DELON ARMITAGE BANNED FOR 12 WEEKS

First topic message reminder :

Breaking news on Twitter apparently (herself subscribes, I don't). Ah, here it is http://www.epcrugby.com/news/29893.php


Delon Armitage, the RC Toulon player, has been suspended for 12 weeks as a result of a misconduct complaint lodged against him by EPCR ...

following his club's European Rugby Champions, Round 3 match against Leicester Tigers at Welford Road on 7 December 2014.

Armitage appeared before an independent Disciplinary Committee made up of Antony Davies (England, Chairman), Roger Morris (Wales) and Pat Barriscale (Ireland) in London today (Wednesday, 17 December). He was accompanied at the hearing by his legal representatives, Mark Milliken-Smith QC and Julian Pike, and by the RC Toulon Team Manager, Tom Whitford, and the RC Toulon player, Drew Mitchell.

The misconduct complaint against Armitage was that during and after the match he was alleged to have conducted himself in an unsportsmanlike manner by making a number of comments to, or within earshot of, spectators using foul and abusive language and may have brought into disrepute the sport of rugby union, the European Rugby Champions Cup, other clubs and persons and/or EPCR in contravention of the Disciplinary Rules of the European Rugby Champions Cup Participation Agreement 2014/15.

After considering evidence and hearing submissions on behalf of Armitage, who pleaded not guilty, and on behalf of the EPCR Disciplinary Officer, the independent Disciplinary Committee was not satisfied that a comment allegedly made by Armitage during the match had been made as the inconsistencies in the evidence were too great.

However, the Committee was satisfied that Armitage had directed abusive language at Leicester Tigers supporters after the match, and while it found that his comments were provoked, the Committee decided he was guilty of misconduct.

The Committee determined that the sanction entry point should be eight weeks, and as this was Armitage's second post-match misconduct case in the last four years, and as there were no mitigating factors, it decided to add four weeks to the ban before imposing a suspension of 12 weeks. Armitage was also ordered to pay costs.
The suspension will run from 17 December 2014 until 8 March 2015, therefore Armitage will be free to play on 9 March 2015. Both the player and EPCR have the right to appeal the decision.



Notes
a) Independent Disciplinary Committees are chosen by the Chairman of the independent Disciplinary Panel, Professor Lorne Crerar.
b) EPCR'S Disciplinary Officer will present the case against the club/individual.
c) Both parties to the hearing (EPCR and the club/individual) have the right to appeal decisions of the independent Disciplinary Committee. Appeals must be lodged within 72 hours of receiving the full written decision from the Chairman of the independent Disciplinary Committee.
d) The full written decision of the independent Disciplinary Committee will be available on http://www.epcrugby.com/discipline/index.php when the disciplinary process is complete.

Felon is a knacker.

Toulon president Mourad Boudjellal told newspaper La Provence that there was "no formal proof" against Armitage.
"We aren't discounting the eventuality of going after these two supporters in court for false testimonies," he said.
He added that the ruling against Armitage was "incomprehensible".
"This is an extraordinary decision which rests only on the allegations of two opposition supporters, whose objectivity we can legitimately put in doubt," said Boudjellal.
"But there is no formal proof, no official document, not even television pictures to attest to the veracity of these testimonies."
English full-back Armitage will be suspended until 8 March. It was his second post-match misconduct case in the last four years.


This bloke needs a bloody PR firm to help him out. Do we really need honest proof that Delon hasn't done what he's accused off? He's a Class A boobie

Then his other player gets fined for going off on one in a press conference. You would of thought he would of gone about this in a slightly quite manner.

If it's just based on the word of two supporters that's not a lot to go on. no one else around who could back it up? Although we don't know yet if there was something else.

I have thought about this and think 12 weeks is pathetic.

So he went off at opposition fans, fine the guy and get it over with if he is guilty, but punishing his club for 12 weeks sends out the wrong message.

No wonder players are being kept away from the public, anything they say can prevent them from earning a living.

Biltong wrote:I have thought about this and think 12 weeks is pathetic.

So he went off at opposition fans, fine the guy and get it over with if he is guilty, but punishing his club for 12 weeks sends out the wrong message.

No wonder players are being kept away from the public, anything they say can prevent them from earning a living.

