Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Nick Stevens  (Read 208 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Nick Stevens

Is it only pure coincidence that the former Port Adelaide player N Stevens has just put in a claim relating to concussion issues during his playing days, while down the corridor he is fighting to clear his name due to some alleged shady dealings a few years ago. 'It wasn't my fault your honour, it was the concussion!' 

Re: Nick Stevens

Reply #1 –
Quote from: townsendcalling – on
Is it only pure coincidence that the former Port Adelaide player N Stevens has just put in a claim relating to concussion issues during his playing days, while down the corridor he is fighting to clear his name due to some alleged shady dealings a few years ago. 'It wasn't my fault your honour, it was the concussion!' 
Its akin to playing the mental health card when you're just flat out on the nose beers.
2021-Pi$$ or get off the pot
2022- Real Deal or more of the same? 0.6%
2023- "Raise the Standard" - M. Voss Another year wasted Bar Set
2024-Back to the drawing boardNo excuses, its time
2025-Carlton can win the 2025 AFL Premiership
 

Re: Nick Stevens

Reply #2 –
It seems that the lawyers are feeling their way with the concussion case.  Eight players have now joined Max Rooke as plaintiffs and the AFL and eleven clubs have been named as defendants.  However, it’s likely that Rooke’s case against the AFL and Geelong will proceed as a pilot.

I have no doubt that Stevens has a legitimate basis for joining the action; the lawyers wouldn’t touch him without solid medical evidence.  Furthermore, his defence in the swimming pool case is that he never intended to rip people off.  No mention has been made of concussion issues.

That doesn’t mean he isn’t lower than shark sh1t as a convicted woman basher and, on the evidence presented in the current case, ripping families off.
"Negative waves are not helpful. Try saying something righteous and hopeful instead." Oddball

Re: Nick Stevens

Reply #3 –
These are all complex issues, in professional and social media we are only ever presented with cherry-picked information to support someone's specific perspective.

We must not be arbitrary in our assessment.

It's a fatal mistake by the general public to build bridges to unrelated issues, I doubt the lawyers or courts would allow it, which then typically leads to public outrage. So even though the rules of evidence are strict why do lawyers do the other stuff? Because they know public opinion does matter in areas of doubt when the evidence is lacking. Settlements are made based on opinions, risk and chance.
"Extremists on either side will always meet in the Middle!"