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

1235723

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    The IRFU refused access to a single, specified journalist to the press conference after the French game.

    Is anyone going to defend that?

    If I knew the full reasons I could make my mind up fairly


  • Registered Users Posts: 15,216 ✭✭✭✭Beechwoodspark


    The IRFU refused access to a single, specified journalist to the press conference after the French game.

    Is anyone going to defend that?

    If he was going to start asking questions about criminal trials and not rugby related issues, do you think the irfu should indulge him?


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,553 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    When you ask a question and get an answer that doesn't make sense, a good journalist should follow up.
    It made sense to me. But further to that, any explanation would have possibly led to Best giving an opinion of some sort. That's not advisable in the circumstances.


  • Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    One person, who is a member of the RWI, has said that RWI members have been denied a press conference and the relationship is at an all time low. This was attributed at the outset by another RWI member, Peter O'Reilly, to the Grobbler situation.

    The journalist elaborates and puts forth other reasons. These may be accurate. There may be other reasons, the IRFU have not released a statement. I have provided realistic potential reasons why elements within the media are getting push back.

    Again, the IRFU could be in the wrong, but I'm not keen on jumping to conclusions one way or the other until more information is forthcoming.

    But you haven't actually answered the question here either.

    Is the answer just that noone at RWI has painted a picture that was materially wrong? Seems like it to me.

    It's unlikely, but if the IRFU make a statement that absolves them then fair enough. But they have yet to do so and may never do so. They don't get a free pass for not making any statement.


  • Moderators, Sports Moderators, Regional West Moderators Posts: 6,773 Mod ✭✭✭✭connemara man


    **ALL EVENTS IN BELFAST ARE NOT TO BE TALKED ABOUT**
    lets keep discussions civil please!


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    If he was going to start asking questions about criminal trials and not rugby related issues, do you think the irfu should indulge him?

    It was at tht exact press conference when the very first question was about the trial. It was answered with a prepared statement by Rory Best.


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


    Thats nothing at all to do with employment law.
    No, I didnt say it was.

    You didnt ? :

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


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,553 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    You're making a massive, massive leap here that the question at the team announcement was the reason for the judge to make that statement. There was a ton of reporting on that from right across the media.
    I'm not making that assumption at all. I just made two separate statements. You then linked them.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    You didnt ? :

    The Athletes ban being overturned was wada

    Selectively quoting is doing a disservice


  • Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    prawnsambo wrote: »
    I'm not making that assumption at all. I just made two separate statements. You then linked them.

    No.
    That it then became incumbent on the judge in the trial to make a statement specifically on the matter is worryingly close to it having an effect on the outcome of a criminal trial

    I'm referring to that sentence. If those are two seperate statements... then that is bizarre.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,553 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    No.



    I'm referring to that sentence. If those are two seperate statements... then that is bizarre.
    It's not really. That statement stands on its own. The necessity came about because of the reporting of Best's attendance at the trial. Is that not clear?


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


    The Athletes ban being overturned was wada

    Exactly. Not employment law. You brought up employment law. But then forgot you did.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    Exactly. Not employment law. You brought up employment law. But then forgot you did.

    He has a right to employment under employment law. Once he’s served his ban you can’t exclude him on that basis - that’s employment law


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,977 ✭✭✭✭Burkie1203


    The Athletes ban being overturned was wada

    Selectively quoting is doing a disservice
    He has a right to employment under employment law. Once he’s served his ban you can’t exclude him on that basis - that’s employment law





    Athletes are in effect self employed. Their income is derived from sponsors and event meeting prize money plus grants from sports councils or govt grants.

    The British Athletics organisation tried to ban guys for life who failed drug tests but they were prevented from doing so because it went against the rules set out.

    The Grobler one is different. The IRFU could have refused to sanction his signing as an employee if Munster on the basis he is a convicted doper and it goes against their company policy of zero tolerance. They wouldnt be attempting to ban him from the sport and there would be nothing Grobler can do about it legally


  • Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    He has a right to employment under employment law. Once he’s served his ban you can’t exclude him on that basis - that’s employment law

    I have a right to employment. When will I get to sign my Munster contract?


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


    He has a right to employment under employment law. Once he’s served his ban you can’t exclude him on that basis - that’s employment law

    Why Where in employment law ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    I have a right to employment. When will I get to sign my Munster contract?

    They can say you don’t come anywhere near the required skill level. That’s legitimate

    They can’t say it’s because a ban you served was too leinient


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    Burkie1203 wrote: »
    Athletes are in effect self employed. Their income is derived from sponsors and event meeting prize money plus grants from sports councils or govt grants.

    The British Athletics organisation tried to ban guys for life who failed drug tests but they were prevented from doing so because it went against the rules set out.

    The Grobler one is different. The IRFU could have refused to sanction his signing as an employee if Munster on the basis he is a convicted doper and it goes against their company policy of zero tolerance. They wouldnt be attempting to ban him from the sport and there would be nothing Grobler can do about it legally

    They have a contract from the IRFU- they are not self employed


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,977 ✭✭✭✭Burkie1203


    They can say you don’t come anywhere near the required skill level. That’s legitimate

    They can’t say it’s because a ban you served was too leinient

    But they can say its because they have no desire to hire a convicted doper


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,553 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    They can say you don’t come anywhere near the required skill level. That’s legitimate

    They can’t say it’s because a ban you served was too leinient
    You keep pushing this as the supposed grounds. They don't have to say anything about his ban, merely the fact of his ban and the clear evidence of him doping.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 10,977 ✭✭✭✭Burkie1203


    They have a contract from the IRFU- they are not self employed

    Which is what I said.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    Burkie1203 wrote: »
    But they can say its because they have no desire to hire a convicted doper

    That could be challenged as the player could rightfully claim he has served his ban


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    Burkie1203 wrote: »
    Which is what I said.

    You mean track and field athletes and not all athletes? That wasn’t clear to me


  • Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    They can say you don’t come anywhere near the required skill level. That’s legitimate

    They can’t say it’s because a ban you served was too leinient

    Why do you keep saying that the IRFU would have to say a ban was too lenient? That has nothing to do with it.

    They would just have to say they have a zero tolerance policy towards doping. Which they have stated many times (clearly falsely) in the past.

    You're totally wrong about employment law coming into this. Completely wrong.


  • Registered Users Posts: 7,018 ✭✭✭Bridge93


    They didn't have to say anything at all to him. They could've just never looked remotely interested in signing him and then not signed him. Easy


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    Bridge93 wrote: »
    They didn't have to say anything at all to him. They could've just never looked remotely interested in signing him and then not signed him. Easy

    Yes. They could have done that.


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


    That could be challenged as the player could rightfully claim he has served his ban
    He is a convicted doper whether he has served his ban or not. It is a fact and unchallengeable.
    Where in the the law do you think he has a case ?


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,553 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    That could be challenged as the player could rightfully claim he has served his ban
    It doesn't matter if he does. The same as any employer can refuse to hire a convicted drug dealer or convicted drug user.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    He is a convicted doper whether he has served his ban or not. It is a fact and unchallengeable.
    Where in the the law do you think he has a case ?

    Again, the right to work


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    In fairness, I was being very hard on Munster and IRFU. I thought they signed Grobler due to a combination of a lapse of judgement and a pressing need to get more second row options for Munster.

    Now I see that, in fact, they were obliged to sign him under employment law.

    Someone should have just told Ruaidhri O'Connor that on day one.


Advertisement