*Unofficial* New Zealand Black Caps Thread

[RossTaylorsBox]

If he said I was a terrible bloke like you mentioned above then all hell will break lose and they will start saying he's guilty while the court says he's not

Lol this is garbage

 

[thierry henry]

Maybe but I can’t think of many examples of someone being found not guilty and then releasing a statement saying ‘but here are all of the things that I admit to that are similar to but not quite criminal conduct’. Bit of a tightrope.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

You don't even need to list anything, just admit some wrongdoing and apologise profusely for your behavior which, while legal, was still reprehensible.

 

[nzfan]

Lol this is garbage

In your opinion he should say publicly yeah mate I stuffed up but the courts are incompetent to prove it so I get away scott free. That'll be mockery. Who does that?

 

[Prince EWS]

You don't even need to list anything, just admit some wrongdoing and apologise profusely for your behavior which, while legal, was still reprehensible.

Yeah his actual defence in the case wasn't exactly "I dindu nuffin" in the first place.

 

[thierry henry]

You don't even need to list anything, just admit some wrongdoing and apologise profusely for your behavior which, while legal, was still reprehensible.

I don’t know that any reprehensible behaviour in this context is actually legal though. To my understanding it isn’t. That’s the tightrope. What are you actually admitting to.

 

[thierry henry]

I guess not everything needs to come through a lawyer but I really don’t know what you could advise him to say that is both a fulsome apology and falls short of admitting more than he wants to. I think the actual bar for what amounts to a crime is lower than you are making it out to be.

 

[Prince EWS]

I don’t know that any reprehensible behaviour in this context is actually legal though. To my understanding it isn’t. That’s the tightrope. What are you actually admitting to.

His own testimony clearly admitted to pretty awful behaviour though.

By Kuggeleijn’s own testimony, he stayed overnight with a woman who explicitly said no “a few times” to ***. He kept trying to take off her underwear and get on top of her but was rebuffed, which he told the court was “frustrating”. Early next morning he tried again and penetrated her. She testified that he pinned her arms and told her to be quiet as she cried. He denied that, but agreed that afterwards she left the room crying and that her flatmate made him leave.

Surely he could come out with a "What I did was legal but it was wrong. I regret my behaviour" yadda yadda statement looked over by his legal team.

I personally dgaf about these sort of canned statements because my BS detector goes off, but not everyone is as cynical as me.

 

[thierry henry]

His own testimony clearly admitted to pretty awful behaviour though.



Surely he could come out with a "What I did was legal but it was wrong. I regret my behaviour" yadda yadda statement looked over by his legal team.

I personally dgaf about these sort of canned statements because my BS detector goes off, but not everyone is as cynical as me.

The facts you’ve set out there could easily meet the definition of ***ual assault in NZ. It would be insane for Kuggeleijn to voluntarily trot out that narrative again. Irrespective of what his exact evidence was, surely he can’t/won’t/shouldn’t concede ‘guilty’ conduct after a finding of not guilty. Given the legal definition/concept of ***ual assault in NZ I would go as far as to say that the not guilty finding contradicts what you’ve just quoted and perhaps his own evidence...but then, it’s not a direct quote of his evidence...

Regardless, just can’t see how he can go there

 

[Prince EWS]

The facts you’ve set out there could easily meet the definition of ***ual assault in NZ. It would be insane for Kuggeleijn to voluntarily trot out that narrative again. Irrespective of what his exact evidence was, surely he can’t/won’t/shouldn’t concede ‘guilty’ conduct after a finding of not guilty. Given the legal definition/concept of ***ual assault in NZ I would go as far as to say that the not guilty finding contradicts what you’ve just quoted and perhaps his own evidence...but then, it’s not a direct quote of his evidence...

Regardless, just can’t see how he can go there

Surely repeating your own testimony would not count as new evidence though.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

But he won't get found guilty again, the trial is over and what he's done is in the public record.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

If the result of the trial was that the woman just straight up lied about everything then yeah time to move on, but it's clear from his own words that's not what happened. The reason this is a thing is the lack of remorse, not the outcome of the trial itself. And that's even without getting into the bigger societal issue where this type of stuff happens way more regularly and is just kind of accepted. Like, you have people in this very thread saying it was just a dumb mistake from a kid and nobody's perfect, etc. as if it's just one of those things that happen in life.

 

[thierry henry]

I’m not saying he would get charged again. I’m assuming that his PR strategy doesn’t involve admitting his crime.

The potted summaries of his evidence that I have heard all sound like a guy basically explaining the rape that he committed. On the assumption that he doesn’t want to admit his rape, I can’t see how he can apologise for this.

Alternatively - if the tenor of his evidence is rather different to what has been described to me- it would seem to me that an apology would be hollow, since he’s not apologising for what you want him to apologise for?

