Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

IRFU and RWI conflict MOD NOTE POST 126

1…34689…23

Comments

  • #152
    Burkie1203
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,790 ✭✭✭✭Burkie1203


    NollagShona wrote: »
    That could be challenged as the player could rightfully claim he has served his ban

    No it cannot.

    The IRFU would not be denying Grobler a right to work. Just refusing to sign a guy to their organisation (munster by extension specifically) on the grounds that he is a convicted doper and that goes against their anti doping policy.

    And Grobler would be unable to do anything about that. IRFU wouldnt be denying him a right to work.

    Is that really a difficult concept to grasp??


  • #153
    The Rape of Lucretia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,440 ✭✭✭The Rape of Lucretia


    NollagShona wrote: »
    Again, the right to work

    Under employment law, or not under employment law ?


  • #154
    NollagShona
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


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

    They are illegal drugs - performance enhancing drugs are not illegal

    However if a drug addict has served his punishment he could persue a case against an employer for not giving him employment based on crime that was served


  • #155
    The Rape of Lucretia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,440 ✭✭✭The Rape of Lucretia


    NollagShona wrote: »
    They are illegal drugs - performance enhancing drugs are not illegal

    However if a drug addict has served his punishment he could persue a case against an employer for not giving him employment based on crime that was served

    Where in Employment law are you getting this idea ? Or is it just your own belief on how the law should be rather than what it actually is ?


  • #156
    NollagShona
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    Former Former wrote: »
    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.

    I don’t know if you are deliberately conflating what I’m saying or not


  • Advertisement
  • #157
    NollagShona
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    https://books.google.ie/books?id=ENEhDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA325&lpg=PA325&dq=banned+athlete+right+to+work&source=bl&ots=_SDweWgTg_&sig=YTczEOhdUp6GAKWzlKlU5NBo5nE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjLx7fK_57ZAhVCAsAKHdEnDgcQ6AEwBXoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=banned%20athlete%20right%20to%20work&f=false

    Suarez here successfully agrued his case of right to work


  • #158
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    NollagShona wrote: »
    I don’t know if you are deliberately conflating what I’m saying or not

    I'm just being a little bit tongue-in-cheek.

    Seriously though, I'm not sure what your point is.

    Munster didn't have to sign Grobler. They wouldn't even have to give a reason. The CEO of IRFU has since come out and said they won't sign any more dopers.

    None of what you're saying is correct.


  • #159
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,409 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    NollagShona wrote: »
    They are illegal drugs - performance enhancing drugs are not illegal

    However if a drug addict has served his punishment he could persue a case against an employer for not giving him employment based on crime that was served
    Nope. Conditions of employment can exclude drug users for any number of reasons.


  • #160
    NollagShona
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    Former Former wrote: »
    I'm just being a little bit tongue-in-cheek.

    Seriously though, I'm not sure what your point is.

    Munster didn't have to sign Grobler. They wouldn't even have to give a reason. The CEO of IRFU has since come out and said they won't sign any more dopers.

    None of what you're saying is correct.

    I could see that comment being challenged in the courts as it is not legally enforceable


  • #161
    NollagShona
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    prawnsambo wrote: »
    Nope. Conditions of employment can exclude drug users for any number of reasons.

    They must be specified. And that’s ILLEGAL drugs


  • Advertisement
  • #162
    Yeah_Right
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,185 ✭✭✭Yeah_Right


    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?

    Who was that and what was the reason given?


  • #163
    Burkie1203
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,790 ✭✭✭✭Burkie1203


    NollagShona wrote: »
    I could see that comment being challenged in the courts as it is not legally enforceable

    Under what law specifically? Please post specific law?

    If it is challengable why have Team Sky not been taken to court over the exact policy they have


    Edit
    IRFU using his doping ban to refuse to sanction his signing doesnt prevent Grobler from seeking employment elsewhere be it in rugby or outside the game. Its just a private organisation making a decision. So its not challengable.


  • #164
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,409 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    NollagShona wrote: »
    https://books.google.ie/books?id=ENEhDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA325&lpg=PA325&dq=banned+athlete+right+to+work&source=bl&ots=_SDweWgTg_&sig=YTczEOhdUp6GAKWzlKlU5NBo5nE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjLx7fK_57ZAhVCAsAKHdEnDgcQ6AEwBXoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=banned%20athlete%20right%20to%20work&f=false

    Suarez here successfully agrued his case of right to work
    That link says nothing of the sort.


