NollagShona wrote: » The judge clarified that, the defence requested him to attend
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
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.
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?
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
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.
NollagShona wrote: » It sad in the papers the week of the Castres match m, Kimmages OpEd and all- or did you miss that?
Burkie1203 wrote: » Why would he have them bang to rights? Under what law?
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.
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.
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).
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
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.
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.
NollagShona wrote: » No, you cannot say I won’t employ this person because I feel his punishment wasn’t severe enough. Ask Justin Gatlan
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.
NollagShona wrote: » I gave you the precedence Justin Gatlan
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?
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.
NollagShona wrote: » EU law applies across all member states.
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
NollagShona wrote: » Use more extreme language in your posts, it enhances your argument
NollagShona wrote: » If you believe that to be the case I’m not going to waste my time trying to convince you otherwise.
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.
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.
The Rape of Lucretia wrote: » So how can you ban someone from being employed just because they took drugs ?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w6.vanillicon.com/v2/6081e4655739e0887aaf16222f88b015.svg)
