Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

IRFU and RWI conflict MOD NOTE POST 126

Options
24567…23

Comments

  • Options
    #32
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    NollagShona wrote: »
    The judge clarified that, the defence requested him to attend

    I know. They requested him to attend. He did not have to go. He chose, of his own free will, to attend a public court hearing.

    Before the mods come down on me, I don't care about the rights and wrongs of his being there, but all the questions that the dastardly media asked, they still apply and that's the issue. The IRFU have their backs up about the press asking questions and shutting out journalists for doing so is a very bad development.


  • Options
    #33
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    NollagShona wrote: »
    I would question why the media waited until a key match was on to air their grievances re the signing- why not when he signed?

    More attention

    Ha, you mean back at the turn of the year when they printed their stories? What key match was that, Ospreys Select v Munster A?


  • Options
    #34
    NollagShona
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    Burkie1203 wrote: »
    They are under no obligation to employ Grobler even if Munster wanted to. What grounds would Grobler have to sue them given he is a convicted doper.

    If they said they are not employing his as he was a convicted doper even though he has served his punishment he would have them bang to Rights on his right to employment after he served his punishment. You can’t say, I don’t think it was enough I’m not signing you for that reason


  • Options
    #35
    NollagShona
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    Ha, you mean back at the turn of the year when they printed their stories? What key match was that, Ospreys Select v Munster A?

    It sad in the papers the week of the Castres match m, Kimmages OpEd and all- or did you miss that?


  • Options
    #36
    Burkie1203
    Registered Users Posts: 11,134 ✭✭✭✭Burkie1203


    NollagShona wrote: »
    If they said they are not employing his as he was a convicted doper even though he has served his punishment he would have them bang to Rights on his right to employment after he served his punishment. You can’t say, I don’t think it was enough I’m not signing you for that reason

    Why would he have them bang to rights? Under what law?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #37
    NollagShona
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    Former Former wrote: »
    I know. They requested him to attend. He did not have to go. He chose, of his own free will, to attend a public court hearing.

    Before the mods come down on me, I don't care about the rights and wrongs of his being there, but all the questions that the dastardly media asked, they still apply and that's the issue.


    Judge Patricia Smyth said: "The only reason that Mr Rory Best was in this courtroom was because he was directed to be here by senior counsel

    Directed- but I’m sure you know better than a learned judge


  • Options
    #38
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    NollagShona wrote: »
    It sad in the papers the week of the Castres match m, Kimmages OpEd and all- or did you miss that?

    Which also happened to be when Grobler started turning out for Munster A.

    Why is it surprising that they were talking about it when he started playing for Munster? It was reported on when he signed as well, by the way, as has been pointed out many times. It just became controversial when he got close to the actual Munster team.


  • Options
    #39
    NollagShona
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    Burkie1203 wrote: »
    Why would he have them bang to rights? Under what law?

    You can’t deny someone the right to work because you think the ban was to leinient

    You could use another reason but not that one


  • Options
    #40
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Former Former wrote: »
    Sorry, you've misunderstood. The actual decision to hire Grobler is done and dusted. I don't want to drag that up.

    However, the IRFU withdrawing from long-standing arrangements with the media and refusing a journalist access to a press conference is a very different issue and it is not on.

    Again, some people will love this. Some people don't see the value in an independent press. I think it's a very sinister development.
    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    You think there is going to be a statement from the IRFU on why they've shut out journalists? There hasn't been in the past when they've pulled stuff like this.

    I don't care if Piers Morgan writes an essay accusing Grobler of feeding his pets with steroids, closing up the shutters and locking out the press is absolutely not acceptable behaviour for an NGB.



    I think if the IRFU have reached out to the various media outlets and bodies and requested that no questions relating to the trial up north are directed to players or coaches and are only directed to executive or media relations members of the IRFU then that's fair enough. If some outlets continue to ask those questions, they could well have good reason to protect those players or coaches as if they miss speak they could easily jeopardise the trial. I'm not saying this is why, I'm just pointing out that maybe there have been a couple of instances leading upto this and the IRFU is justifiably fed up.

    Can you imagine if Stockdale was asked about the trial in front of a Camera at full time, or Larmour? They're rugby players, Answering questions like this or about team mates drug use isn't their job.

    These groups have to work together and everyone needs to show a bit of cop on. I think it's worth waiting to hear what the IRFU have taken issue with, it could well be a legitimate issue.


