IRFU and RWI conflict MOD NOTE POST 126

Burkie1203 · 11-02-2018 10:13pm #1

How has this come about

https://twitter.com/offtheball/status/962763672358735874

NollagShona · 11-02-2018 10:16pm

Burkie1203 wrote: »

How has this come about

https://twitter.com/offtheball/status/962763672358735874

The race for click bait headlines.

Former Former · 11-02-2018 10:24pm

Burkie1203 wrote: »

How has this come about

https://twitter.com/offtheball/status/962763672358735874

The IRFU are a disgrace. Petty and cowardly.

Some tolerance for drug cheats, zero tolerance for awkward questions. Just so we're clear on the values of Irish rugby.

Lots of posters here will heartily endorse this spineless development but any organisation trying to silence or ignore a media asking questions it doesn't like should be called out for it.

Ridiculous and utterly self-defeating. Their press and PR people just don't know when to stop digging.

irishbucsfan · 11-02-2018 10:30pm

Former Former wrote: »

The IRFU are a disgrace. Petty and cowardly.

Some tolerance for drug cheats, zero tolerance for awkward questions. Just so we're clear on the values of Irish rugby.

Lots of posters here will heartily endorse this spineless development but any organisation trying to silence or ignore a media asking questions it doesn't like should be called out for it.

Ridiculous and utterly self-defeating. Their press and PR people just don't know when to stop digging.

Spot on

11-02-2018 10:34pm

Former Former wrote: »

The IRFU are a disgrace. Petty and cowardly.

Some tolerance for drug cheats, zero tolerance for awkward questions. Just so we're clear on the values of Irish rugby.

Lots of posters here will heartily endorse this spineless development but any organisation trying to silence or ignore a media asking questions it doesn't like should be called out for it.

Ridiculous and utterly self-defeating. Their press and PR people just don't know when to stop digging.

Far too little verified information to be making these kinds of statements. We've heard from exactly one side and one side only and hearing from the other side through them is not the same as hearing from the other side.

You know my opinion on drug use, but I'd like to hear what exactly the IRFU's issue is here. I can disagree with their stance on recruiting a doper but I can agree with them if some commentary on this is unreasonable or over the top. I don't point the finger at the player in this instance, I point the finger at Munster and the IRFU for hiring him, but a lot of the debate has gotten personal about the player which is wrong imo.

NollagShona · 11-02-2018 10:35pm

Former Former wrote: »

The IRFU are a disgrace. Petty and cowardly.

Some tolerance for drug cheats, zero tolerance for awkward questions. Just so we're clear on the values of Irish rugby.

Lots of posters here will heartily endorse this spineless development but any organisation trying to silence or ignore a media asking questions it doesn't like should be called out for it.

Ridiculous and utterly self-defeating. Their press and PR people just don't know when to stop digging.

The IRFU have taken the line, a player had erred and taken his punishment then it’s done. This “ban for life” doesn’t exist and unions couldn’t bring in a rule to ban players for life the CAS has found against that time and again and they’d leave themselves open to litigation

Using extreme words such as spineless discredit rather than enchace your argument imho.

Journos quickly circled the wagons when one of their own fell from grace, but I question the merit of a poorly researched op ed that is more Buzzfeed than L’Equipe

Joe has been correct on his decisions so far, I don’t see the need to pull him up on this. I don’t thing Eddie Jones or Warren Gatland openly embraces the press either.

irishbucsfan · 11-02-2018 10:37pm

NollagShona wrote: »

The IRFU have taken the line, a player had erred and taken his punishment then it’s done. This “ban for life” doesn’t exist and unions couldn’t bring in a rule to ban players for life the CAS has found against that time and again and they’d leave themselves open to litigation

This is not remotely true or relevant. Noone, absolutely noone, is asking for a life time ban.

Don't make the mistake of thinking this is about the drug issue alone. The press have been, very rightly, skewering the IRFU's total incompetence on many issues over the past 18 months. They're tired of losing so they're taking their ball and they're going home.

NollagShona · 11-02-2018 10:38pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

This is not remotely true or relevant. Noone, absolutely noone, is asking for a life time ban.

Just not play for an Irish province? He has served his ban you can’t legitimately exclude him based on some high moral ground position

What is your position?

11-02-2018 10:39pm

On a separate note, this is obviously hanging over Joe and before France there was a cloud hovering over Best. I'm not sure either have done anything wrong or had a hand in decisions that they are now answerable for. Maybe they did but no one knows and speculation is not something the media should indulge in. I really hope this isn't impacting the camp in general, it's certainly not an upbeat mood surrounding the players despite two wins on the trot.

irishbucsfan · 11-02-2018 10:39pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Far too little verified information to be making these kinds of statements. We've heard from exactly one side and one side only and hearing from the other side through them is not the same as hearing from the other side.

You know my opinion on drug use, but I'd like to hear what exactly the IRFU's issue is here. I can disagree with their stance on recruiting a doper but I can agree with them if some commentary on this is unreasonable or over the top. I don't point the finger at the player in this instance, I point the finger at Munster and the IRFU for hiring him, but a lot of the debate has gotten personal about the player which is wrong imo.

