Joel Monaghan says goodbye

By 10 November, 2010 80

[First filed: Nov 9, 2010 @ 15:40]

Joel Monaghan mopo

Courtesy of ABC Radio here is the sound of Joel Monaghan breaking down while announcing his resignation, and that of Raiders’ Boss Don Furner blaming those who brought the photo to light while washing his hands of finding those other players who were in the room taking photos.

Thanks to Mathman for providing the mopo.

Bear in mind that almost every rugby league reporter you hear or see opining on this had the photo a week in advance but decided you didn’t need to know this is, for the men they present to you as heroes and role models, a good time.

Please login to post your comments
80 Responses to Joel Monaghan says goodbye
#1
clp3:57 pm, 09 Nov 10

Well done thats a genuine apology and really no other outcome would be possible. Not that I think his misdeamour is anywhere near as bad as some other NRL players drunken exploits especially in regards to behaviour towards women. But you can’t expect the Raiders to play with dog rooter taunts.

However I think whilst this player has behaved responsibly I would like to see the powers that be actually act themselves in a positive way. In short that means that contracted players are agree to not consume any alcohol. It seems an outrageous thing to ask of young men in Australia but if you are a paid professional you can have stringent criteria put into your contract. Enforcement is another issue but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t put this in contracts in the first place.

#2
clp3:58 pm, 09 Nov 10

Also why is it always Labradors who get involved in these sort of pranks?

#3
colourful sydney rac4:03 pm, 09 Nov 10

Don Furner is a disgrace.

Whilst he committed a disgusting act, Monaghan broke no law. Other players did. They electronically recorded the act and then used a carriage service to distribute it. These are both criminal acts.

Covering this up, as Furner seems happy to do is reprehensible.

#4
johnboy4:07 pm, 09 Nov 10

clp said :

Well done thats a genuine apology and really no other outcome would be possible. Not that I think his misdeamour is anywhere near as bad as some other NRL players drunken exploits especially in regards to behaviour towards women. But you can’t expect the Raiders to play with dog rooter taunts.

However I think whilst this player has behaved responsibly I would like to see the powers that be actually act themselves in a positive way. In short that means that contracted players are agree to not consume any alcohol. It seems an outrageous thing to ask of young men in Australia but if you are a paid professional you can have stringent criteria put into your contract. Enforcement is another issue but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t put this in contracts in the first place.

And yet most people who drink too much do nothing worse than make regrettable phone calls to their exes.

#5
I-filed4:10 pm, 09 Nov 10

Are we all pleased with ourselves? I’m not. It’s a disgrace that footy players who endanger other people’s lives don’t get the sack, and this poor idiot gets the sack. Frankly, a moment’s consideration before on-circulating the image would have been a good thing, in hindsight.

#6
Mysteryman4:13 pm, 09 Nov 10

colourful sydney racing identity said :

Don Furner is a disgrace.

Whilst he committed a disgusting act, Monaghan broke no law. Other players did. They electronically recorded the act and then used a carriage service to distribute it. These are both criminal acts…

Ahh… how do you figure? If what Monaghan did wasn’t illegal, how is recording it and distribute it illegal?

#7
colourful sydney rac4:15 pm, 09 Nov 10

I-filed said :

Are we all pleased with ourselves? I’m not. It’s a disgrace that footy players who endanger other people’s lives don’t get the sack, and this poor idiot gets the sack. Frankly, a moment’s consideration before on-circulating the image would have been a good thing, in hindsight.

I will be pleased when we see some consistency in penalties that are handed down to players – see my post above.

#8
clp4:16 pm, 09 Nov 10

I know but if you’re being paid vast sums of money to play a game then you can be expected to follow a strict regimen of diet and exercise I don’t see abstaining from alcohol as any more rigorous than having to go to training several nights a week.

Mind you they would also have to get rid of alcohol sponsorship as well.

#9
Skidbladnir4:18 pm, 09 Nov 10

Mysteryman said :

If what Monaghan did wasn’t illegal, how is recording it and distribute it illegal?