  • Options
    #41
    The Rape of Lucretia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,440 ✭✭✭The Rape of Lucretia


    NollagShona wrote: »
    If they said they are not employing his as he was a convicted doper even though he has served his punishment he would have them bang to Rights on his right to employment after he served his punishment. You can’t say, I don’t think it was enough I’m not signing you for that reason

    Why? The sport convicted him and punished him, not 'the law'. Which was denying him rights to 'work'. Because he broke its rules. Are we not free to choose not to employ a convicted criminal who has served his time, because he has a criminal record ? (genuinely just asking, dont know the answer) ? I think most employers would bit such an application without further ado (whether legal or not).


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #42
    NollagShona
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    Which also happened to be when Grobler started turning out for Munster A.

    Why is it surprising that they were talking about it when he started playing for Munster? It was reported on when he signed as well, by the way, as has been pointed out many times. It just became controversial when he got close to the actual Munster team.

    Yes hence the juicy PK OpEd in the Sunday Papers.


  • Options
    #43
    NollagShona
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »
    Why? The sport convicted him and punished him, not 'the law'. Which was denying him rights to 'work'. Because he broke its rules. Are we not free to choose not to employ a convicted criminal who has served his time, because he has a criminal record ?
    (genuinely just asking, dont know the answer) ? I think most employers would bit such an application without further ado (whether legal or not).

    No, you cannot say I won’t employ this person because I feel his punishment wasn’t severe enough. Ask Justin Gatlan


  • Options
    #44
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    NollagShona wrote: »
    You can’t deny someone the right to work because you think the ban was to leinient

    You could use another reason but not that one

    You can absolutely deny a convicted cheater the right to play for your rugby team purely on the basis of the risk of recidivism.

    If you're going to say again that there's some sort of legal issue, please at least point to actual legislation or legal precedence.


  • Options
    #45
    NollagShona
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »
    Why? The sport convicted him and punished him, not 'the law'. Which was denying him rights to 'work'. Because he broke its rules. Are we not free to choose not to employ a convicted criminal who has served his time, because he has a criminal record ? (genuinely just asking, dont know the answer) ? I think most employers would bit such an application without further ado (whether legal or not).

    He is a professional sportsman they have to work within Employment laws. It isn’t the Catholic Church - only our laws apply here...


  • Options
    #46
    NollagShona
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    You can absolutely deny a convicted cheater the right to play for your rugby team purely on the basis of the risk of recidivism.

    If you're going to say again that there's some sort of legal issue, please at least point to actual legislation or legal precedence.

    I gave you the precedence Justin Gatlan


  • Options
    #47
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Deleted User wrote: »
    I think if the IRFU have reached out to the various media outlets and bodies and requested that no questions relating to the trial up north are directed to players or coaches and are only directed to executive or media relations members of the IRFU then that's fair enough. If some outlets continue to ask those questions, they could well have good reason to protect those players or coaches as if they miss speak they could easily jeopardise the trial. I'm not saying this is why, I'm just pointing out that maybe there have been a couple of instances leading upto this and the IRFU is justifiably fed up.

    Can you imagine if Stockdale was asked about the trial in front of a Camera at full time, or Larmour? They're rugby players, Answering questions like this or about team mates drug use isn't their job.

    These groups have to work together and everyone needs to show a bit of cop on. I think it's worth waiting to hear what the IRFU have taken issue with, it could well be a legitimate issue.

    We know that this hasn't happened.

    Imagine if one of the journalists, one of the more rabid ones, took out an axe and attacked Joe Schmidt? I mean we can't be taking these kinds of risks. Instead we'll just do all our own interviews and stick it up on Irish Rugby TV.


  • Options
    #48
    The Rape of Lucretia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,440 ✭✭✭The Rape of Lucretia


    NollagShona wrote: »
    No, you cannot say I won’t employ this person because I feel his punishment wasn’t severe enough. Ask Justin Gatlan

    Legally ? Or because you dont think you can? Employment law is different in different countries. I dont think Justin Gatland has every been employed in Ireland, so not sure of the relevance.


  • Options
    #49
    Burkie1203
    Registered Users Posts: 11,134 ✭✭✭✭Burkie1203


    NollagShona wrote: »
    No, you cannot say I won’t employ this person because I feel his punishment wasn’t severe enough. Ask Justin Gatlan

    But they can simply refuse to sign off on signing him because they have a zero tolerance approach to doping and they have a policy of not signing anyone with a doping conviction.

    And there is nothing Grobler can do about that.

    Again, what law would Grobler be able to sue them under?


  • Options
    #50
    NollagShona
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »
    Legally ? Or because you dont think you can? Employment law is different in different countries. I dont think Justin Gatland has every been employed in Ireland, so not sure of the relevance.