  • #165
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,409 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    NollagShona wrote: »
    They must be specified. And that’s ILLEGAL drugs
    And a sportsperson can't take BANNED drugs. So a sporting organisation can quite rightly refuse to hire such a person.

    And you just said a few posts ago that if they've served their time their fine. Which is it?


  • #166
    The Rape of Lucretia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,440 ✭✭✭The Rape of Lucretia


    NollagShona wrote: »
    https://books.google.ie/books?id=ENEhDQAAQBAJ&pg=PA325&lpg=PA325&dq=banned+athlete+right+to+work&source=bl&ots=_SDweWgTg_&sig=YTczEOhdUp6GAKWzlKlU5NBo5nE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjLx7fK_57ZAhVCAsAKHdEnDgcQ6AEwBXoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=banned%20athlete%20right%20to%20work&f=false

    Suarez here successfully agrued his case of right to work

    He didnt argue it successfully. He lost. What are you reading ???


  • #167
    Flincher
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 686 ✭✭✭Flincher


    My understanding is Munster / IRFU are perfectly free to have a policy of not employing drug users. There are certain specified grounds that employers can't discriminate on (gender, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, etc). Outside of those grounds, employers are free to use other grounds to determine who they employ.

    I don't get the Suarez argument. The right to work aspect of his appeal related to him not being allowed train during his ban, and nothing got to do with employment prospects after his ban was served.


  • #168
    Neil3030
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,154 ✭✭✭✭Neil3030


    Flincher wrote: »
    My understanding is Munster / IRFU are perfectly free to have a policy of not employing drug users. There are certain specified grounds that employers can't discriminate on (gender, religious beliefs, sexual orientation, etc). Outside of those grounds, employers are free to use other grounds to determine who they employ.

    I don't get the Suarez argument. The right to work aspect of his appeal related to him not being allowed train during his ban, and nothing got to do with employment prospects after his ban was served.

    How would discrimination work in a scenario where the employer doesn't advertise a position, nor interview several candidates. I.e., just offers one person a job. Seems to me that the rules can't even be enforced there.


  • #169
    joseywhales
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,348 ✭✭✭joseywhales


    Banning journalist and "trying to control the narrative" is the policy of dictators and psychopathic senior corporate managers, it fails 100% of the time but usually after a long and traumatic time for everyone involved.

    Regarding the best attendance of a trial of an unconvicted(and assumed innocent) teammate, I think it's prudent that he sees all arguments before agreeing to be a character witness, we've seen only recently the damage that was done to the reputation of a former cork hurling goalkeeper when he naively provided character references for a friend.


  • #170
    molloyjh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,767 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    Is there a full moon out or something. More pages to be waded through filled with people taking at length about a topic they simply don’t know much about.

    We have no idea why relations between the IRFU and the press have soured. They said as much on OTB. Maybe this has been coming for years? Maybe it’s over 1 specific issue. Maybe the IRFU want to manage the message they send out more (they aren’t cutting all ties with the media lets not forget). We simply have no clue. So why are some of you making statements like you know?

    In the same way some are saying “people are happy to jump to the defence of the IRFU” they themselves are happy to do the opposite. Isn’t that a little hypocritical. Passing judgement on a situation where you have only a tiny amount of info?


  • #171
    Bazzo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,047 ✭✭✭Bazzo


    What the hell is going on in this thread? I'd take a thousand pages of O'Halloran and Kearney over this.


  • Advertisement
  • #172
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    molloyjh wrote: »
    Is there a full moon out or something. More pages to be waded through filled with people taking at length about a topic they simply don’t know much about.

    We have no idea why relations between the IRFU and the press have soured. They said as much on OTB. Maybe this has been coming for years? Maybe it’s over 1 specific issue. Maybe the IRFU want to manage the message they send out more (they aren’t cutting all ties with the media lets not forget). We simply have no clue. So why are some of you making statements like you know?

