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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

IRFU and RWI conflict MOD NOTE POST 126

24567…14

Comments

  • #52
    NollagShona
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    Burkie1203 wrote: »
    But they can simply refuse to sign off on signing him because they have a zero tolerance approach to doping and they have a policy of not signing anyone with a doping conviction.

    And there is nothing Grobler can do about that.

    Again, what law would Grobler be able to sue them under?

    If you believe that to be the case I’m not going to waste my time trying to convince you otherwise.


  • #53
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Former Former wrote: »
    Rory Best was not required to be there. He chose to be. I think it was worth a question.

    Again, there's people like you who would be happy not to hear the awkward questions. It's a very slippery slope.

    Sorry, like me?

    Cop on making presumptions like that when you've missed my point entirely. I pointed out that the media made insinuations and many, many journalists commented that it was important that this sort of thing gets highlighted. Didn't the features editor of the Times start the #not_my_captain hashtag?

    And then look what happened when the explanation came out. Whether you think the judge was lying or not, I can at least accept that Best, understood he needed to be there, I think that's pretty clear to everyone. That the media didn't have the curiosity to consider all reasons for attendance shows the agenda with which the majority of pieces were drafted with.


  • #54
    Burkie1203
    Registered Users Posts: 11,790 ✭✭✭✭Burkie1203


    NollagShona wrote: »
    EU law applies across all member states.

    Justin Gatlin has never been employed by anyone directly. He is an athlete who can enter any competition once he meets the qualifying criteria.

    You are confused here because the IRFU can refuse to sign any convicted doper on that basis.


  • #55
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭Former Former


    NollagShona wrote: »
    Judge Patricia Smyth said: "The only reason that Mr Rory Best was in this courtroom was because he was directed to be here by senior counsel

    Directed- but I’m sure you know better than a learned judge

    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.


  • #56
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,375 ✭✭✭✭prawnsambo


    NollagShona wrote: »
    Use more extreme language in your posts, it enhances your argument
    What? Is that supposed to be sarcasm? :confused:


  • #57
    Burkie1203
    Registered Users Posts: 11,790 ✭✭✭✭Burkie1203


    NollagShona wrote: »
    If you believe that to be the case I’m not going to waste my time trying to convince you otherwise.

    But you havent explained what law Grobler can use to sue IRFU if they refuse to sign him because of his doping past


  • #58
    The Rape of Lucretia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,440 ✭✭✭The Rape of Lucretia


    NollagShona wrote: »
    EU law applies across all member states.

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


  • #59
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Sorry, like me?

    Cop on making presumptions like that when you've missed my point entirely. I pointed out that the media made insinuations and many, many journalists commented that it was important that this sort of thing gets highlighted. Didn't the features editor of the Times start the #not_my_captain hashtag?

    And then look what happened when the explanation came out. Whether you think the judge was lying or not, I can at least accept that Best, understood he needed to be there, I think that's pretty clear to everyone.

    Don't see how that hashtag is remotely relevant.

    Seems we're fishing pretty deep here to find anything that might possibly absolve the IRFU here. In truth I'm long past expecting the best out of them on issues like this.


  • #60
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    We know that this hasn't happened.

    Imagine if one of the journalists, one of the more rabid ones, took out an axe and attacked Joe Schmidt? I mean we can't be taking these kinds of risks. Instead we'll just do all our own interviews and stick it up on Irish Rugby TV.

    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.


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    NollagShona
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »
    So how can you ban someone from being employed just because they took drugs ?

    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


  • #62
    Burkie1203
    Registered Users Posts: 11,790 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #63
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [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.


  • #64
    NollagShona
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »
    So how can you ban someone from being employed just because they took drugs ?

    Where is that applicable?


  • #65
    NollagShona
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭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?


  • #66
    NollagShona
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭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?


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,375 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #68
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #69
    Sunny Microscopic Rose
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Sunny Microscopic Rose


    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.


  • #70
    The Rape of Lucretia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,440 ✭✭✭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.


  • #71
    Burkie1203
    Registered Users Posts: 11,790 ✭✭✭✭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


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,375 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #73
    NollagShona
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    Rowan Squeaking Baton 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.


  • #74
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭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.


  • #75
    The Rape of Lucretia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,440 ✭✭✭The Rape of Lucretia


    NollagShona wrote: »
    Not using that reason they cannot.

    Why not ?


  • #76
    Burkie1203
    Registered Users Posts: 11,790 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #77
    Sunny Microscopic Rose
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Sunny Microscopic Rose


    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?


  • #78
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,375 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #79
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [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.


  • #80
    NollagShona
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    Rowan Squeaking Baton 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.


  • #81
    NollagShona
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    The Rape of Lucretia wrote: »
    Thats nothing at all to do with employment law.

    No, I didnt say it was.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    Sunny Microscopic Rose
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Sunny Microscopic Rose


    NollagShona wrote: »
    No, I didnt say it was.

    So what is your point here exactly?


  • #83
    Beechwoodspark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,845 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #84
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,375 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #85
    Burkie1203
    Registered Users Posts: 11,790 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #86
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #87
    NollagShona
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭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


  • #88
    Sunny Microscopic Rose
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Sunny Microscopic Rose


    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.


  • #89
    NollagShona
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭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.


  • #90
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [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.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Sunny Microscopic Rose
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Sunny Microscopic Rose


    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.


  • #92
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,375 ✭✭✭✭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?


  • #93
    NollagShona
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    Rowan Squeaking Baton 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.


  • #94
    NollagShona
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,360 ✭✭✭NollagShona


    Rowan Squeaking Baton wrote: »
    He has no right to earn it in Ireland. This is such a nonsense.

    He has a right to work in the EU.


  • #95
    Augme
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,113 ✭✭✭Augme


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


  • #96
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [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.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    errlloyd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,616 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #98
    prawnsambo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,375 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #99
    Former Former
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 ✭✭✭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.


  • #100
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • #101
    Beechwoodspark
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 15,845 ✭✭✭✭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.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement