suspend u? i dnt think so. i just think he has served his crime from a sporting sense

Double Jeopardy is where you cant be charged with and tried for the SAME crime twice.

Re disciplinary matters, you are generally right in that they are supposed to have a deterrent outcome, not a punitive outcome. But disciplinary proceedings are based on the 'balance of probabilities' and so I suspect that he wasn't selected on the basis that the evidence suggested he committed the offence. The AOC would have had jurisiction over Olympic selection whereas Swimming Australia has jurisdiction over national selection. When he was convicted of the criminal offence, Swimming Aust handed out the future non-selection penalty on the basis of the convivtion which was "beyond reasonable doubt" - a different (and higher) burden of proof.

Let's not forget that Darcy was convicted of a crime against a fellow national team mate as well - as opposed to a member of the public.

And yes, if I get convicted of a crime I have a legislated onus to report it to my employer and face the consequences - which could include a disciplinary penalty (on the balance of probabilities) as well as a penalty if found guilty (beyond reasonable doubt).

He's been punished enough by missing the Olympics, and a court has given him a suspended sentence I believe?

Time to move on and give Nick a chance to prove to society that it was only one mistake he committed and he has
learnt from the punishments already dealt out.

As I posted in another thread re the same topic, how many times can one bloke be hung ?

AND, the morons in the upper echelons of Swimming Australia surely would've known they were going
to ban him from the worlds, so why the hell did they let him compete in the Aus titles, and let him get his
hopes up....

I hope he challenges the decision and gets to swim....

His penalty was missing out on the Olympics. He served that now move on Swimming Australia. He has just now been convicted of a Criminal Offence 12 months after it all happened and they want to penalise him again. Michael Phelps getting done DUI is also a criminal offence but I bet USA don't ban him from competeing again. Hmmmm.........

Total Crap. The guy has been penalised in the courts as well as having to miss the olympics. Now swimming australia want to penalise him again. This will ruin this young man and he will be lost to the sport forever, which is a pity as he is obviously very talented.

wycbloods wrote:Total Crap. The guy has been penalised in the courts as well as having to miss the olympics. Now swimming australia want to penalise him again. This will ruin this young man and he will be lost to the sport forever, which is a pity as he is obviously very talented.

And has sacrificed a lot to pursue that talent .. I'm a big believer in giving people a second chance, particularly the young that often only learn they aren't bullet proof after a mistake.

The two bodies are entitled to act independently and each organisation has the right to determine whom it will allow to represent it.
He could have been sacked from the team even if he did not face criminal charges and get found guilty.
Arguing otherwise is like arguing the Crows shouldn't be allowed to suspend Bock because he will be punished by the police and the court.

There is no excuse for physical assault anyway - 12 year olds should know that - let alone one so violent and damaging..
Alcohol abuse is not an excuse for his behaviour, it is further evidence of his unsuitability for selection.

He doesn't appear to me to be genuinely remorseful now from what I have seen of him in the media - just going through the motions as advised.
If he demonstrates genuine change over time in his attitude and behaviour, he could be given a second chance then.
If it comes too late for him to recover his potential career, it is his own fault.

Psyber wrote:The two bodies are entitled to act independently and each organisation has the right to determine whom it will allow to represent it.
He could have been sacked from the team even if he did not face criminal charges and get found guilty.
Arguing otherwise is like arguing the Crows shouldn't be allowed to suspend Bock because he will be punished by the police and the court.

There is no excuse for physical assault anyway - 12 year olds should know that - let alone one so violent and damaging..
Alcohol abuse is not an excuse for his behaviour, it is further evidence of his unsuitability for selection.

He doesn't appear to me to be genuinely remorseful now from what I have seen of him in the media - just going through the motions as advised.
If he demonstrates genuine change over time in his attitude and behaviour, he could be given a second chance then.
If it comes too late for him to recover his potential career, it is his own fault.