    In the same way some are saying “people are happy to jump to the defence of the IRFU” they themselves are happy to do the opposite. Isn’t that a little hypocritical. Passing judgement on a situation where you have only a tiny amount of info?

    We have the opinions of the journalists as to why the relations have soured. They're there for all to see. We know they refused a credentialed journalist access, which is outright bullying.

    As for your last paragraph, the only thing you know is how much you know, I wouldn't be so certain about anyone else if I were you.

    The reasons you have given are probably along the right lines and they are absolutely nowhere near good enough. And you shouldn't try to shame people for passing an opinion on that. The things we already know are the things we are passing judgement on. If we have to wait for an official statement from the IRFU to tell us how to feel about everything then all the IRFU have to do is say nothing and they'll be given a free pass by people like you into eternity. Forgive me for coming to my own conclusions.


  • #173
    swiwi_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,543 ✭✭✭swiwi_


    NollagShona wrote: »
    They can’t wait to publish the most seletios detail on the front of their webpage, without any regard for the alleged victim

    Said the salacious Mexican.


  • #174
    Sunny Microscopic Rose
    Posts: 0 ✭ Sunny Microscopic Rose


    NollagShona wrote: »
    They must be specified. And that’s ILLEGAL drugs

    You have completely failed to demonstrate anything of the sort. Suarez failed in his appeal. Give some evidence or at least stop posting the same unverified comment over and over and over again.


  • #175
    kilns
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,525 ✭✭✭kilns


    I think the Italian game showed what some Irish players can offer and what some cant, namely in the back row.  If you want to play a tough battle like Paris then Stander and POM are the men for that but you could see that when you want to play a fast game flowing game it doesnt suit them and they dont have the skills for that, that is where the likes of Conan is ahead of them.  

    It will be an interesting call now for the Welsh game, I think Conan if fit will get the nod as with a back row of Stander and POM you dont have great pace, which you may need against the Welsh


  • #176
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Where on earth do I go to get the last 20 mins of my life back ? Those last 15 pages or whatever it was were tough reading.


  • #177
    Sunny Microscopic Rose
    Posts: 0 ✭ Sunny Microscopic Rose


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Where on earth do I go to get the last 20 mins of my life back ? Those last 15 pages or whatever it was were tough reading.

    What did you find so tough about it? The relationship between the IRFU and the press is worth discussing, it affects us as rugby supporters.


  • #178
    DGRulz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,232 ✭✭✭DGRulz


    Sure, but maybe its that certain posters are up on their moral high horses continuously spouting "you people" and "people like you", ready to slate an entire organisation over a few tweets and an assumption in a ~2 minute video clip. Last I checked good journalism isn't based on assumptions, witch hunts are started on them though as we've seen all too recently.


  • #179
    Sunny Microscopic Rose
    Posts: 0 ✭ Sunny Microscopic Rose


    DGRulz wrote: »
    Sure, but maybe its that certain posters are up on their moral high horses continuously spouting "you people" and "people like you", ready to slate an entire organisation over a few tweets and an assumption in a ~2 minute video clip. Last I checked good journalism isn't based on assumptions, witch hunts are started on them though as we've seen all too recently.

    Yes well I don't disagree with this. Even in that 2 minute clip the rugby journalist says he doesn't know why the press conference was cancelled. I hope we get clarity on that because again, we're losing out.


  • #180
    kilns
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,525 ✭✭✭kilns


    I think people and group get annoyed as there are a few sensationlist journalists out there like Ewan McKenna and Eamon Sweeney and while 95% of what the write is mostly bull sh1T and is done for "clicks" there are some people in society who buy into what they are writing.

    I dont blame the IRFU from not wanting to interact with guys like that, I am sure they have no issues with genuine journalists who dissect a game and discuss it


  • Advertisement
  • #181
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,409 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    Rowan Squeaking Baton wrote: »
    Yes well I don't disagree with this. Even in that 2 minute clip the rugby journalist says he doesn't know why the press conference was cancelled. I hope we get clarity on that because again, we're losing out.
    The Indo mentions it and refers to it as a press 'huddle' that usually happens under the stands after the game and is separate to the press conference that happens afterwards. They also seem to be pointing the finger at Joe Schmidt rather than the IRFU. Interestingly The Irish Times makes no mention of it whatsoever.


Advertisement