#2 Jordan De Goey

[MatthewBoydFanClub]

If what De Goey is saying in this morning’s edition of the Herald-Sun is true in that the man and woman were stealing their drinks in the roped off area of the nightclub, his version of events will completely exonerate him, while De Goey’s friend has some explaining to do for attacking the guy with a bottle. This will all come out if it goes to court, but I suspect it won’t and the remaining charges will be withdrawn. As others have been saying De Goey needs to watch what he drinks when he goes out and he needs to be careful of the company he keeps.

Newsflash - Defendant's version of events, if believed, would completely exonerate him/her.

A couple of things confirm De Goey’s version of events to me. If De Goey is guilty why did De Goey and his friend continue drinking when the couple left? The fact no one required medical attention if my reading of the events is correct. De Goey’s vehement denials of what he’s being accused of. There’s two things here. His ethical behavior and any criminal behavior. I don’t see any criminal behavior. In the wash it’ll all come out.

[Pies4shaw]

And you believe his version and think it confirms anything, why? How, from this distance, would anyone have any relevant view about the criminality or otherwise of his behaviour?

[princem007]

The truth is coming out know JDG should be cleared on self defence.

<Snip - The large slab of text you posted here looks to have come from a Herald-Sun article written by Mike Sheahan. Posting the content of an article from a "newspaper" that is behind a paywall in that way is a breach of copyright (click on their "licence" link and you'll get the general flavour). Thanks, BBMods>

[MJ23]

So a new version - from Degoey has come out and would change the original story and charges considerably. Yes, still a version and I’d suggest evidence to support one way or another would still come out.

Again, no medical for anyone involved and Degoey was not kicked out and allowed to stay and keep drinking.

Some who were very quick to believe the worst of him and the original version, are quick to dismiss now Degoey and his “version”

I will never understand why supporters hate some of our players so much they actually want him to be guilty.

[Pies4shaw]

Do Collingwood supporters much care whether he's guilty or not in the criminal sense? That's a problem for a judicial system on the other side of the world.

[MJ23]

Do Collingwood supporters much care whether he's guilty or not in the criminal sense? That's a problem for a judicial system on the other side of the world.

Yes. Yes they do. Because if this is true he’s done bugger all wrong and should line up round 1.

[Magpietothemax]

Do Collingwood supporters much care whether he's guilty or not in the criminal sense? That's a problem for a judicial system on the other side of the world.

Yes. Yes they do. Because if this is true he’s done bugger all wrong and should line up round 1.

Exactly MJ. I very much care, because I want him to line up in Round 1. And, I loved your post Warburton Lad. The eternal optimism burns strong in me as well.

[Mr Miyagi]

Club has CCTV and witnesses surely

[Pies4shaw]

Do Collingwood supporters much care whether he's guilty or not in the criminal sense? That's a problem for a judicial system on the other side of the world.

Yes. Yes they do. Because if this is true he’s done bugger all wrong and should line up round 1.

You mean that if it isn't established beyond reasonable doubt in a foreign court that he committed criminal assaults, his conduct is fine? "He isn't imprisoned, so he can play?" Is that the standard?

[MJ23]

Do Collingwood supporters much care whether he's guilty or not in the criminal sense? That's a problem for a judicial system on the other side of the world.

Yes. Yes they do. Because if this is true he’s done bugger all wrong and should line up round 1.

You mean that if it isn't established beyond reasonable doubt in a foreign court that he committed criminal assaults, his conduct is fine? "He isn't imprisoned, so he can play?" Is that the standard?

Yep. Self defence is not a crime. Neither is drinking at a Halloween party in the off-season.
If you think either should stop him playing then half the players in the comp shouldn’t play.

[Pies4shaw]

I don't have a view either way. I am just asking questions to try to tease out what it is that people are actually saying, so that I can consider it.

That said, I think your rhetorical flourish comparing De Goey with "half the players in the comp" is probably not useful - he plainly seems to be an outlier, doesn't he? No doubt plenty of players get caught in the wrong place at the wrong time occasionally. It seems to be a bit more of an issue with De Goey, though. The suggestions are that he's been on his last chance at Collingwood and given the spotlight on him on and off for a long period, now, you'd think that he might be less likely to have found himself in these most recent circumstances than other players. Yet, here we are - it isn't anybody else on our list or on another team's list. It's him, in the wrong place at the wrong time, yet again.

[Lazza]

Do Collingwood supporters much care whether he's guilty or not in the criminal sense? That's a problem for a judicial system on the other side of the world.

Yes. Yes they do. Because if this is true he’s done bugger all wrong and should line up round 1.

You mean that if it isn't established beyond reasonable doubt in a foreign court that he committed criminal assaults, his conduct is fine? "He isn't imprisoned, so he can play?" Is that the standard?

The system finds you guilty or not guilty of a crime. End of story for all but the Collingwood hating hordes and the hack media. Once he is found not guilty, he has nothing else to answer for in this case. We are used to our players being hated by the foolish others but that is water over a ducks back for me. If found not guilty he plays and we support him. The others can go fish in the China seas for all I care

[Pies4shaw]

So, why is he stood down by Collingwood and not allowed to train, play or use the facilities? If it’s just about criminal penalty, does that make the Club itself part of the Collingwood-hating horde about which you express concern?

[PyreneesPie]

Got to admire the sense of humour of some footy supporters

It has been suggested elsewhere, that should JDG play again for the Pies, Collingwood fans could show their support for him by:
a) turning up to the footy in white dressing gowns or
b) waving white dressing gowns above their heads ala Sheedy jackets

I can just visualise it now. Hilarious.

Apparently, Collingwood dressing gowns are available from the merchandise shop, but are currently only available in black. Perhaps there could be a special run of white ones???

[PyreneesPie]

Do Collingwood supporters much care whether he's guilty or not in the criminal sense? That's a problem for a judicial system on the other side of the world.

Yes. Yes they do. Because if this is true he’s done bugger all wrong and should line up round 1.

You mean that if it isn't established beyond reasonable doubt in a foreign court that he committed criminal assaults, his conduct is fine? "He isn't imprisoned, so he can play?" Is that the standard?

Yep, because he's contracted to play football, not to be a saint, assigned with upholding the moral virtues of the Collingwood Football Club.