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 all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

IRFU and RWI conflict MOD NOTE POST 126

«134567…23

Comments

  • #2
    NollagShona
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    Burkie1203 wrote: »
    How has this come about


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

    The race for click bait headlines.


  • #3
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    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.


  • #4
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    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


  • #5
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    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.


  • #6
    NollagShona
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #7
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    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.


  • #8
    NollagShona
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    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?


  • #9
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    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.


  • #10
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Venjur 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?


  • #11
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #12
    NollagShona
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    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???


  • #13
    NollagShona
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    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


  • #14
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    Venjur 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.


  • #15
    NollagShona
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    Venjur 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


  • #16
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    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.


  • #17
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭[Deleted User]


    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.


  • #18
    Burkie1203
    Registered Users Posts: 11,099 ✭✭✭✭Burkie1203


    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


  • #19
    Jump_In_Jack
    Registered Users Posts: 3,587 ✭✭✭Jump_In_Jack


    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?


  • #20
    NollagShona
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    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


  • #21
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Venjur 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.


  • Advertisement
  • #22
    NollagShona
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    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


  • #23
    Neil3030
    Registered Users Posts: 16,972 ✭✭✭✭Neil3030


    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.


  • #24
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    Venjur 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.


  • #25
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    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.


  • #26
    NollagShona
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    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


  • #27
    NollagShona
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    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


  • #28
    NollagShona
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    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


  • #29
    Burkie1203
    Registered Users Posts: 11,099 ✭✭✭✭Burkie1203


    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.


  • #30
    NollagShona
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    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


  • Advertisement
  • #31
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    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.


Advertisement