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

NollagShona

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

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?

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.

irishbucsfan

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.

[Deleted User]

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

irishbucsfan

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.

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...

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.

NollagShona

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

You didnt ? :

The Athletes ban being overturned was wada

Selectively quoting is doing a disservice

irishbucsfan

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.

prawnsambo

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No.

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

It's not really. That statement stands on its own. The necessity came about because of the reporting of Best's attendance at the trial. Is that not clear?

The Rape of Lucretia

NollagShona wrote: »

The Athletes ban being overturned was wada

Exactly. Not employment law. You brought up employment law. But then forgot you did.

NollagShona

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

Exactly. Not employment law. You brought up employment law. But then forgot you did.

He has a right to employment under employment law. Once he’s served his ban you can’t exclude him on that basis - that’s employment law

Burkie1203

NollagShona wrote: »

The Athletes ban being overturned was wada

Selectively quoting is doing a disservice

NollagShona wrote: »

He has a right to employment under employment law. Once he’s served his ban you can’t exclude him on that basis - that’s employment law

Athletes are in effect self employed. Their income is derived from sponsors and event meeting prize money plus grants from sports councils or govt grants.

The British Athletics organisation tried to ban guys for life who failed drug tests but they were prevented from doing so because it went against the rules set out.

The Grobler one is different. The IRFU could have refused to sanction his signing as an employee if Munster on the basis he is a convicted doper and it goes against their company policy of zero tolerance. They wouldnt be attempting to ban him from the sport and there would be nothing Grobler can do about it legally

irishbucsfan

NollagShona wrote: »

He has a right to employment under employment law. Once he’s served his ban you can’t exclude him on that basis - that’s employment law

I have a right to employment. When will I get to sign my Munster contract?

The Rape of Lucretia

NollagShona wrote: »

He has a right to employment under employment law. Once he’s served his ban you can’t exclude him on that basis - that’s employment law

Why Where in employment law ?

NollagShona

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I have a right to employment. When will I get to sign my Munster contract?

They can say you don’t come anywhere near the required skill level. That’s legitimate

They can’t say it’s because a ban you served was too leinient

NollagShona

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Athletes are in effect self employed. Their income is derived from sponsors and event meeting prize money plus grants from sports councils or govt grants.

The British Athletics organisation tried to ban guys for life who failed drug tests but they were prevented from doing so because it went against the rules set out.

The Grobler one is different. The IRFU could have refused to sanction his signing as an employee if Munster on the basis he is a convicted doper and it goes against their company policy of zero tolerance. They wouldnt be attempting to ban him from the sport and there would be nothing Grobler can do about it legally

They have a contract from the IRFU- they are not self employed

Burkie1203

NollagShona wrote: »

They can say you don’t come anywhere near the required skill level. That’s legitimate

They can’t say it’s because a ban you served was too leinient

But they can say its because they have no desire to hire a convicted doper

prawnsambo

NollagShona wrote: »

They can say you don’t come anywhere near the required skill level. That’s legitimate

They can’t say it’s because a ban you served was too leinient

You keep pushing this as the supposed grounds. They don't have to say anything about his ban, merely the fact of his ban and the clear evidence of him doping.

Burkie1203

NollagShona wrote: »

They have a contract from the IRFU- they are not self employed

Which is what I said.

NollagShona

Burkie1203 wrote: »

But they can say its because they have no desire to hire a convicted doper

That could be challenged as the player could rightfully claim he has served his ban

NollagShona

Burkie1203 wrote: »

Which is what I said.

You mean track and field athletes and not all athletes? That wasn’t clear to me

irishbucsfan

NollagShona wrote: »

They can say you don’t come anywhere near the required skill level. That’s legitimate

They can’t say it’s because a ban you served was too leinient

Why do you keep saying that the IRFU would have to say a ban was too lenient? That has nothing to do with it.

They would just have to say they have a zero tolerance policy towards doping. Which they have stated many times (clearly falsely) in the past.

You're totally wrong about employment law coming into this. Completely wrong.

Bridge93

They didn't have to say anything at all to him. They could've just never looked remotely interested in signing him and then not signed him. Easy

NollagShona

Bridge93 wrote: »

They didn't have to say anything at all to him. They could've just never looked remotely interested in signing him and then not signed him. Easy

Yes. They could have done that.

The Rape of Lucretia

NollagShona wrote: »

That could be challenged as the player could rightfully claim he has served his ban

He is a convicted doper whether he has served his ban or not. It is a fact and unchallengeable.
Where in the the law do you think he has a case ?

prawnsambo

NollagShona wrote: »

That could be challenged as the player could rightfully claim he has served his ban

It doesn't matter if he does. The same as any employer can refuse to hire a convicted drug dealer or convicted drug user.

NollagShona

The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »

He is a convicted doper whether he has served his ban or not. It is a fact and unchallengeable.
Where in the the law do you think he has a case ?

Again, the right to work

Former Former

In fairness, I was being very hard on Munster and IRFU. I thought they signed Grobler due to a combination of a lapse of judgement and a pressing need to get more second row options for Munster.

Now I see that, in fact, they were obliged to sign him under employment law.

Someone should have just told Ruaidhri O'Connor that on day one.