    EU law applies across all member states.


  • Options
    #51
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    NollagShona wrote: »
    I gave you the precedence Justin Gatlan

    Please explain how you think Justin Gatlin is any precedence.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #52
    NollagShona
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    Burkie1203 wrote: »
    But they can simply refuse to sign off on signing him because they have a zero tolerance approach to doping and they have a policy of not signing anyone with a doping conviction.

    And there is nothing Grobler can do about that.

    Again, what law would Grobler be able to sue them under?

    If you believe that to be the case I’m not going to waste my time trying to convince you otherwise.


  • Options
    #53
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Former Former wrote: »
    Rory Best was not required to be there. He chose to be. I think it was worth a question.

    Again, there's people like you who would be happy not to hear the awkward questions. It's a very slippery slope.

    Sorry, like me?

    Cop on making presumptions like that when you've missed my point entirely. I pointed out that the media made insinuations and many, many journalists commented that it was important that this sort of thing gets highlighted. Didn't the features editor of the Times start the #not_my_captain hashtag?

    And then look what happened when the explanation came out. Whether you think the judge was lying or not, I can at least accept that Best, understood he needed to be there, I think that's pretty clear to everyone. That the media didn't have the curiosity to consider all reasons for attendance shows the agenda with which the majority of pieces were drafted with.


  • Options
    #54
    Burkie1203
    Registered Users Posts: 11,134 ✭✭✭✭Burkie1203


    NollagShona wrote: »
    EU law applies across all member states.

    Justin Gatlin has never been employed by anyone directly. He is an athlete who can enter any competition once he meets the qualifying criteria.

    You are confused here because the IRFU can refuse to sign any convicted doper on that basis.


  • Options
    #55
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    NollagShona wrote: »
    Judge Patricia Smyth said: "The only reason that Mr Rory Best was in this courtroom was because he was directed to be here by senior counsel

    Directed- but I’m sure you know better than a learned judge

    A senior counsel has no power to compel anyone to attend a trial, and certainly no one can be compelled by anyone to attend a trial purely as a spectator.


    Once more for the cheap seats: BEST CHOSE, OF HIS OWN FREE WILL, TO ATTEND.


  • Options
    #56
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users Posts: 13,015 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    NollagShona wrote: »
    Use more extreme language in your posts, it enhances your argument
    What? Is that supposed to be sarcasm? :confused:


  • Options
    #57
    Burkie1203
    Registered Users Posts: 11,134 ✭✭✭✭Burkie1203


    NollagShona wrote: »
    If you believe that to be the case I’m not going to waste my time trying to convince you otherwise.

    But you havent explained what law Grobler can use to sue IRFU if they refuse to sign him because of his doping past


  • Options
    #58
    The Rape of Lucretia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,440 ✭✭✭The Rape of Lucretia


    NollagShona wrote: »
    EU law applies across all member states.

    So how can you ban someone from being employed just because they took drugs ?


  • Options
    #59
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Sorry, like me?

    Cop on making presumptions like that when you've missed my point entirely. I pointed out that the media made insinuations and many, many journalists commented that it was important that this sort of thing gets highlighted. Didn't the features editor of the Times start the #not_my_captain hashtag?

    And then look what happened when the explanation came out. Whether you think the judge was lying or not, I can at least accept that Best, understood he needed to be there, I think that's pretty clear to everyone.

    Don't see how that hashtag is remotely relevant.

    Seems we're fishing pretty deep here to find anything that might possibly absolve the IRFU here. In truth I'm long past expecting the best out of them on issues like this.


  • Options
    #60
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    We know that this hasn't happened.

    Imagine if one of the journalists, one of the more rabid ones, took out an axe and attacked Joe Schmidt? I mean we can't be taking these kinds of risks. Instead we'll just do all our own interviews and stick it up on Irish Rugby TV.

    No, you're example is ridiculous. My example already happened in the press conference before the first team announcement.

    Gallery warned players or coaches couldn't answer questions about the trial for serious legal reasons. Coach is then asked twice. The journalists know full bloody well what is at stake if someone says the wrong thing. I wan't Joe to be a good coach, I don't want him to have to also be extremely media savvy in incredibly difficult circumstances.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #61
    NollagShona
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »
    So how can you ban someone from being employed just because they took drugs ?

    https://www.google.ie/amp/www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/cas-overturn-british-lifetime-olympic-ban-for-drug-cheats-7697509.html?amp

    Here is an example of WADA stepping in when GB Tried to Ben someone for life - contrary to WADA guidelines


Advertisement