If he had pleaded guilty and shown any sort of contrition and did not have the previous that he has, he would only be looking at a few weeks rather than what he got. At least Castro had the sense to own up. I don't think that fines really work with these guys, same as footballers, they earn plenty money these days!

To be fair it would have been difficult for Castro to do anything other than own up since his tirade was made to the press and has been broadcast widely.

Sometimes you just have to accept that you are in the wrong. For DA unfortunately that seems to be a bridge that he cannot cross.

Toulon are now blaming Clermont for this.

"But I agree about the wave. Other players do it and all the excuses come out (Phillips (x2) and North both did it during the Lions tour and there was hardly a blip). Same with the swan dive with Ashton. Happens all the time and not a mutter, Ashton does it? And it's like the heart of rugby has been torn out"

Nope Phillips was a prize banker for doing it and has backed up that prize many times since, North's was a little out of character but was a complete tool for doing it and the Ashton swan dive......need I go there? It's been discussed to death. He's a nice lad but he may as well raise two fingers every time he scores.
I all just comes down to the mutual respect card in the end. Players can rip shreds from eachother, even get into a bit of handbags but at the end of the game they applaud eachother and share a pint. It's how it's always been and it's why we don't segregate fans or require an army of police to man the battle lines.
That's why Toulon are right to go after these fans. If their word damned Armitage then we should know who they are and they must be named, shamed and banned from every attending a rugby match again. No fan should ever provoke a player with any level of abuse.

Whilst I have no problem with DA getting a ban for "bringing the game into disrepute" I would like to know if Liecester are going to do anything about the supporters who also abused him, he was certainly wrong to respond but personally I don't want rugby supporters to start screaming abuse at players off the field.

Irish Londoner wrote:Whilst I have no problem with DA getting a ban for "bringing the game into disrepute" I would like to know if Liecester are going to do anything about the supporters who also abused him, he was certainly wrong to respond but personally I don't want rugby supporters to start screaming abuse at players off the field.

Does anyone know what that abuse was meant to be?? If it was personal/racial/whatever then the relevant supporters should be pulled up for it. If it was a bit of banter rubbing in the defeat - then not so much.

Irish Londoner wrote:Whilst I have no problem with DA getting a ban for "bringing the game into disrepute" I would like to know if Liecester are going to do anything about the supporters who also abused him, he was certainly wrong to respond but personally I don't want rugby supporters to start screaming abuse at players off the field.

I will wait to see the full report and understand what the provocation was. My understanding is it did not come from the people he abused and was a "Loser" style taunting. Mind based on the stuff you start to hear nowadays I can well believe it would be worse.

So yeah if the Fans used the same language to Delon that he used back - I hope my club does pursue it.

Pete330v2 wrote:"But I agree about the wave. Other players do it and all the excuses come out (Phillips (x2) and North both did it during the Lions tour and there was hardly a blip). Same with the swan dive with Ashton. Happens all the time and not a mutter, Ashton does it? And it's like the heart of rugby has been torn out"

Nope Phillips was a prize banker for doing it and has backed up that prize many times since, North's was a little out of character but was a complete tool for doing it and the Ashton swan dive......need I go there? It's been discussed to death. He's a nice lad but he may as well raise two fingers every time he scores.
I all just comes down to the mutual respect card in the end. Players can rip shreds from eachother, even get into a bit of handbags but at the end of the game they applaud eachother and share a pint. It's how it's always been and it's why we don't segregate fans or require an army of police to man the battle lines.
That's why Toulon are right to go after these fans. If their word damned Armitage then we should know who they are and they must be named, shamed and banned from every attending a rugby match again. No fan should ever provoke a player with any level of abuse.

Difference was, when Armitage did there was a whole thread created (I think there were a few but merged) about how he was the biggest tool in rugby and that he was generally scum. When Phillips did it it was generally talked down. When North did it there was hardly a ripple and I don't think Phillips' second was mentioned. YOU might have had a problem with it but the vast majority held double standards. And that applies to pretty much everything Delon does. Same thing with Ashton and the dives. Shane Williams was doing it for years and I don't think I remember it ever being mentioned.

