Kate McCarthy

Oh, Chris O. A little whack.

Didn't age well.

It aged awfully.

I think just reading through what David Zeta has sort of tweeted out around this, because this has literally just happened, they were saying that the Saints' argument was that the AFL should have instead followed Rule 35, which is the peak rule on discrimination, which meant the process should have been confidential, which I actually agree with what I said initially, because so much was happening with the player that was being called out, the players that were also presenting and giving evidence.

That should have been a confidential process, in my opinion.

Obviously, that's the grounds of which the Saints have gone.

I think the thing that is disappointing without having looked through this in its entirety is that the bottom line is his charge has been upheld.

So he's still guilty.

Yep.

But they have reduced his sanction to four weeks, which for me, that doesn't make sense.

If he's guilty and they've given the charge, that's what they've gone with.

Obviously, not having been part of the process or seeing what the transcript is, how it's played out.

Initially, that is disappointing if that's what the result is.

The thing that needs to come out of this, which I think we've said every single time something like this has happened, Jay-Z, is there needs to be...

a rubrics that is followed that if a player is found guilty, this is the sanction.

A framework.

Absolutely, because at the moment it's guess and check, and again, it's guess and check.

It's, oh, we've given this, oh, they've appealed, oh, we'll reduce it by this because maybe it is a little bit too much.

The AFL-PA have been asking this for a long time, so have clubs and players.

Give us the framework.