An apology for LEGAL conduct would be an apology based on him having had an objectively reasonable belief that the victim consented. This seems to be contrary to the version of events that y’all would want an apology for.

 

[honestbharani]

If the result of the trial was that the woman just straight up lied about everything then yeah time to move on, but it's clear from his own words that's not what happened. The reason this is a thing is the lack of remorse, not the outcome of the trial itself. And that's even without getting into the bigger societal issue where this type of stuff happens way more regularly and is just kind of accepted. Like, you have people in this very thread saying it was just a dumb mistake from a kid and nobody's perfect, etc. as if it's just one of those things that happen in life.

Surely saying something like "even though I did not cross any legal boundaries, I realize I have made bad judgements that night and I will strive to improve my behaviour and treat people and their freedom with complete respect" is not difficult?

 

[nzfan]

How do you guys know he's not remorseful? He may be internally shot and very remorseful. Just because he doesn't tell you or state in public doesn't mean he's not shot inside. Would have been best for him to be found guilty and sentenced. At least he'd have done the time and moved on. I don't think that'd hand helped either. Public would be baying still.

Different case but a bit like Lou Vincent. He did everything he could, came out and admitted but you know where he's at? Not allowed to step on a cricket ground for a life time. What difference did it make to him personally going public?

 

[Flem274*]

its all moot given he lacks the extra 5 clicks to do what he does in internationals. australia will end his career.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

Surely saying something like "even though I did not cross any legal boundaries, I realize I have made bad judgements that night and I will strive to improve my behaviour and treat people and their freedom with complete respect" is not difficult?

Yeah, like PEWS said it's a canned response but it's something at least.

How do you guys know he's not remorseful? He may be internally shot and very remorseful. Just because he doesn't tell you or state in public doesn't mean he's not shot inside. Would have been best for him to be found guilty and sentenced. At least he'd have done the time and moved on. I don't think that'd hand helped either. Public would be baying still.

I mean in the end all the wondering if he's actually sorry and what would happen if the trial went a different way would have been avoided if he just didn't be a creep in the first place.

 

[nzfan]

Yeah, like PEWS said it's a canned response but it's something at least.


I mean in the end all the wondering if he's actually sorry and what would happen if the trial went a different way would have been avoided if he just didn't be a creep in the first place.

I don't think he will ever be excused. He's a creep like you said and wouldn't call him any less. He may have got really lucky and didn't have to pay for it dearly. An aussie cricketer in England I think is behind bars for like 5 years for similar drunken act. He is like 22 or something but they were on a spree shagging over in England with cricket taking backseat. He's been sent to prison for his act. Kuggs is really lucky on that account.

That said I think he has every right to play cricket though if you respect the ruling. Going with a public apology is not going to make a difference. I'd be very concerned if he hasn't been remorseful internally. At least from what I know he's not spoken of badly in the cricketing circle. Seems like he's understood how wrong he was and is a much better person now.

 

[nzfan]

Australian-born cricketer Alex Hepburn jailed for five years over rape

Australian-born former Worcestershire county cricketer Alex Hepburn is sentenced to five years in a UK prison for rape linked to a ***ual "conquest game".

www.abc.net.au

This person, Alex Hepburn. If you read the details of what went on you'd be disgusted. Unfortunately it's quite a common thing this in sports. They take it so lightly and they think it's their right to go about like this as a sportsman. Some start thinking they are so superior they reckon they can get away with everything. If I mention some of the details I've heard over the years of some of what we call legends or looked up to by the public you'll be surprised. There are lots of things that don't come out or talked about in public. Lot of the get away without getting in the public eye. You wouldn't want some of them as neighbors no matter how good a cricket CV they have.

 

[RossTaylorsBox]

That said I think he has every right to play cricket though if you respect the ruling. Going with a public apology is not going to make a difference. I'd be very concerned if he hasn't been remorseful internally. At least from what I know he's not spoken of badly in the cricketing circle. Seems like he's understood how wrong he was and is a much better person now.

Same, he should be allowed to play cricket, and people should be allowed to protest or boycott any teams he's in.

Australian-born cricketer Alex Hepburn jailed for five years over rape

Australian-born former Worcestershire county cricketer Alex Hepburn is sentenced to five years in a UK prison for rape linked to a ***ual "conquest game".

www.abc.net.au

This person, Alex Hepburn. If you read the details of what went on you'd be disgusted. Unfortunately it's quite a common thing this in sports. They take it so lightly and they think it's their right to go about like this as a sportsman. Some start thinking they are so superior they reckon they can get away with everything. If I mention some of the details I've heard over the years of some of what we call legends or looked up to by the public you'll be surprised. There are lots of things that don't come out or talked about in public. Lot of the get away without getting in the public eye. You wouldn't want some of them as neighbors no matter how good a cricket CV they have.

That's why an effort to expose and call out all this stuff is important, it's just a huge open secret that no one is willing to talk about, not just sports either.