IRFU and RWI conflict MOD NOTE POST 126

prawnsambo wrote: »

I'm not making that assumption at all. I just made two separate statements. You then linked them.

No.

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

I'm referring to that sentence. If those are two seperate statements... then that is bizarre.

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

You didnt ? :

The Athletes ban being overturned was wada

Selectively quoting is doing a disservice

prawnsambo

irishbucsfan wrote: »

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.

I'm not making that assumption at all. I just made two separate statements. You then linked them.

The Rape of Lucretia

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Thats nothing at all to do with employment law.

NollagShona wrote: »

No, I didnt say it was.

You didnt ? :

NollagShona wrote: »

He is a professional sportsman they have to work within Employment laws. It isn’t the Catholic Church - only our laws apply here...

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

If he was going to start asking questions about criminal trials and not rugby related issues, do you think the irfu should indulge him?

It was at tht exact press conference when the very first question was about the trial. It was answered with a prepared statement by Rory Best.

**ALL EVENTS IN BELFAST ARE NOT TO BE TALKED ABOUT**
lets keep discussions civil please!

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

But you haven't actually answered the question here either.

Is the answer just that noone at RWI has painted a picture that was materially wrong? Seems like it to me.

It's unlikely, but if the IRFU make a statement that absolves them then fair enough. But they have yet to do so and may never do so. They don't get a free pass for not making any statement.

prawnsambo

Former Former wrote: »

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

It made sense to me. But further to that, any explanation would have possibly led to Best giving an opinion of some sort. That's not advisable in the circumstances.

Beechwoodspark

Former Former wrote: »

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

Is anyone going to defend that?

If he was going to start asking questions about criminal trials and not rugby related issues, do you think the irfu should indulge him?

Former Former wrote: »

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

Is anyone going to defend that?

If I knew the full reasons I could make my mind up fairly

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

sydthebeat

I just saw seven pages of posts in 50 mins.

Im not touching this with a badge pole

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.

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.

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 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?

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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?