So if one journalist's commentary is unreasonable of over the top you would agree with the IRFU removing access for all print journalists across the board?

irishbucsfan · 11-02-2018 10:41pm

NollagShona wrote: »

Just not play for an Irish province? He has served his ban you can’t legitimately exclude him based on some high moral ground position

What is your position?

Of course you can legitimately exclude a convicted cheater. There's absolutely no basis for what you're saying here. It's a completely legitimate reason to not hire someone.

The IRFU's policy is "zero tolerance", and they've proven there is absolutely no weight of meaning behind that policy.

NollagShona · 11-02-2018 10:41pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

This is not remotely true or relevant. Noone, absolutely noone, is asking for a life time ban.

Don't make the mistake of thinking this is about the drug issue alone. The press have been, very rightly, skewering the IRFU's total incompetence on many issues over the past 18 months. They're tired of losing so they're taking their ball and they're going home.

The press are only there to make a story- sell advertising.

How are the IRFU losing? They are just taking back control from the journos not allowing them to dictate the narrative.

Joe isn’t losing by any Means, the provinces are in rude health, who exactly is losing???

NollagShona · 11-02-2018 10:42pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Of course you can legitimately exclude a convicted cheater. There's absolutely no basis for what you're saying here. It's a completely legitimate reason to not hire someone.

The IRFU's policy is "zero tolerance", and they've proven there is absolutely no weight of meaning behind that policy.

You cannot exclude someone based on something they have served their punishment for. See the Gatlan case in UK athletics. This isn’t just sport- it’s employment law

Former Former · 11-02-2018 10:44pm

Deleted User wrote: »

Far too little verified information to be making these kinds of statements. We've heard from exactly one side and one side only and hearing from the other side through them is not the same as hearing from the other side.

You know my opinion on drug use, but I'd like to hear what exactly the IRFU's issue is here. I can disagree with their stance on recruiting a doper but I can agree with them if some commentary on this is unreasonable or over the top. I don't point the finger at the player in this instance, I point the finger at Munster and the IRFU for hiring him, but a lot of the debate has gotten personal about the player which is wrong imo.

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.

NollagShona · 11-02-2018 10:44pm

Deleted User wrote: »

On a separate note, this is obviously hanging over Joe and before France there was a cloud hovering over Best. I'm not sure either have done anything wrong or had a hand in decisions that they are now answerable for. Maybe they did but no one knows and speculation is not something the media should indulge in. I really hope this isn't impacting the camp in general, it's certainly not an upbeat mood surrounding the players despite two wins on the trot.

The media salivate over that story like a dog with a bone. They can’t wait to publish the most seletios detail on the front of their webpage, without any regard for the alleged victim

irishbucsfan · 11-02-2018 10:44pm

NollagShona wrote: »

The press are only there to make a story- sell advertising.

How are the IRFU losing? They are just taking back control from the journos not allowing them to dictate the narrative.

Joe isn’t losing by any Means, the provinces are in rude health, who exactly is losing???

The press are not only there to sell advertising. Seems that maybe you don't have a great understanding of the importance of a free press in an open society.

The IRFU have been skewered for their total mismanagement of many issues. From this drugs issue which has been a total disaster back through other issues over the past year, for example when their totally disastrous management of the women's game led to an international protest. There are multiple examples of the press taking them to task and the IRFU's responses have generally been quite poor.

11-02-2018 10:45pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

So if one journalist's commentary is unreasonable of over the top you would agree with the IRFU removing access for all print journalists across the board?

How do you know it's one?

Like I just said, we don't know why there is an issue or what has happened. We don't know whether it's about Grobbler or Best or even someone else.

Let's wait until there is an actual statement or comment and then decide who is at fault.

Surely this week alone has proved why it's important to also be sceptical of the news. A lot of people were delighting at the forlorn image of Rory Best on the front of the Times. I didn't see many apologies in the media when his presence was explained by the judge.

Burkie1203 · 11-02-2018 10:46pm

NollagShona wrote: »

You cannot exclude someone based on something they have served their punishment for. See the Gatlan case in UK athletics. This isn’t just sport- it’s employment law

The IRFU could have refused to sign off on Grobler based on his steroid ban. As part if the zero tolerance policy.

Which has nothing to do with employment law and everything to do with the companys own values

Jump_In_Jack · 11-02-2018 10:47pm

NollagShona wrote: »

The media salivate over that story like a dog with a bone. They can’t wait to publish the most seletios detail on the front of their webpage, without any regard for the alleged victim

seletios = salacious?

NollagShona · 11-02-2018 10:48pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The press are not only there to sell advertising. Seems that maybe you don't have a great understanding of the importance of a free press in an open society.

The IRFU have been skewered for their total mismanagement of many issues. From this drugs issue which has been a total disaster back through other issues over the past year, for example when their totally disastrous management of the women's game led to an international protest. There are multiple examples of the press taking them to task and the IRFU's responses have generally been quite poor.

The drugs issue with a typical Pail Kimmage tour de force.

