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: »

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?

[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.

NollagShona

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

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

Where is that applicable?

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

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?

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.

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.

[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.

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.

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

prawnsambo

irishbucsfan wrote: »

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.

Ah, seriously? Do you actually think it's appropriate to be asking the coach and players about an ongoing court case? We can't even discuss it here.

NollagShona

Interested Observer wrote: »

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

Not using that reason they cannot.

Former Former

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

Again, you're not analysing what you're being told, because you want to believe it.

It was his choice. Counsel might have asked him to go, all he had to do was say, "I'm flying to Paris in the morning, it's not really feasible".

He was under no obligation to attend and he did so anyway. He chose to do it. I don't care why he went, I don't really care if it was right or wrong, but the notion that the media shouldn't have asked about it and should now be punished for asking, that's absolutely unacceptable in my book, and that's the issue here.

The Rape of Lucretia

NollagShona wrote: »

Not using that reason they cannot.

Why not ?

Burkie1203

NollagShona wrote: »

Not using that reason they cannot.

Again, why?

What law says they cant do that. If one of the biggest and highest profile cycling teams can do it, why can the IRFU not?

[Deleted User]

NollagShona wrote: »

Not using that reason they cannot.

What are you talking about? Are you suggesting the IRFU absolutely had to give the guy a contract?

prawnsambo

Former Former wrote: »

t

Again, you're not analysing what you're being told, because you want to believe it.

Best wants to hear both sides. Right. Except he only went for one day of testimony that has been going on for a week and a half?? Do you see the issue there?

It was his choice. Counsel might have asked him to go, all he had to do was say, "I'm flying to Paris in the morning, it's not really feasible".

The judge had to respond so as they jury would not take any inference from his presence,

He was under no obligation to attend and he did so anyway. He chose to do it. I don't care why he went, I don't really care if it was right or wrong, but the notion that the media shouldn't have asked about it and should now be punished for asking, that's absolutely unacceptable in my book, and that's the issue here.

Wednesday is his only day off from training. That's the reason he went that day.

[Deleted User]

irishbucsfan wrote: »

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.

Long before the IRFU should be worrying about how they appear to the media, they should be protecting their employees. I don't know where you've gotten the idea that the players and coaches have a duty of care to the media about an ongoing court cases. I think you are being extremely naive in terms of the legal risks surround this case and how careful the IRFU need to be.

Again, this may have nothing to do with it - I'm just pointing out a circumstance that is entirely possible where I can completely understand the IRFU drawing a line in the sand and then sticking to their threat. And I'd agree with them too.

NollagShona

Interested Observer wrote: »

What are you talking about? Are you suggesting the IRFU absolutely had to give the guy a contract?

No, but that cannot say it was because he was banned for too short a timeframe.

NollagShona

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Thats nothing at all to do with employment law.

No, I didnt say it was.

[Deleted User]

NollagShona wrote: »

No, I didnt say it was.

So what is your point here exactly?

Beechwoodspark

Former Former wrote: »

t

Again, you're not analysing what you're being told, because you want to believe it.

Best wants to hear both sides. Right. Except he only went for one day of testimony that has been going on for a week and a half?? Do you see the issue there?

It was his choice. Counsel might have asked him to go, all he had to do was say, "I'm flying to Paris in the morning, it's not really feasible".

The judge had to respond so as they jury would not take any inference from his presence,

He was under no obligation to attend and he did so anyway. He chose to do it. I don't care why he went, I don't really care if it was right or wrong, but the notion that the media shouldn't have asked about it and should now be punished for asking, that's absolutely unacceptable in my book, and that's the issue here.

I think that’s being unfair to the man. He was advised by the Q.C to attend the trial and hear evidence which MAY have a bearing on his testimony if he is called. He took the legal advice and that was wise of him, in my opinion.

He was honest in his response to the media when asked.He has been put in a very awkward situation by the whole thing.

As has Schmidt, the team and the IRFU. They cannot become entangled in a rape trial taking place in Belfast.

prawnsambo

NollagShona wrote: »

No, but that cannot say it was because he was banned for too short a timeframe.

They can say that they don't employ drug cheats as Team Sky do.

Burkie1203

NollagShona wrote: »

No, but that cannot say it was because he was banned for too short a timeframe.

But thats not what anyone said they can refuse to sign him. They can refuse to sign a convicted doper for that reason and Grobler would just have no grounds to sue.

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

Long before the IRFU should be worrying about how they appear to the media, they should be protecting their employees. I don't know where you've gotten the idea that the players and coaches have a duty of care to the media about an ongoing court cases. I think you are being extremely naive in terms of the legal risks surround this case and how careful the IRFU need to be.

Again, this may have nothing to do with it - I'm just pointing out a circumstance that is entirely possible where I can completely understand the IRFU drawing a line in the sand and then sticking to their threat. And I'd agree with them too.

I'm not remotely naive about the risks of reporting on the trial. I'd much prefer there was no reporting on it at all. But let's be clear, noone asked a question about the case and it's dangerous to try to portray questions about players electing to attend the trial to what is really in need of protection, which are questions about the case, of which absolutely none were asked. I've defended those players at length elsewhere, and did so at the time.

I have no idea why anyone thinks it wasn't a completely obvious question that was going to be asked. And it was answered perfectly acceptably.

I have no idea why we're talking about this case. This isn't what the issue is between RWI and the IRFU.

NollagShona

prawnsambo wrote: »

They can say that they don't employ drug cheats as Team Sky do.

WADA have issue with team Sky, I dont know where they are based for legal purposes

[Deleted User]

There are 9 grounds on which you cannot discriminate when deciding to employ someone or not, they're stuff like race, religion, sexual orientation.

Ex-doper is not on the list. They could tell him they didn't like his hair and that would be the end of it.

NollagShona

Burkie1203 wrote: »

But thats not what anyone said they can refuse to sign him. They can refuse to sign a convicted doper for that reason and Grobler would just have no grounds to sue.

He could claim (as others have done) that he has served his ban and has the right to earn a living.

[Deleted User]

Former Former wrote: »

Again, you're not analysing what you're being told, because you want to believe it.

It was his choice. Counsel might have asked him to go, all he had to do was say, "I'm flying to Paris in the morning, it's not really feasible".

He was under no obligation to attend and he did so anyway. He chose to do it. I don't care why he went, I don't really care if it was right or wrong, but the notion that the media shouldn't have asked about it and should now be punished for asking, that's absolutely unacceptable in my book, and that's the issue here.

Casually insulting my intelligence again? You don't know why Best was in attendance for just the one day and you accuse me of not analysing the situation?

I can easily see a circumstance where Rory Best had no intention of going to the trial that Wednesday and following a conversation he had with a lawyer he felt that he had no other choice. I can easily see that circumstance and given that a Judge didn't just say that's what happened she carefully and specifically stated unequivocally and deliberately that this was what happened is in my opinion an exoneration of Best. Now I also think it was to ensure that the optics didn't sway the jury, but she did specifically state that he was instructed. That would suggest that Best at the very least himself felt compelled.

Like I said, I've weighed up the variables and that to me is most likely.

I think I've sufficiently 'analysed' the circumstances.

[Deleted User]

NollagShona wrote: »

He could claim (as others have done) that he has served his ban and has the right to earn a living.

He has no right to earn it in Ireland. This is such a nonsense.