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
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

South Africa's 2003 RWC Preparations

  • 20-08-2007 2:24pm
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,963 ✭✭✭


    Anyone know where I could find articles on the 2003 South Africa World Cup preparations, I've heard quite a few stories of the team being made crawl through trenches while shotguns were fired above obviously don't know whether to believe such stories...


Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 785 ✭✭✭ALH-06


    You're thinking of the 'Kamp Staaldraad' controversy. Basically the squad was taken to a military-style boot camp during their RWC preparations as part of a team building exercise. After SA performed poorly and exited at the QFs, details began to emerge of some pretty shocking incidents that took place at Staaldraad, such as guns being pointed at players and forced nudity etc.

    Theres plenty of info on it. Start at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamp_Staaldraad


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 662 ✭✭✭JæKæ


    interesting-I see the whistle blower committed suicide a few years later


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 432 ✭✭Linford


    SpAcEd OuT wrote:
    Anyone know where I could find articles on the 2003 South Africa World Cup preparations, I've heard quite a few stories of the team being made crawl through trenches while shotguns were fired above obviously don't know whether to believe such stories...

    Don't think they are being put through the same this year... I was in Galway at the weekend and met Schalt Burger, Percy Montgomerie, Oz de Rand and Victor Matfield (apologies for the probable misspelling of names) on the p!ss. Nice guys, just concerned about my bet on SA to win the world cup after seeing how much they drank :D


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,380 ✭✭✭remus808


    Linford wrote:
    just concerned about my bet on SA to win the world cup after seeing how much they drank :D

    uhoh.. i'v got a bet on them too! That's class that you met them.. but surely they should be expected to remain tee-total till after the WC at this stage?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 98 ✭✭Sir


    ALH-06 wrote:
    You're thinking of the 'Kamp Staaldraad' controversy. Basically the squad was taken to a military-style boot camp during their RWC preparations as part of a team building exercise. After SA performed poorly and exited at the QFs, details began to emerge of some pretty shocking incidents that took place at Staaldraad, such as guns being pointed at players and forced nudity etc.

    Theres plenty of info on it. Start at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kamp_Staaldraad
    Dude, Wikipedia is hardly a reliable source on such things. The article itself in says it needs more sources/verification. I'd be quite reluctant to believe much of what the article says.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,380 ✭✭✭remus808


    LOL found this in a news article on it..
    During the exercise, players were forced to cook a chicken and boil an egg

    Ready, Steady, Rugby?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 14,483 ✭✭✭✭daveirl


    This post has been deleted.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,693 ✭✭✭tHE vAGGABOND


    Yea its all common knowledge tbh

    On Wikipedia, there are a couple of university studys [not arsed searching for them now tbh - but read one a couple months ago] which compared the content of wikipedia with encypledia britinica [or similar] and over a wide range of subjects. On the ones I saw Wikipedia always wins, its more accurate due to the fact that you can update it all the time, where a book goes to press last year and is therefore out of date almost immediately on some subjects [or indeed can be biased if the bloke writing it favours some things and not others!].

    Yes some people and political organisations mess with their profiles, but on matters of history and science it is as good as your going to get tbh


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 98 ✭✭Sir


    I've read that myself, but on controversial subjects, such as this, I'm inclined to try and find other sources before relying on it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 14,483 ✭✭✭✭daveirl


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement