Waleed Aly, an avid Richmond Tigers supporter, took to The Project to explain his decision after his co-host Peter Hellier sent an email to the show questioning his involvement in the process.
A well-known Collingwood supporter, Hellier, who is on currently on leave, argued character testimony should not be used to decide how guilty players are of an on-field act.
However, Aly said he felt the controversy surrounding the suspension was more about the tribunal's decision rather than his role in providing a good character reference for Houli.
"This is not an uncommon thing," Aly said. "You do get character references in courts all the time. That is a really common thing. The tribunals are based on a court. These are the rules that they have had in place."
"They have used them before I think in tribunal settings. It is not like this was something that was dreamt up by Richmond or by the lawyers or anything like that. It is a standard procedure."
"So, if they are trying to figure out whether the person involved intended to hurt somebody or whatever, then it is relevant to that or it can be relevant to that that a court figures out is this the kind of person who is likely to have intended to do something like that?"
The league believes strong character evidence should only mean the penalty does not move to be greater than four matches, not that it could be cut below that minimum threshold.
http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment/waleed-aly-defends-bachar-houli-afl-tribunal-involvement-20170628-gx0rq2.html