The sad case of Kenny-Dowall

Shaun Kenny-Dowall. Photo / Getty

Opinion

To the tricky subject of Shaun Kenny-Dowall. It was overwhelmingly sad to read Kiwis and Roosters league star Kenny-Dowall faces domestic violence charges, just as it is sad to hear of any allegations or revelations about violence in the home.

Whatever the outcome, it is already a tragedy, for his ex-partner and everyone else involved.

However, the NRL is right to stand firm by refusing to rub out Kenny-Dowall even if the Roosters' decision to pull him out of the game against the Warriors yesterday was also correct so everyone can take a breath.

To the wider issue: Should sporting bodies or individual clubs stand players down when they face such serious charges? My head says innocent until proven guilty, even if the heart wavers.

To start with one side of this argument: Sydney Sunday Telegraph columnist Rebecca Wilson passionately urged the NRL to stand Kenny-Dowall down until his day in court, because the "sheer breadth of those allegations must be enough to sound alarm bells ... don't excuse him because he is a star."

I fully understand her sentiments and domestic violence stance, but there is still a big hole in that argument. What if he didn't do it?

The phrase "alarm bells" is a long, long, long way from a safe conviction. The way police lay charges, and the number of them, can be tactical and does not necessarily reflect a situation accurately either way.

To turn the argument around, we should protect people's reputations and livelihoods from the dangers presented by "alarm bells".

Don't overreact because he is a star. A public sacking could also prejudice a trial because standing Kenny-Dowall down makes him seem like a guilty man. We have to work extra hard in cases like this, to protect the assumption of innocence. Establishing "beyond reasonable doubt" is for the prosecution, not a public plaything. The time to make a major stand, depending on the verdicts, is after the trial.

My closing argument: I'm open to persuasion here. But to be con-vinced otherwise, and with all due respect, I'd need to hear a better opposing case than what I can find so far.