HammerofThunor wrote:

Pete330v2 wrote:"But I agree about the wave. Other players do it and all the excuses come out (Phillips (x2) and North both did it during the Lions tour and there was hardly a blip). Same with the swan dive with Ashton. Happens all the time and not a mutter, Ashton does it? And it's like the heart of rugby has been torn out"

Nope Phillips was a prize banker for doing it and has backed up that prize many times since, North's was a little out of character but was a complete tool for doing it and the Ashton swan dive......need I go there? It's been discussed to death. He's a nice lad but he may as well raise two fingers every time he scores.
I all just comes down to the mutual respect card in the end. Players can rip shreds from eachother, even get into a bit of handbags but at the end of the game they applaud eachother and share a pint. It's how it's always been and it's why we don't segregate fans or require an army of police to man the battle lines.
That's why Toulon are right to go after these fans. If their word damned Armitage then we should know who they are and they must be named, shamed and banned from every attending a rugby match again. No fan should ever provoke a player with any level of abuse.

Difference was, when Armitage did there was a whole thread created (I think there were a few but merged) about how he was the biggest tool in rugby and that he was generally scum. When Phillips did it it was generally talked down. When North did it there was hardly a ripple and I don't think Phillips' second was mentioned. YOU might have had a problem with it but the vast majority held double standards. And that applies to pretty much everything Delon does.  Same thing with Ashton and the dives. Shane Williams was doing it for years and I don't think I remember it ever being mentioned.

Ah, but they're 'English' Hammer, and (like Hartley, and many others) are fair game for a bit of 'forum pillorying'.

P'S - I'm not defending DA. However I do think that a 12 week ban based on apparent uncorroborated evidence is a bit strong, despite his past record.

Even so, if DA is guilty then the disciplinary panel missed the opportunity to make him attend an anger management course.

Hound of Harrow wrote:Even so, if DA is guilty then the disciplinary panel missed the opportunity to make him attend an anger management course.

They didn't want to really set him off...

Good one

http://www.epcrugby.com/images/content/Written_decision_-_Delon_Armitage.pdf

About to get into it now, hopefully get some answers on how much abuse he received and how much he gave out. Although it looks like some of our more enlightened already had the answers.

Edit: so not much we can gather from that. None of the spectators who said anything to Armitage gave evidence. And as Delon's argument was based on his own comments being friendly banter, he obviously wanted to play down any comments directed at him.

pretty much it was a fans words against Delons but because of his "appalling disciplinary record" including verbal abuse and the fact Delon wasn't very believable in court.

It seems the "inbred c*nts" comment was alleged to have been said by Delon while talking to Drew Mitchell, as the crowd was silent for a Leicester penalty. The disciplinary panel said it found Mitchell's evidence credible, while there were inconsistencies in testimony from Leicester supporters. It was also noted that match officials - presumably linesmen behind the posts - were nearby and in a position to hear.

On the second incident, there are no details given of what comments were made to Delon but the player himself chose to describe the interaction as "light banter", so he couldn't really then defend himself by suggesting some extreme provocation.

The Leicester supporter who made the complaint said Armitage was shouting, aggressive and swearing up a storm. Ironically, he was only there because his son was waiting for autographs - Delon had stopped to give his. Unlike the first instance, the panel found the Leicester supporter very credible and noted that Armitage didn't deny he swore, only denied it constituted misconduct.

On the other hand, we were not impressed by the player when he gave evidence and was questioned. He presented himself as the victim and sought to justify what he had done and said.

One of the reasons they didn't have any problem raising the eight week ban to twelve is that they felt Delon was not sorry for what he had done.

Not sure what to make of it all really having read the judgement. Clearly Delon acted like an idiot, but it would appear in response to some fans doing the same, and then a fan who was not involved has made the complaint, and is the only witness to the offence. The panel found him guilty on the basis that they liked the witness more than they liked Delon.

I think in the circumstances, 12 weeks is a little heavy handed, but as that is the punishment I would hope that the rugby authorities and Leicester Tigers are trying to identify the fans involved in order that they too face a similar sanction in tersm of not being allowed to watch games for the same period.

But then why didn't Delon say what the fans said to him?
 
 That's the thing I don't get. If it was provocation why not say it.

 Toulon was saying that Delon got abuse thrown at him during the game. (When both him and Mitchell said there wasn't any).

 Maybe if Delon/Toulon brought forward actual evidence to what was said he could have played the victim card more.

 If Toulon actually gave strong evidence against said supporters there may be a case against the Leicester fans but they didn't.

 Either he was badly advised about holding back what was said or he was trying to play something down.

