Michael Jennings dragged into 'disgraceful' furore ahead of NRL milestone for Roosters
The spotlight has been on Jennings and the NRL ahead of the momentous occasion.
NRL chief executive Andrew Abdo has confirmed Michael Jennings will not receive official recognition for his 300-game milestone on Thursday night, due to the Sydney Roosters veteran's controversial past. The 36-year-old is set to become the 51st player to reach the coveted milestone when he returns to the starting side for the injury-ravaged Roosters against the Knights in Newcastle.
In normal circumstances, the NRL CEO would present a player reaching their 300th game with a ball before kick-off, like Abdo did with fellow Roosters veteran Jared Waerea-Hargreaves earlier this season. The 30-metre line at the ground is also normally replaced with "300" as a nod to the milestone but Abdo has confirmed any such plans have been scrapped due to the "past conduct" of Jennings.
The NRL boss was referring to Jennings' three-year NRL ban for performance-enhancing drugs, as well as an ugly court dispute with his ex-wife, Kirra Wilden. The NRL veteran's former wife accused him of raping her multiple times during their marriage and Jennings was forced to pay her more than $490,000 in damages by a judge, following a civil court case in 2021.
Jennings denied the allegations against him and appealed the ruling but it was ultimately upheld. According to reports from The Sydney Morning Herald, Wilden has not yet received any money from Jennings and lawyers acting on her behalf declined to comment when AAP reached out seeking confirmation as to any payment plan set up by the NRL star.
"Due to past conduct, Michael Jennings will not receive official NRL recognition on his 300th match," Abdo said in a statement. The decision comes after veteran rugby league journalist Phil Rothfield revealed he sent a letter to the NRL boss explaining why honouring Jennings with the traditional fanfare for his 300-game milestone, would be a "disgraceful look for all women in rugby league".
Michael Jennings at centre of 'disgraceful' backlash
“I’m really worked up about this one and I’ve written an open letter to Andrew Abdo urging him not to go to Newcastle to present the 300-game ball to Michael Jennings, as he does with other footballers who reach that milestone,” Rothfield said on Big Sports Breakfast on Monday. “It has nothing to do with his drugs suspension, he did his time and on that basis is back in the NRL.
“However, there is a massive, massive integrity issue here around a civil court case in 2021 where he was found guilty of sexually assaulting his ex-wife, not once but four times. He appealed, which is his right, but lost as a second court upheld the decision.
RELATED:
Zac Lomax's brutal reality emerges amid Eels contract sticking point
Matty Johns in staggering Dylan Brown call amid brutal truth for Eels
Latrell Mitchell cops big ban over elbow amid ugly Rabbitohs truth
“Jennings was ordered to pay his ex-partner, who had to give up work, she was so shattered by what had happened, he was ordered to pay his ex-wife $500,000 in damages. He has not paid back one cent of that money and this is a disgraceful look for all women in rugby league if Andrew Abdo travels up there and presents the game ball to him under these circumstances.
“I’m different with people like Curtis Scott, people will say what about Curtis Scott? Curtis Scott for his domestic violence was given a 12-month community corrections order which he served. He’s done his time. Michael Jennings has not done what the court told him to do. I’ve read all the court evidence, it is quite horrific and I feel really, really sick about the NRL being in Newcastle to honour his 300th game.”
The NRL gave the green light for Jennings to make his return with the Roosters this season but it's understood it was on the proviso he met several conditions relating to the civil case with his ex-wife. That included assurances around the money he was ordered to pay. Jennings was not charged over the allegations from his ex-wife but unlike criminal trials, the court's findings did not need to be beyond reasonable doubt.
