nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

IRFU and RWI conflict MOD NOTE POST 126

Burkie1203

How has this come about

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

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

Burkie1203

NollagShona wrote: »

Really Team Sky? What’s in the bag? Is the benchmark?

The IRFU wouldnt be trying to ban someone from the sport by refusing to employ them though which seems to have you confused. They could have refused to sign off on Grobler because his doping ban didnt fit their values on doping. And there is nothing he could do about it.

There is a difference between an organisation like British Athletics banning someone against the rules and a private company (IRFU) refusing to sign anyone with a doping history.

Team Sky is a far better example because they have refused to employ anyone with a doping past and have actually parted ways with several individuals who have admitted to past involvement in doping. And there was no court cases

The Rape of Lucretia

NollagShona wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/amp/www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/cas-overturn-british-lifetime-olympic-ban-for-drug-cheats-7697509.html?amp

Here is an example of WADA stepping in when GB Tried to Ben someone for life - contrary to WADA guidelines

Thats nothing at all to do with employment law.

[Deleted User]

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 the IRFU can exclude him from playing in Ireland. There was no need at all to give him a contract.

I see this nonsense from the IRFU as similar to Martin O'Neill acting like a clown whenever he gets interviewed by Tony O'Donoghue. It's as if he completely misses the point of doing the interview, he's not talking to Tony he's talking to the public. And it's going to be the fans that lose out if the IRFU stop talking to the press. I have no interest at all in their media offerings anyway.

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

No, you're example is ridiculous. My example already happened in the press conference before the first team announcement.

Gallery warned players or coaches couldn't answer questions about the trial for serious legal reasons. Coach is then asked twice. The journalists know full bloody well what is at stake if someone says the wrong thing. I wan't Joe to be a good coach, I don't want him to have to also be extremely media savvy in incredibly difficult circumstances.

You mean the IRFU tried to coerce the journalists into not doing their job, and the journalists ignored them. And if the IRFU stop screwing up on extremely important issues then they don't need to be media savvy. Their chief function is as an non-profit NGB, let's not forget that, and the journalists are totally correct to take them to task on that.

The IRFU can't write the questions for the journos, but they can bully them until they only ask the ones they want.

prawnsambo

NollagShona wrote: »

https://www.google.ie/amp/www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/cas-overturn-british-lifetime-olympic-ban-for-drug-cheats-7697509.html?amp

Here is an example of WADA stepping in when GB Tried to Ben someone for life - contrary to WADA guidelines

That's not the same as refusing to employ someone. It's already accepted that lifetime bans won't work.

NollagShona

Former Former wrote: »

A senior counsel has no power to compel anyone to attend a trial, and certainly no one can be compelled by anyone to attend a trial purely as a spectator.

Once more for the cheap seats: BEST CHOSE, OF HIS OWN FREE WILL, TO ATTEND.

Why did the judge say differently then???

Are you privy to some information she isn’t?

NollagShona

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Team Sky in cycling have a mantra since their inception of not employing anyone who has a drug ban/doping past be it cyclists, doctors or team managers.

So how come they can have that as a company policy but the IRFU couldnt?

Really Team Sky? What’s in the bag? Is the benchmark?

NollagShona

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

So how can you ban someone from being employed just because they took drugs ?

Where is that applicable?

[Deleted User]

Former Former wrote: »

A senior counsel has no power to compel anyone to attend a trial, and certainly no one can be compelled by anyone to attend a trial purely as a spectator.

Once more for the cheap seats: BEST CHOSE, OF HIS OWN FREE WILL, TO ATTEND.

Best is not a lawyer. If he is told by a senior Barrister that he should listen to both sides before agreeing to act as a character witness then I can understand if Best takes that advice. Maybe it was delivered in more direct terms. Maybe it was at the behest of the Judge given the nature of the trial and the ongoing media exposure.

Regardless, the Judge felt strong enough about it to do something pretty rare and explain an individuals attendance in the gallery and in doing so they specifically absolved Best. To me this absolves Best, the alternatives are just a lot less likely.

Burkie1203

NollagShona wrote: »

EU law applies across all member states.

Team Sky in cycling have a mantra since their inception of not employing anyone who has a drug ban/doping past be it cyclists, doctors or team managers.

So how come they can have that as a company policy but the IRFU couldnt?

NollagShona

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

So how can you ban someone from being employed just because they took drugs ?

https://www.google.ie/amp/www.independent.co.uk/sport/olympics/cas-overturn-british-lifetime-olympic-ban-for-drug-cheats-7697509.html?amp

Here is an example of WADA stepping in when GB Tried to Ben someone for life - contrary to WADA guidelines

[Deleted User]

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.

No, you're example is ridiculous. My example already happened in the press conference before the first team announcement.

Gallery warned players or coaches couldn't answer questions about the trial for serious legal reasons. Coach is then asked twice. The journalists know full bloody well what is at stake if someone says the wrong thing. I wan't Joe to be a good coach, I don't want him to have to also be extremely media savvy in incredibly difficult circumstances.

irishbucsfan

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.

Don't see how that hashtag is remotely relevant.

Seems we're fishing pretty deep here to find anything that might possibly absolve the IRFU here. In truth I'm long past expecting the best out of them on issues like this.

The Rape of Lucretia

NollagShona wrote: »

EU law applies across all member states.

So how can you ban someone from being employed just because they took drugs ?

Burkie1203

NollagShona wrote: »

If you believe that to be the case I’m not going to waste my time trying to convince you otherwise.

But you havent explained what law Grobler can use to sue IRFU if they refuse to sign him because of his doping past

prawnsambo

NollagShona wrote: »

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

What? Is that supposed to be sarcasm?

Former Former

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

A senior counsel has no power to compel anyone to attend a trial, and certainly no one can be compelled by anyone to attend a trial purely as a spectator.

Once more for the cheap seats: BEST CHOSE, OF HIS OWN FREE WILL, TO ATTEND.

Burkie1203

NollagShona wrote: »

EU law applies across all member states.

Justin Gatlin has never been employed by anyone directly. He is an athlete who can enter any competition once he meets the qualifying criteria.

You are confused here because the IRFU can refuse to sign any convicted doper on that basis.

[Deleted User]

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.

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. That the media didn't have the curiosity to consider all reasons for attendance shows the agenda with which the majority of pieces were drafted with.

NollagShona

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?

If you believe that to be the case I’m not going to waste my time trying to convince you otherwise.

irishbucsfan

NollagShona wrote: »

I gave you the precedence Justin Gatlan

Please explain how you think Justin Gatlin is any precedence.

NollagShona

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.

Burkie1203

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?

The Rape of Lucretia

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.

irishbucsfan

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.

NollagShona

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

NollagShona

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...

irishbucsfan

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

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

NollagShona

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.