The ladies team is a question of allocating resources and the press again rushed to the high moral ground rather than tease out the minutiae of the argument

Journalists days of believing they are the fourth estate are over for me, their a few very good journalists- but their are becoming an endangered species

irishbucsfan · 11-02-2018 10:48pm

Deleted User wrote: »

How do you know it's one?

Like I just said, we don't know why there is an issue or what has happened. We don't know whether it's about Grobbler or Best or even someone else.

Let's wait until there is an actual statement or comment and then decide who is at fault.

Surely this week alone has proved why it's important to also be sceptical of the news. A lot of people were delighting at the forlorn image of Rory Best on the front of the Times. I didn't see many apologies in the media when his presence was explained by the judge.

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.

NollagShona · 11-02-2018 10:49pm

Jump_In_Jack wrote: »

seletios = salacious?

Yes, I’m typing on my phone. I didn’t correct others mistyping - I don’t see the need the meaning is understood

Neil3030 · 11-02-2018 10:49pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

So if one journalist's commentary is unreasonable of over the top you would agree with the IRFU removing access for all print journalists across the board?

The journalists in that video admit that's only one possible reason why the print session was cancelled. And they even offered an alternative - that the IRFU, like many other sporting organisations, are turning more toward their in house PR. The latter is still not good, just to be clear.

Former Former · 11-02-2018 10:49pm

Deleted User wrote: »

How do you know it's one?

Like I just said, we don't know why there is an issue or what has happened. We don't know whether it's about Grobbler or Best or even someone else.

Let's wait until there is an actual statement or comment and then decide who is at fault.

Surely this week alone has proved why it's important to also be sceptical of the news. A lot of people were delighting at the forlorn image of Rory Best on the front of the Times. I didn't see many apologies in the media when his presence was explained by the judge.

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.

irishbucsfan · 11-02-2018 10:50pm

NollagShona wrote: »

The drugs issue with a typical Pail Kimmage tour de force.

The ladies team is a question of allocating resources and the press again rushed to the high moral ground rather than tease out the minutiae of the argument

Journalists days of believing they are the fourth estate are over for me, their a few very good journalists- but their are becoming an endangered species

Yeah, I think you're several miles off on this one. Especially with your clear and total misunderstanding of the women's rugby issue. I'd suggest you spend some more time considering those sorts of issues.

NollagShona · 11-02-2018 10:50pm

Burkie1203 wrote: »

The IRFU could have refused to sign off on Grobler based on his steroid ban. As part if the zero tolerance policy.

Which has nothing to do with employment law and everything to do with the companys own values

They couldn’t. You might believe they could, but if they cited that they would be wide open to being sued by Grobler

NollagShona · 11-02-2018 10:50pm

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yeah, I think you're several miles off on this one. Especially with your clear and total misunderstanding of the women's rugby issue. I'd suggest you spend some more time considering those sorts of issues.

Use more extreme language in your posts, it enhances your argument

NollagShona · 11-02-2018 10:51pm

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.

The judge clarified that, the defence requested him to attend

Burkie1203 · 11-02-2018 10:53pm

NollagShona wrote: »

They couldn’t. You might believe they could, but if they cited that they would be wide open to being sued by Grobler

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.

NollagShona · 11-02-2018 10:54pm

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

irishbucsfan · 11-02-2018 10:54pm

Neil3030 wrote: »

The journalists in that video admit that's only one possible reason why the print session was cancelled. And they even offered an alternative - that the IRFU, like many other sporting organisations, are turning more toward their in house PR. The latter is still not good, just to be clear.

Cummiskey says its down to their unwillingness to answer questions. He's one to listen to in all this, his reporting makes the IRFU extremely uncomfortable. If he's right, he's exactly the sort of guy they're trying to keep out of the building.

Former Former · 11-02-2018 10:54pm

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.

irishbucsfan · 11-02-2018 10:55pm

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?

NollagShona · 11-02-2018 10:55pm

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

NollagShona · 11-02-2018 10:56pm

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?

Burkie1203 · 11-02-2018 10:57pm

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?

NollagShona · 11-02-2018 10:57pm

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

irishbucsfan · 11-02-2018 10:58pm

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.

NollagShona · 11-02-2018 10:58pm

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

11-02-2018 10:59pm

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.

The Rape of Lucretia · 11-02-2018 10:59pm

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).

NollagShona · 11-02-2018 10:59pm

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.

NollagShona · 11-02-2018 11:00pm

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

irishbucsfan · 11-02-2018 11:01pm

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.

NollagShona · 11-02-2018 11:02pm

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...

NollagShona · 11-02-2018 11:02pm

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

irishbucsfan · 11-02-2018 11:03pm

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.

The Rape of Lucretia · 11-02-2018 11:03pm

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.

Burkie1203 · 11-02-2018 11:03pm

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?

NollagShona · 11-02-2018 11:03pm

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.

irishbucsfan · 11-02-2018 11:04pm

NollagShona wrote: »

I gave you the precedence Justin Gatlan

Please explain how you think Justin Gatlin is any precedence.

IRFU and RWI conflict MOD NOTE POST 126

Comments