I'm pretty sure it said that he responded to being sworn at by swearing back.  Do the specifics of the abuse aimed at him matter?

As telling as him holding back is the fact that those who he was arguing with have not come forward. It can't be one rule for one and one for another.

As I say, his behaviour was unbecoming, and deserved sanction, however having read the report I do think that 12 weeks is a little steep, even allowing for his previous.

Point 32. They swore at him, he swore back.

Still not exactly what they said though.

 I agree 12 weeks is harsh IMO 4/5 weeks with his track record would have been enough. Guess the main thing was being in front of children but still IMO 12 weeks is very harsh.

 But I guess they thought Armitage was holding back something when cross examined.

 Maybe there is something in 2 judges being from Clermont

 Wonder if Toulon will appeal as if not you have to wonder why.

How often are appeals successful? They may feel it's not worth it and I'm pretty sure that after appeal if the disciplinary officer feels that the appeal was not worthy they can increase the sentence. Is that a risk worth taking?

True but Toulon have been aggressive about the judgment. saying they are "thinking" of taking the witnesses to court, so doubt that would concern them.

There's a bit of "why always me" about Delon Armitage, similar to Dylan Hartley. On most occasions there seems to be a sense on injustice in the air and harsh treatment, however it seems to keep happening to the same individuals.

Such a shame, given the talent both have at their disposal.

I think you need to decide if 8 weeks was an excessive punishment for the offences as the other 4 was added because of his previous record I think.

Does sound pretty steep though for what may have been inappropriate banter.

Maybe they were hoping that if they keep harshly punishing his juvenile and moronic behaviour he might eventually be forced to grow up?

So Armitage has decided to appeal, this will be interesting.

Indeed. Will be interested to see the basis of his appeal. Personally I think he has a case in terms of length of sentence.

I guess he has the 'Castro said in on record' defence.

I do not condone what he did, but he did not stamp on anyone's head, so 12 weeks seems harsh.  Also was there hard evidence what was really said.  Sticks and stones and all that.

cb wrote:Also was there hard evidence what was really said.  

Does a confession count? In the case he was found guilty of, what Delon said was not disputed. He just argued it was not offensive or aggressive or breaking any rules. Read the full report ( http://www.epcrugby.com/images/content/Written_decision_-_Delon_Armitage.pdf ). Fascinating reading into the minds of the disciplinary panel. Certainly if Delon is to succeed he will have to show some contrition and a lot more humility than he did at the initial hearing where he seemed to rub the panel up the wrong way.

Compared with some other judgements, even an eight week ban seems overly harsh, which makes me question how the base punishment levels are decided.

Rugby Fan wrote:Compared with some other judgements, even an eight week ban seems overly harsh, which makes me question how the base punishment levels are decided.

The report states exactly how. Says that it is the same as swearing at a ref, 8 weeks then 4 more because it is his second similar offence. I agree it seems harsh, but it is explained

I think therein lies an issue LT. There isn't a specified offence of swearing at a supporter I don't believe, so they've picked the closest they could find, which seems logical, but I'm not sure how it stands up legally. Delon had the same problem with the doping officer incident, where he was retrospectively designated as a match official, and he was then sanctioned for that offence.

I don't think there's any issue that Delon swore at people, that's admitted, but what is in dispute is the nature of that swearing. The people he swore at have never been identified as far as I am aware, or if they have, declined to give evidence. So we have one mans account against another with nothing to corroborate either, and the panel have decided who to believe on the basis that they liked how one witness conducted himself whilst the other isn't their cup of tea. That doesn't sit right with me, perhaps due to what I do for a living and the need to provide corroborated evidence if I want to secure a conviction.

For me, at worst this should have been low end entry, then a bit added on for his previous, and a bit taken of as mitigation as he was targeted and was only reacting to being sworn at himself, taking it back to whatever the low end entry was.

Ozzy, it wasn't one mans word against another's. There were a few supporters that heard the words used.

Not at the hearing there wasn't nathan.  Only one person gave evidence of Delon swearing during the incident after the game.

But didn't DA admit to what he said?

It is hardly one man's word against the other if they both agree what was said.

And these sorts of disciplinary hearings do not carry the same burden of proof as a criminal case I would think. And rightly so.

He admitted to swearing MrsP, but denied that it was aggressive or threatening, which is what the witness said it was.  He stated that it was banter with some fans who swore at him.  The panel accepted that it was threatening and aggressive based on the testimony of the one witness to the incident that occurred in a busy area of the ground where there were stewards present.  

The full judgement is here; http://www.epcrugby.com/images/content/Written_decision_-_Delon_Armitage.pdf

This is the decision bit...

Decision and finding in relation to the Legends Lounge incident

34. We considered the evidence carefully and in the same manner as we had for the on-pitch
incident. In this case, we had an admission from the Player that he had sworn twice at spectators, but a denial that that amounted to misconduct. Mr. Milliken-Smith submitted to us that Mr. Hampson had not found that the comments were threatening and the Player had at worst tarnished the reputation of Mr. Hampson’s son’s role model. There was no evidence that anyone felt threatened by the Player. He conceded that the Player’s behaviour had been “not appropriate”. Mr. Duthie submitted to us that the comments were made to, and in the earshot of, spectators, including children, that they were foul and abusive and if, as a matter of fact, we found the comments had been made, that would be
tantamount to misconduct as defined by the Disciplinary Regulations.

35. We reminded ourselves as to the evidence given orally by Mr. Hampson and the way he had responded to a lengthy cross-examination and period of questioning. We were very impressed by Mr. Hampson as a witness. He gave his evidence in a careful and considered manner. Rather than cross-examination undermining or diluting the cogency of his evidence, we felt that it improved it and he presented as an entirely honest, open, frank and credible witness.

36. On the other hand, we were not impressed by the Player when he gave evidence and was questioned. He presented himself as the victim and sought to justify what he had done and said.  Wherever there were inconsistencies between his account and that of Mr. Hampson, we had no hesitation in preferring the evidence of Mr. Hampson. He had no reason to make his complaint and attend before the Committee if his evidence were untrue. He had done so because he concluded the incident was so serious that it could not go unreported. There was ample corroboration of Mr. Hampson’s evidence in the Player’s admission that he had sworn twice and gesticulated at the Tigers supporters and we had no hesitation in concluding that on the basis of the Player’s own admission he was guilty of misconduct under the Disciplinary Regulations. We made the further finding that the nature and tenor of his behaviour was as Mr. Hampson described. We also made the finding that such behaviour was carried out in the presence of children as young as eleven, who were waiting to collect autographs from their heroes and role models.


The bit that I've highlighted is the bit that doesn't sit right with me.  It basically amounts to "we have nothing to corroborate either version (where there are differences), but we like Mr Hampson and think Delon's a tw@t so we are going to believe Mr Hampson and convict Delon".  Whilst I appreciate the differences in burdens of proof between this and a criminal case, what is to stop anyone from for example, overegging any incident where they hear a person swear, and standing up, presenting themselves well and getting a player banned?

But was that not pretty much what he said about the incident with the doping officer?

That he swore but did not think there was a problem because he did not mean to be aggressive?

That's a doping officer and a spectator and his son who all seem to have felt threatened by DA's behaviour. There comes a time when he has to recognise that his behaviour is threatening and do something about it. There are only so many times you can say,
" I didn't mean it in an aggressive way."
before the penny needs to drop that your behaviour needs to change.

MrsP, I agree, Delon has misbehaved again and needs to change and deserves a punishement. What I have issue with is the process of both how they come to find someone guilty, and also determine sentence.

I actually share some of your discomfort Ozzy. I wonder if the report is not a good reflection of what was actually said? Maybe it is a case of,

"You had to be there."

I just found it interesting that he has used the same defense twice now. There really does not seem to be much learning going on. Maybe the panel are actually doing him a favour by being harsh?

I agree there's not much learning going on, but not so sure the panel are doing him a favour by being harsh. From what I can see, all it will do will be fuel his assertion that he is victimised by the authorities.

It sure looks that way. I wonder if he was at a different club would he have a better chance of seeing where the problem lies? What line did LI take with him? I get the feeling Toulon are facilitating his victimhood?

If I'm honest I think the club probably pandered to him and let him get away with murder. The new board is much hotter on discipline and standards, and some of the recent departures from the club have been because the board now won't tolerate that sort of stuff.

For his own sake you kind of hope someone will take a firm hand with him.

reduced to 8 weeks can play 9th February.

 http://www.epcrugby.com/news/29965.php#.VLAQKhGzUdU