Same as 16 year olds can have sex, but filming it & distributing the result is not.

#10
Woody Mann-Caruso4:20 pm, 09 Nov 10

Frankly, a moment%u2019s consideration before on-circulating the image would have been a good thing, in hindsight.

Horse, gate, bolted.

#11
PBO4:20 pm, 09 Nov 10

Hope that you can move on Joel, good luck in the UK. P.s. the dog stays here.

#12
clp4:20 pm, 09 Nov 10

Canberra Milk just doesn’t want to be the drink of choice for dog rooters.

The only logical option for him was to resign – I personally think the actual incident itself doesn’t warrant losing your job over – but unfortunately I think thats what had to happen in this case.

Why am I even commenting – I don’t care I have never watched a NRL game in my life and the only time I ever heard another Raiders player give a press conference (Ok so he wasn’t playing at the time) was the Mal Meninga launch of political career one.

#13
colourful sydney rac4:21 pm, 09 Nov 10

Skidbladnir said :

Mysteryman said :

If what Monaghan did wasn’t illegal, how is recording it and distribute it illegal?

Same as 16 year olds can have sex, but filming it & distributing the result is not.

spot on.

#14
BerraBoy684:34 pm, 09 Nov 10

In his comments, Mr Furner appears to typify pretty much everything that’s wrong with NRL (a player can do no wrong unless it’s reported in the media, and if it is reported in the media it’s someone else’s fault). If this is the attitude of their management then it’s no wonder the culture of the players won’t/can’t change.

If I was an NRL fan or official(I’m not but I used to buy a fair bit of Raiders merchandise for family overseas until this happened)I’d be particularly aggrieved by one NRL fans comments in the CT today.

This person says that nothing immoral happened between Monaghan and the dog as the dog has no concept of what was happening and, therefore, there was no victim. Which also implies that necrophilia is OK as long as one of the people involved is actually dead.

The writer of the letter goes on to say that he’s “had enough of philosophically ignorant NRL officials and sponsors who don’t understand that most fans don’t care about how players behave off the field… we just want to see a good footy”.

I wonder how Mr Remington of Gordon would feel if one of his family were sexually accosted in the early hours by an NRL player or if a player took a crap in his lounge room?! How do other NRL fans feel having this well adjusted person speak on their behalf?

#15
Reprobate4:35 pm, 09 Nov 10

clp said :

Canberra Milk just doesn’t want to be the drink of choice for dog rooters.

Yes, a milk moustache isn’t a good look for Joel Monaghan.

#16
Mysteryman4:37 pm, 09 Nov 10

Skidbladnir said :

Mysteryman said :

If what Monaghan did wasn’t illegal, how is recording it and distribute it illegal?

Same as 16 year olds can have sex, but filming it & distributing the result is not.

Gotcha. I hadn’t really followed the story – I assumed that he didn’t actually do anything with the animal, it just looked like it.

#17
johnboy4:39 pm, 09 Nov 10

His balls can see daylight and without an x-ray or tonsil cam no-one will know exactly how bad it was.

#18
Holden Caulfield4:40 pm, 09 Nov 10

clp said :

Also why is it always Labradors who get involved in these sort of pranks?

Yeah, well you should see what they wear when they go out on the town, they’re practically begging for it!

#19
Thoroughly Smashed4:41 pm, 09 Nov 10

Skidbladnir said :

Mysteryman said :

If what Monaghan did wasn’t illegal, how is recording it and distribute it illegal?

Same as 16 year olds can have sex, but filming it & distributing the result is not.

Except this is not child pornography. What law does it fall under?

#20
PBO4:44 pm, 09 Nov 10

Thoroughly Smashed said :

Skidbladnir said :

Mysteryman said :

If what Monaghan did wasn’t illegal, how is recording it and distribute it illegal?

Same as 16 year olds can have sex, but filming it & distributing the result is not.

Except this is not child pornography. What law does it fall under?

It is still Child pornography until the participants are 18 years old.

#21
PantsMan4:50 pm, 09 Nov 10

PBO said :

[It is still Child pornography until the participants are 18 years old.

