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

prawnsambo

irishbucsfan wrote: »

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.

Do you actually, definitively know what it's about?

NollagShona

Interested Observer wrote: »

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.

No. unless the hair colour was a requirement you couldnt legally use it as a means of excluding someone.

NollagShona

Interested Observer wrote: »

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

He has a right to work in the EU.

Augme

I'm assuming it was the Senior Counsel for the defence who asked Rory Best to attend?

[Deleted User]

irishbucsfan wrote: »

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.

We don't know what the issue is between them as we've only heard from one side. And as I pointed out, that one side is capable of painting a picture that is materially wrong.

errlloyd

NollagShona wrote: »

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.

The right to earn a living is an unenumerated constitutional right. If there was a law against signing him he could say that law is unconstitutional and therefore have it struck down. But I don't think he can argue an organisation is unconstitutional. Maybe he could argue that the 9 protected classes (those you can't discriminate against) are unconstitutional Becuase they don't include him.

But that seems like a lot of effort for a one year deal at Munster.

prawnsambo

NollagShona wrote: »

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

That statement is about as clear as a brick wall. Kind of pointless unless you actually say what that issue is and back it up.

Former Former

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

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.

None of that stacks up if you think about it for anything more than 30 seconds, but that is not my point.

My point is that there were legitimate questions to be asked. It is the function of the media in any free society to ask questions of public interest.

Now, IRFU were under no obligations to answer and they didn't. Fair enough. They chose not to say anything about Grobler and likewise, that's their prerogative.

But now, we have a situation where journalists are being punished for asking the questions. That's the problem.

The questions themselves are secondary. The response of the IRFU is shameful.

irishbucsfan

prawnsambo wrote: »

Do you actually, definitively know what it's about?

In reality, noone knows definitively. No reason was given to RWI.

But to be clear, it's not team announcements that they had an issue with and they're going on as before, unless they're boycotted I guess.

Beechwoodspark

Augme wrote: »

I'm assuming it was the Senior Counsel for the defence who asked Rory Best to attend?

I would imagine so, as he is potentially appearing as a character witness for the defense.

NollagShona

Former Former wrote: »

None of that stacks up if you think about it for anything more than 30 seconds, but that is not my point.

My point is that there were legitimate questions to be asked. It is the function of the media in any free society to ask questions of public interest.

Now, IRFU were under no obligations to answer and they didn't. Fair enough. They chose not to say anything about Grobler and likewise, that's their prerogative.

But now, we have a situation where journalists are being punished for asking the questions. That's the problem.

The questions themselves are secondary. The response of the IRFU is shameful.

They still have the press briefings, they just no longer get one on ones.

Beechwoodspark

Former Former wrote: »

None of that stacks up if you think about it for anything more than 30 seconds, but that is not my point.

My point is that there were legitimate questions to be asked. It is the function of the media in any free society to ask questions of public interest.

Now, IRFU were under no obligations to answer and they didn't. Fair enough. They chose not to say anything about Grobler and likewise, that's their prerogative.

But now, we have a situation where journalists are being punished for asking the questions. That's the problem.

The questions themselves are secondary. The response of the IRFU is shameful.

What doesn’t stack up!? I am at a loss as to what you think happened? RB was advised by the QC to attend the trial and hear testimony. He took it upon himself to attend on his day off from Training.

He was subsequently questioned about it by the media. He rightly said as little as possible beyond confirming his attendance and the reason for his attendance, as there is a criminal trial ongoing.

Schmidt and the rest of the team are rightly saying no comment.

What doesn’t stack up?

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

We don't know what the issue is between them as we've only heard from one side. And as I pointed out, that one side is capable of painting a picture that is materially wrong.

Who in RWI has painted a picture that is materially wrong?

[Deleted User]

NollagShona wrote: »

He has a right to work in the EU.

So what? Nobody is obliged to give you a job. There are millions of people unemployed in the EU all of whom have a right to work. You've obviously convinced yourself the IRFU had to give him a contract here. It's quite a bizarre thing to believe but off you go.

Burkie1203

NollagShona wrote: »

He has a right to work in the EU.

He has a right to work like anyone else. But organisations also have a right to refuse to employ him because of his doping conviction. And the IRFU would have been well within their rights to refuse to sign off on Munster signing him because of his doping conviction. They wohldnt be banning him from the sport. Do you not understand that difference.

Team sky are based in Manchester and have bases in Belgium and Italy. WADAs issues with them are based on the potential for guys with doping pasts to refuse to come forward with information for fear of losing their jobs if Sky found out they have a doping past.

irishbucsfan

NollagShona wrote: »

They still have the press briefings, they just no longer get one on ones.

Wrong.

It was a press briefing that was cancelled.

[Deleted User]

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Who in RWI has painted a picture that is materially wrong?

The journalists on off the ball have stated that the RWI has been excluded and they pushed a narrative as to why. The RWI to my knowledge have made no statement but you and others on here have jumped on this bit of information to throw shade at the IRFU.

That shade might be entirely justified, but I'd like to know more than the opinion of two individuals from the side which feels wrong before I go wagging my finger at anyone.

prawnsambo

Former Former wrote: »

None of that stacks up if you think about it for anything more than 30 seconds, but that is not my point.

My point is that there were legitimate questions to be asked. It is the function of the media in any free society to ask questions of public interest.

