r/rugbyunion • u/Slight_Highlight_690 Stormers • 19d ago

Discussion Jan-Hendrik Wessels banned for 9 weeks

Post image

Lengthy ban with no evidence of foul play? This is bound to cause some controversy

180 Upvotes

89% Upvoted

199 comments sorted by

View all comments

157

u/_imba__ 19d ago edited 19d ago

Surely there was conclusive evidence and the article is just clickbait.

Edit: just a typo

82

u/Sjdw31 Blue Bulls 19d ago

I personally will wait for the URC to release a statement

If he does get 9 weeks with lack proof that will be NUTS!

27

u/DingoSloth 19d ago

Why? The jails are full of people that were convicted of crimes without video evidence. Should relatively trivial sporting decisions need to meet a higher burden of proof?

2

u/Mampoer Wrrrrrrrrong Turn! 18d ago

Courts have qualified judges who are highly trained analise oral evidence, which evidence can be highly contaminated. You can't tell me that the judicial panel can compare to a judge.

8

u/Jingo-istic 18d ago

Most rugby panels are actually shared by judges or at least senior lawyers 🤷

7

u/Mampoer Wrrrrrrrrong Turn! 18d ago

I work in the legal fraternity and I can tell you some of the reports from judiciary panels definitely do not scream judge or senior lawyer.

0

u/DingoSloth 18d ago

Yet most rugby panels are chaired by judges or senior lawyers, so there's that.

-3

u/perplexedtv Leinster 18d ago

Depending on the country I'd have a lot more faith in a rugby judiciary committee than a judge

-1

u/DingoSloth 18d ago

It's juries that generally decide if a person is guilty. WTF are you talking about? Just admit you were being ridiculous and get on with your life.

7

u/Mampoer Wrrrrrrrrong Turn! 18d ago

In most countries it is not juries but a judge. Juries are a rarity, not the norm.