No one is saying that psyber...... what people are saying is that he had already been punished by the AOC and the courts and that swimming australia didn't need to join in as, IMHO, the punishment he had already received was sufficient. Yes they could have sacked him prior to him being found guilty but i question what that is going to achieve, he understands he made a mistake when he hit Cowley and he is remorseful IMO. Missing the Olympics is a huge punishment for what he did. I think we may all be forgetting how much hard work the swimmers must do to get themselves in good shape for such an event and he has come back after missing the olympics done all the hard work only to be punished for the same crime a third time by a different organisation. It essentially destroys any second chance he may have had.

Don't think the 'victim' piece on Australian Story did him any favours...

So if the IOC suspend someone for four years for using performance enhancing drugs that's OK, but if you are found guilty of GBH against one of your own team mates, a second chance is the most important thing?

There is a massive inconsistency between drug-related offences and other offences and how they are treated - whether in footy or in other sports.

I just think that there is a big difference between representing your club after getting in strife, and representing your country - especially when a national team mate was the victim in this case and straight after the selection trials had finished!

Magpiespower wrote:Don't think the 'victim' piece on Australian Story did him any favours...

Agreed. Came across as someone who not only wasn't truly remorseful of his actions but simply didn't think he done anything worng. As for his parents they seemed just as bad. I'm guessing the phrase "No Nick. You can't do that." wasn't uttered too often in that household.

Squawk wrote:So if the IOC suspend someone for four years for using performance enhancing drugs that's OK, but if you are found guilty of GBH against one of your own team mates, a second chance is the most important thing?

There is a massive inconsistency between drug-related offences and other offences and how they are treated - whether in footy or in other sports.

I just think that there is a big difference between representing your club after getting in strife, and representing your country - especially when a national team mate was the victim in this case and straight after the selection trials had finished!

The stigma attached to drugs though, is willful cheating, which seems to be viewed as top of the tree in terms of no-no's in sport ... I can see your opinion and I guess that's what a discussion like this comes down to, what people believe is reasonable severity of punishment in relation to the crime.

Squawk wrote:So if the IOC suspend someone for four years for using performance enhancing drugs that's OK, but if you are found guilty of GBH against one of your own team mates, a second chance is the most important thing?

There is a massive inconsistency between drug-related offences and other offences and how they are treated - whether in footy or in other sports.

I just think that there is a big difference between representing your club after getting in strife, and representing your country - especially when a national team mate was the victim in this case and straight after the selection trials had finished!

There is a big difference. In one case you are knowingly cheating in the sport. The other case you are making a mistake completely independently of the sport that in no way gives you an unfair advantage over your fellow competitors. I am not for a second defending what Darcy did but he has been punished by missing the Olympics as well as being punished by the law. Enough is enough. He did the crime, he's done the time. All that banning him is acheiving now is creating extra publicity about the incident and creating an outpouring of sympathy for a guy who doesn't deserve it. Let him compete and let everyone get on with their lives. I'm sure Simon Cowley is really pleased to have this being dragged through the media again.

So playing sport on a level playing field is the most important thing - more important that being a valued member of a safe and supportive community?

Darcy hasn't done the time yet either - he got a 14 month suspended sentence IIRC. I have no doubt that his barrister would have made sentencing submissions that Cowley deserved a mitigated penalty for having suffered de facto punishment to date - ie non-selection for the Olympics - so in all probability his sentence had a discount factor in it. Should Cowley get discounted consideration from SA as well - and get two discounts for the same incident? At the end of the day, the decision was based on the fact that he was convicted, and not on what the outcome of that conviction was (ie in sentencing terms).

As for Cowley, he might not want it dragged up again but I bet he thinks that Darcy deserves to no longer be considered for national selection.

I voted no.

There is no excuse for any assault - ever.
Anyone over 6 should be able to exercise restraint, and talk it out or walk away.
An assault that is so violent it causes GBH looks malicious, and justifies more severe consequences than he got.
Nick Darcy didn't look remorseful to me on any of the footage I saw - he looked like he was just saying what he was taught to say.