Now, IRFU were under no obligations to answer and they didn't. Fair enough. They chose not to say anything about Grobler and likewise, that's their prerogative.

But now, we have a situation where journalists are being punished for asking the questions. That's the problem.

The questions themselves are secondary. The response of the IRFU is shameful.

That question was asked and answered. That it then became incumbent on the judge in the trial to make a statement specifically on the matter is worryingly close to it having an effect on the outcome of a criminal trial.

Is that not a concern in itself? It certainly struck me at the time as the fourth estate getting to where they had gone past reporting and were having an influence.

Former Former

Deleted User wrote: »

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 apologise, I didn't mean to come across as such a d*ck.

But I do think you're being too quick to believe the party line. We are all huge admirers of Best and whatever happened, it was a difficult position for him and we can sympathise.

The IRFU pulling up the shutters isn't the way to address things. Sending out sarky press releases isn't the way to address things. They're making a horse's ass of the whole thing and it's going to keep snowballing.

NollagShona

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Wrong.

It was a press briefing that was cancelled.

The print briefing - for written press alone was cancelled

The standard press briefing took place

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

The journalists on off the ball have stated that the RWI has been excluded and they pushed a narrative as to why. The RWI to my knowledge have made no statement but you and others on here have jumped on this bit of information to throw shade at the IRFU.

That shade might be entirely justified, but I'd like to know more than the opinion of two individuals from the side which feels wrong before I go wagging my finger at anyone.

You didn't really answer my question.

Who at RWI, for example Brendan O'Brien who is the journalist that was on OTB, has painted a picture that is materially wrong?

Former Former

prawnsambo wrote: »

That question was asked and answered.

When you ask a question and get an answer that doesn't make sense, a good journalist should follow up.

[Deleted User]

Former Former wrote: »

I apologise, I didn't mean to come across as such a d*ck.

But I do think you're being too quick to believe the party line. We are all huge admirers of Best and whatever happened, it was a difficult position for him and we can sympathise.

The IRFU pulling up the shutters isn't the way to address things. Sending out sarky press releases isn't the way to address things. They're making a horse's ass of the whole thing and it's going to keep snowballing.

I didn't believe the party line at all at first. My first inclination when I heard Best was that he was fooled hook line and sinker by Jackson's defence into showing his face.

But when the judge clarified the situation, she would only have done so having ensured absolute clarity of the situation. Her comments are on the trial record and she can get forced to provide an explanation down the line on her decision making if there is an appeal of any nature.

It was a very deliberate statement and it was equally deliberate in it's exoneration of Best.

This wasn't PR, this was legal wording which will be part of the precedent of this case.

irishbucsfan

prawnsambo wrote: »

That question was asked and answered. That it then became incumbent on the judge in the trial to make a statement specifically on the matter is worryingly close to it having an effect on the outcome of a criminal trial.

Is that not a concern in itself? It certainly struck me at the time as the fourth estate getting to where they had gone past reporting and were having an influence.

You're making a massive, massive leap here that the question at the team announcement was the reason for the judge to make that statement. There was a ton of reporting on that from right across the media.

sydthebeat

I just saw seven pages of posts in 50 mins.

Im not touching this with a badge pole

Synode

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.

He was advised to attend. He's hardly going to ignore that advice

Beechwoodspark

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I didn't believe the party line at all at first. My first inclination when I heard Best was that he was fooled hook line and sinker by Jackson's defence into showing his face.

But when the judge clarified the situation, she would only have done so having ensured absolute clarity of the situation. Her comments are on the trial record and she can get forced to provide an explanation down the line on her decision making if there is an appeal of any nature.

It was a very deliberate statement and it was equally deliberate in it's exoneration of Best.

This wasn't PR, this was legal wording which will be part of the precedent of this case.

RB is Paddy Jackson’s club captain and probably knows him well, having been in Ulster with him for a good many years at this stage.

Due to his professional relationship with PJ, he would have been asked to act as a character witness for PJ and he assented to this. Basic legal procedure.

RB strikes me as a very capable and intelligent man. I don’t think he’s the type to have been “fooled hook line and sinker” by people.

[Deleted User]

irishbucsfan wrote: »

You didn't really answer my question.

Who at RWI, for example Brendan O'Brien who is the journalist that was on OTB, has painted a picture that is materially wrong?

One person, who is a member of the RWI, has said that RWI members have been denied a press conference and the relationship is at an all time low. This was attributed at the outset by another RWI member, Peter O'Reilly, to the Grobbler situation.

The journalist elaborates and puts forth other reasons. These may be accurate. There may be other reasons, the IRFU have not released a statement. I have provided realistic potential reasons why elements within the media are getting push back.

Again, the IRFU could be in the wrong, but I'm not keen on jumping to conclusions one way or the other until more information is forthcoming.

irishbucsfan

Synode wrote: »

He was advised to attend. He's hardly going to ignore that advice

Of course he could, to be clear. He chose to follow the advice of the defence lawyer. Was he right to do that? I think so personally, but it doesn't matter slightly. What's important is that he was not compelled to attend.

Ultimately it was his own statement that cleared everything up and the media storm largely abated. That it took days for the IRFU to get to that is worth noting but I really don't think its all that relevant.

This is a massive red herring though. Noone involved has said the trial has anything to do with the mess the IRFU have created.

Former Former

The IRFU refused access to a single, specified journalist to the press conference after the French game.

Is anyone going to defend that?