Call that dog’s vet and check?

#22
Holden Caulfield4:59 pm, 09 Nov 10

PBO said :

Except this is not child pornography. What law does it fall under?

It is still Child pornography until the participants are 18 years old.

Yes, this is true, but adult canine ? child pornography, so the original question still remains…

#23
Holden Caulfield5:00 pm, 09 Nov 10

The ? above should be “does not equal”.

#24
Thoroughly Smashed5:19 pm, 09 Nov 10

PBO said :

Thoroughly Smashed said :

Skidbladnir said :

Mysteryman said :

If what Monaghan did wasn’t illegal, how is recording it and distribute it illegal?

Same as 16 year olds can have sex, but filming it & distributing the result is not.

Except this is not child pornography. What law does it fall under?

It is still Child pornography until the participants are 18 years old.

Holden Caulfield said :

PBO said :

Except this is not child pornography. What law does it fall under?

It is still Child pornography until the participants are 18 years old.

Yes, this is true, but adult canine ? child pornography, so the original question still remains…

The “this” I was referring to was the above photo of Joel Dog. I figured that was obvious, but I suppose I should have been clearer.

Essentially, I am puzzled as to why the fact that a photo of two 16 year olds going at it constitutes child pornography is being provided as proof that this particular photo is also illegal to distribute. I guess we’re all buggered.

#25
Frano5:23 pm, 09 Nov 10

Whilst not defending Joel’s actions in any way, full marks to him for doing the right thing in resigning and not putting the onus on the club to make the hard decision. If only other football players (of all codes) and politicians (of all parties) would do the same and accept responsibility when they drop the ball, rather than hanging on in an untenable situation forcing their boss to sack (or not sack) them.

Personally I judge a person not only on what they did wrong, but how they react to it and accept responsibility.

#26
PantsMan5:26 pm, 09 Nov 10

I had a look through the Commonwealth Crimes, Telco,. and Telco (Sexual Offences) Acts. I think [my god, can't beleive I'm saying this] animals are still OK.

#27
Pork Hunt5:47 pm, 09 Nov 10

Woody Mann-Caruso said :

Frankly, a moment%u2019s consideration before on-circulating the image would have been a good thing, in hindsight.

Horse, gate, bolted.

For Christs sake, don’t give them any more ideas…

#28
BerraBoy686:06 pm, 09 Nov 10

Frano said :

Whilst not defending Joel’s actions in any way, full marks to him for doing the right thing in resigning and not putting the onus on the club to make the hard decision. If only other football players (of all codes) and politicians (of all parties) would do the same and accept responsibility when they drop the ball, rather than hanging on in an untenable situation forcing their boss to sack (or not sack) them.

Personally I judge a person not only on what they did wrong, but how they react to it and accept responsibility.

1. good call!

#29
Skidbladnir6:10 pm, 09 Nov 10

Wait, why quote me?
When did I say two 16 years old going at it was child pornography, exactly?
Stop adding words that I clearly didn’t say.
Also, stop agreeing with me if you don’t know what I’m saying. :P

If you really want to be specific:
The X 18 classification only applies to films and is a special classification which contains sexually explicit material between consenting adults.

For the purposes of Australian Law, “adult” means an individual natural person who is at least 18 years old.
(Both in our ACT Legislation Act 2001, and the Classification Act)
“child” means any person who is under 18 years of age in the Classification Act.
IE: No matter how old the dog is, its not an ‘adult’, since it is not a natural person.

If its classified X18 , its either unrestricted, category 1, or category 2.
If a material or publication is Refused Classification or is as yet “Unclassified’, they cannot be legally imported, sold or displayed in Australia.
(“material” includes any computer data or other form of recording from which sounds or written or pictorial matter may be produced.)

#30
Skidbladnir7:06 pm, 09 Nov 10
Advertisement
GET PREMIUM MEMBERSHIP
Advertisement

Halloween in Australia?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

IMAGES OF CANBERRA

Advertisement
Sponsors
Advertisement
Copyright © 2014 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.