Focusing on blame is not going to solve the
problem.

The League has got to put into place real penalties
for inappropriate behaviour.

The League must take responsibility for the behaviour of
its players - and setting standards of what's acceptable
behaviour and putting real penalties in place - would
go a long way towards solving the current problem.
If a player knew that he'd lose his job, or that his
salary was going to be cut - he might think twice
about how he behaved.

Maybe for the first time ever I have to agree with CJ (at least partly). As abhorrent as I find the degradation of human being behaving like animals I wonder the value of singling out individuals for things that took place years ago. No laws were broken and the animal like behaviour is not limited to NRL players. If we don't want this sort of thing happening in our society we should ban pornography which encourages men and woman to act as animals rather than human beings. We can't have it both ways. I would imagine their are multitudes of women and men who have have regrets and damage caused by making wrong choices. A major part of the problem is our education system, our media and social engineers encourage people to make wrong choices and have then have no means to heal or repair the damage. Feminism is much to blame for the perception of men that woman are purely sex objects. It fails to take a stand against pornography and the depiction of women on TV as sex objects and then screams blue murder when men carry out what they have been watching.

The biggest disgrace about this is that the media talks big about exposing these type of actions but it is ok for the pollies such a rudd,goss,beattie and several unions to hide it.

Such as the Heiner affair

So until there is transparency it is just talk and the media get their bit of fame again without exposing the truth.

Can’t agree with you Antiseptic,

Some behaviour can be legal but still be in the eyes of society morally wrong.

Matthew Johns’ statements reveal that he knew it as well. He has said he apologised to the girl on the night and that he had been waiting for the ‘phonecall’ for the last seven years.

You use the term ‘young men’ but Johns was 12 years older than her and certainly more worldly for his age than most while she was ‘young for her age’ as described by a policeman who investigated the incident.

The marketing machine that is professional rugby goes to great lengths to have their players idolised by the fans. Johns’ best years as a player would have coincided with this girls formative years and one could surmise that adulation played a fair part in her decision to go with him to his room.

What does it say about the man that he allowed others to enter his room to participate in this act?

Trish Johns has really only one person to blame for the stress she must be feeling, not the girl nor the reporter, but her husband.

I remember as a teenager attending a footy game with some mates. One of them spent most of the game shouting racial abuse at a couple of aboriginal players. Much of it in any other circumstances would have been admired for the wit but I can tell you it still sticks in my craw that I did nothing to stop him that day.

Legally back then he did nothing wrong, morally both of us are indicted.

Just because charges were not laid does not mean that an offence was not committed. A complaint was made to poolice. Both sides had a different recollection of events. Who was telling the truth? Who was not?

Belly,

I agree with you that this has happened in other fields other than sports.

Belly are you seriously suggesting that it was probably the woman's own fault? Are you alleging this woman is a groupie? Can you define deviant behaviour to me based on your football experiences?

But there are many, many unanswered questions.

1. Firstly why would any man allegedly want to partake in such an ugly action? Is this deviant behaviour?

2. Allegedly we have one woman and allegedly a number of men allegedly from the one football team...Didn't the police investigate and the footballers allegedly unitedly say it was consensual... What hope for the truth emerging?

3. How many of the men were married men and why aren't they all named?

4. How does a woman allegedly in such a situation, and possibly in fear, say no?

5. Why would Mrs Johns believe her husband at all after such an allegedly ugly betrayal?

6. Why did the Police investigate if it was allegedly consensual?

7. How can real men think so little of a woman to think that what is alleged is reasonable behaviour?

8. How many of these alleged men have daughters of their own? This lady was afterall someone's daughter!

9. With the numbers allegedly so stacked against this lady what hope did she have in any matter whatsoever?

10. What does a woman do if a group of allegedly male friends/teammates walk in and allegedly watch and then allegedly participate in such an ugly deed?

My heart goes out to the woman involved and I feel for Matthew Johns' kids as they are the innocents involved here!

Didn't Mrs Johns decide to stick by her (insert word here) and at whose suggestion did she appear in the interview?

The fact that this is old news is irrelevant...

If a law was broken we will never know the truth anyway! What chance justice?

Belly isn't it a fairly simplistic, but rather presumptive statement, to just say that some people want to change their mind after the event when mentioned with this event?