Dean Richards

[Phil E]

I really can't lose any sleep over this.

They checked with the RFU, who said it was OK.

 

[Donal1988]

I wouldnt worry about it too much. This is quite common. The difference between an employee and an independent contractor is important with regard to employment law, vicarious liability etc.

Im sure that everyone had the cop on to check that it was ok. Certainly it seems to be a mountains out of molehills issue to me.

 

[OB..]

The problem is the RFU approving it.

AIUI they merely confirmed that this was not legally covered by the ban.

The other problem is the poor wording of his ban.

I don't know the formal wording. Do you?

We all know your very clearly expressed views on this, but you need to beware of arguing backwards from a dislike of the outcome to asserting that the procedure was incompetent.

 

[Donal1988]

Twisting facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts - Sherlock Holmes, A Scandal in Bohemia

 

[chopper15]

AIUI they merely confirmed that this was not legally covered by the ban.

I don't know the formal wording. Do you?

We all know your very clearly expressed views on this, but you need to beware of arguing backwards from a dislike of the outcome to asserting that the procedure was incompetent.

BM's comment appears to answer just that, OB;

It would not be thus had it not been for the disgraceful way ERC ignored repeated and legitimate questions about serious deficiencies in their prosecution of Richards et al, refusing to front up while hoping it would all go away. It would be different had the IRB, situated in the same Dublin office block, not simply rubber-stamped the whole thing and refused to investigate such serious concerns.

 

[OB..]

chopper - I cannot see what that comment has to do with the wording of the ban.

 

[chopper15]

chopper - I cannot see what that comment has to do with the wording of the ban.

BM, as a solicitor, is stating that the procedure was incompetent?

 

[stuart3826]

Because he is consulting on issues to do with rugby; he 'reviewed' a report that was written with the express purpose of helping Worcester to get back into the premiership. I'd be very surprised if he was reviewing a report about seating plans for the stadium, although it's possible, and he probably wasn't reviewing something about the selection of draught beers in the clubhouse bar. He was involved in advising a rugby club how to get promotion. That's precisely the sort of thing he was banned from doing, but the ban was obviously so badly worded that it wouldn't stand up to legal scrutiny.

You will probably accuse me of semantics here, but I like accuracy. The purpose of the report isn't to get Worcester back into the Premiership - that's for Richard Hill to take on as new Head Coach. Th report was about what went wrong to allow them to be relegated, and hasn't AFAIK made recommendations for the future, just commented on the past.

 

[OB..]

BM, as a solicitor, is stating that the procedure was incompetent?

It was a wide-ranging comment on the whole business. It was not a specific comment on the wording of the ban, which is what I, at least, am talking about.

 

[SimonSmith]

Call me cynical, but part of me wonders just how badly worded it was.

As compared to brilliantly worded...

 

[chopper15]

All this media attention given to 'Bloodgate'. Yet the Whitehaven incident along with all its concerns and liabilities for actually managing and playing the game has virtually been ignored by the media . . and, dare I mention it, the IRB and parent unions.

Here's hoping, Brian.


RFU disciplinary officer hits out at ERC judgment on Dean Richards

The Rugby Football Union's chief disciplinary officer, Judge Jeff Blackett, has criticised the European Rugby Cup judgment which banned Dean Richards for his part in ther 'Bloodgate' scandal for not being specific enough.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/ru...its-out-at-ERC-judgment-on-Dean-Richards.html

 

[Rit Hinners]

Call me cynical but I have to believe the difference is that the Bloodgate issue involves a possibility of making money whereas the other issue only concerns a grassroots player, a small club and the good of a game.

 

[crossref]

his ban was too long, and that's what casued the problem. trying to deny him any invovlement in rugby for three years was WAY out of proportion.

yes DR and Mark evans and quins handled it all very badly, should have fessed up straightaway etc etc. and that's a big part of how he ended up with three yrs, but still it wasn't right.

one year would have been fair: and then DR woould have sat quietly at home and waited it out.

 

[didds]

well, purely from a personal perspective I think 3 years was lenient. YMMV, so lets move on.

Back in the "good old days" of shameteurism and when men with whippets, flat caps and flatter vowels were the spawn of satan, if/when a retired player in effect reviewed a ghost written "autobiography" were they not banned from RU for doing so?

;-)

didds

 

[chopper15]

Call me cynical but I have to believe the difference is that the Bloodgate issue involves a possibility of making money whereas the other issue only concerns a grassroots player, a small club and the good of a game.

Cynical? You're lucky, Rit, my wife accuses me of being a misanthrope aswell.:sad:

But I agree with you and only reintroduced the subject in the Dean Ryan thread just to draw attention to compare the medias' coverage of a bloody 'farce' with the far wider implications of a terrible tragedy which effects innocents aswell if 'they' don't give it the attention it obviously demands . . . so please don't let them lose it in the long grass, Brian.:sad:

PS Makes you wonder about media coverge if the incidents were reversed?:wow:

 

[crossref]

well, purely from a personal perspective I think 3 years was lenient.

they faked a blood injury... it must happen 100 times every saturday?
yes, it was stupid, but to say that it justifies deny someone his means of earning a living for three years was harsh. What about the gougers, biters, high -tacklers etc? they get bans of just weeks.

(it's not like the old amateur days when people were banned from a leisure-time pursuit)

 

[Dixie]

they faked a blood injury... it must happen 100 times every saturday?

Do you really think so? If so, with myriad cameras from multiple angles, how come no-one else has been caught? Or do you feel this all happens at the lower tiers, where the camera's prying eye has lesser effect?

 

[scrumpox2]

How many coaches, crossref, do you believe would be coaching players to gouge, bite and high-tackle ... and insisting that players (with medical staff in collusion) do so or lose their job? Would you expect such a coach to get a ban of just weeks?

 

[crossref]

No not weeks: as I said - I think he should have been banned for one year. Three years was excessive - to the point of spitefulness.

I didn't mean that blood capsules are common. I meant that faked injuries are commonplace. I do totally accept that organising faked blood capsules is bad, and that's why I would have supportted a very severe punishment of a one year ban.

 

[Lenin1924]

3 years was not too long. He is lucky to still have the option of being involved in the game in future. And as for the doctor - she should have been struck off !