General Rugby Discussion II

molloyjh

stephen_n wrote: »

Former Coach wrote: »

If a guy is acquitted of robbing a bank , it means that there isn’t enough evidence to convict him. It doesn’t mean he didn’t do it!

Neither does it mean he did. It means there isn’t enough evidence alright, without which it’s impossible to make judgements and yet here we are.

This.

molloyjh

molloyjh wrote: »

Yes, but not actually innocent. Which is, of course, the point being made.

As I said elsewhere, I do wonder if this was a politician or a banker being found not guilty of misconduct regarding the recession would all the same people be of the same opinion? I'd suggest not.

Francis Fitzgerald is a good example having been exonerated by the Mahon tribunal. I certainly advocated a wait and see approach and gave her my second preference for MEP.

errlloyd

molloyjh wrote: »

As I said elsewhere, I do wonder if this was a politician or a banker being found not guilty of misconduct regarding the recession would all the same people be of the same opinion? I'd suggest not.

I actually think this level of ardent presumption of innocence is unique to sports (and maybe music). Comedians and Actors get dropped the minute there is a hint of an allegation they were involved in something iffy. Jeffery Tambor got cancelled by Amazon as soon as a former assistant said he had been sexually aggressive. That is a disgruntled former employee (incentive) with a harassment allegation (not as bad as rape) and effectively ended Tambor.

Sports fans seem particularly able to compartmentalise their stars and extend them the benefit of the doubt. We've seen it with Ched Evans, Ronaldo, and countless American football players.

connemara man

OK What constitutes guilt and innocence is OT from General Rugby Discussion as possible

Move the chat along to actual rugby issues

Foxtrol

Former Former wrote: »

Maybe you know what you're talking about but you're absolutely dreadful at explaining it. You were the one giving people stick for not understanding the law so it would have been better if you hadn't been so muddled yourself.

Again.

What we know:
The jury found them not guilty.
The jury did not believe the evidence was sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
They are entitled to the full presumption of innocence.

What else we know:
Nothing.

As you would say yourself, end of.

We also know that despite over 9 weeks of evidence it took the jury less than 4 hours to come to their verdict. It was quite cut and dry to them despite how people on Twitter who dont like the verdict try to muddy things and drag down Jackson's career.

Fair play to London Irish for standing by their decision and not folding to the pressure. There will be a lot of pressure on Jackson to repay this faith in him but I feel being around coaches who know how to use him will put him in a great position to do that.

prawnsambo

Foxtrol wrote: »

Fair play to London Irish for standing by their decision and not folding to the pressure. There will be a lot of pressure on Jackson to repay this faith in him but I feel being around coaches who know how to use him will put him in a great position to do that.

I suspect it was a financial decision in the end. Diageo left it very late to put their objection in by the sounds of things, so LI would have been stuck between losing a sponsor (not their main one) and facing a breach of contract with PJ.

Former Former

Foxtrol wrote: »

Fair play to London Irish for standing by their decision and not folding to the pressure. There will be a lot of pressure on Jackson to repay this faith in him but I feel being around coaches who know how to use him will put him in a great position to do that.

It's hard to know what grounds LI would have had for doing anything other than standing by him (but this story might yet have some twists and turns in it).

The events that brought us here happened three years ago and they've been in the public domain for well over a year, LI knew exactly what they were getting into, they wouldn't really have any grounds for sacking him now.

Foxtrol

prawnsambo wrote: »

I suspect it was a financial decision in the end. Diageo left it very late to put their objection in by the sounds of things, so LI would have been stuck between losing a sponsor (not their main one) and facing a breach of contract with PJ.

I agree it was likely a financial decision, but not the one you’re pointing to. Staying in the premiership is much more lucrative than the loss of a minor sponsor.

Despite the potential financial gain by sticking with him, some clubs would have still folded to the virtue signaling of two sponsors so LI have earned my respect in standing firm.

Foxtrol

Former Former wrote: »

It's hard to know what grounds LI would have had for doing anything other than standing by him (but this story might yet have some twists and turns in it).

The events that brought us here happened three years ago and they've been in the public domain for well over a year, LI knew exactly what they were getting into, they wouldn't really have any grounds for sacking him now.

Diageo were advised in advance of the signing and didnt raise any issues but once they felt some pressure from the twitter hoards they found a way out of their contract. Without seeing either contract it is impossible to know what escape routes are there.

prawnsambo

Foxtrol wrote: »

I agree it was likely a financial decision, but not the one you’re pointing to. Staying in the premiership is much more lucrative than the loss of a minor sponsor.

Despite the potential financial gain by sticking with him, some clubs would have still folded to the virtue signaling of two sponsors so LI have earned my respect in standing firm.

You're contradicting yourself here. If it's a financial gain to stick with him for reasons of his ability to keep them in the premiership (debatable, but whatever), then it's not exactly worthy of any kind of respect for their imputed (by you) rejection of 'virtue signalling' or whatever principle you think they're praiseworthy for.

is_that_so

Foxtrol wrote: »

Diageo were advised in advance of the signing and didnt raise any issues but once they felt some pressure from the twitter hoards they found a way out of their contract. Without seeing either contract it is impossible to know what escape routes are there.

In May it seems, which is all of 2 weeks ago. Decisions like this take meetings and time. They are not the first sports entity to be dropped for the sake of a brand nor will they be the last.

Foxtrol

prawnsambo wrote: »

You're contradicting yourself here. If it's a financial gain to stick with him for reasons of his ability to keep them in the premiership (debatable, but whatever), then it's not exactly worthy of any kind of respect for their imputed (by you) rejection of 'virtue signalling' or whatever principle you think they're praiseworthy for.

I’m not contradicting myself, why do you believe those two things have to be mutually exclusive?

Recently, many teams/companies haven’t done what’s best for themselves financially in order to quell small but noisy groups that are outraged, many times with a high proportion of that group not understanding the facts about what they’re claiming to be outraged at. Sometimes it is right for the company to fold to this pressure for PR benefits but other times it isn't but they still give in.

I can have respect for a team/company that doesn’t fold to that pressure, even if there is the potential to gain from the decision financially.

Foxtrol

is_that_so wrote: »

In May it seems, which is all of 2 weeks ago. Decisions like this take meetings and time. They are not the first sports entity to be dropped for the sake of a brand nor will they be the last.

Yes, the May reporting could be 2 weeks ago but it just as easily could be 6 weeks.

There is other reporting that they were informed about the Jackson deal before it was finalised and didn't raise an issue. That changed when the other sponsor put them under pressure by very smartly using the Jackson deal as an excuse when they already planned to pull out of their sponsorship for other reasons, getting PR brownie points from a few idiots in the process.

That's off my point though, I was saying that without seeing the contracts of the sponsors or Jackson we don't know what escape routes there are.

walshb

These men had their day in court and were found not guilty. I think Diageo are wrong here. This is not about one man. It is about a whole collection of people affected. They have sponsored them for 25 years or so, and now they pull the plug...?

A simple: "This is more than about just player. The club is a whole collection of people that we've stood by for many years. We are not going to abandon these people now."

Jackson had his day in court. Nothing to do with Diageo

I could understand it if they had signed a convicted rapist or a person convicted of a "serious" crime.

is_that_so

walshb wrote: »

These men had their day in court and were found not guilty. I think Diageo are wrong here. This is not about one man. It is about a whole collection of people affected. They have sponsored them for 25 years or so, and now they pull the plug...?

A simple: "This is more than about just player. The club is a whole collection of people that we've stood by for many years. We are not going to abandon these people now."

Jackson had his day in court. Nothing to do with Diageo

I could understand it if they had signed a convicted rapist or a person convicted of a "serious" crime.

Their brand, their call. As listed upthread Woods, Armstrong and others were found to be no longer brand-compatible and dropped.

is_that_so

Foxtrol wrote: »

Yes, the May reporting could be 2 weeks ago but it just as easily could be 6 weeks.

There is other reporting that they were informed about the Jackson deal before it was finalised and didn't raise an issue. That changed when the other sponsor put them under pressure by very smartly using the Jackson deal as an excuse when they already planned to pull out of their sponsorship for other reasons, getting PR brownie points from a few idiots in the process.

That's off my point though, I was saying that without seeing the contracts of the sponsors or Jackson we don't know what escape routes there are.

I would imagine every sponsor has a built-in instant exit for anything that they deem not brand compatible. In Jackson's case you'd expect the usual comportment stuff that end it along with a mutual agreement clause.

walshb

is_that_so wrote: »

Their brand, their call. As listed upthread Woods, Armstrong and others were found to be no longer brand-compatible and dropped.

Yes. True. And I reckon they could lose a lot of brand goodwill here as well..

Lack of character, and showing no loyalty..

is_that_so

walshb wrote: »

Yes. True. And I reckon they could lose a lot of brand goodwill here as well..

Lack of character, and showing no loyalty..

I doubt they will. Diageo are way bigger than just Guinness. Even Guinness itself is such a dominant brand in its sector any effect is likely to be extremely small.

is_that_so

I wasn't aware of the "Stop Out-Of-Control Drinking Campaign" that Diageo fund but their decision here would be entirely consistent with supporting a campaign of that nature. Mentioned in this article, which has much the same narrative as this thread.

https://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/i-think-that-paddy-jackson-is-getting-too-much-punishment-ireland-legend-fergus-slattery-disagrees-with-diageo-decision-38219511.html

Bazzo

Garces to retire after the world cup. Himself and Barnes are two big names that will need replacing on the international circuit.

Foxtrol

is_that_so wrote: »

I wasn't aware of the "Stop Out-Of-Control Drinking Campaign" that Diageo fund but their decision here would be entirely consistent with supporting a campaign of that nature. Mentioned in this article, which has much the same narrative as this thread.

https://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/i-think-that-paddy-jackson-is-getting-too-much-punishment-ireland-legend-fergus-slattery-disagrees-with-diageo-decision-38219511.html

They are only consistent in their inconsistency. Rugby over the years and right up to today is full of examples of out of control drinking, but Diageo haven’t shown even slight concern in public about players or teams until this case.

For me all the claims of concern about the drinking, text messages, other ‘non family value’ activities are just excuses to justify treating him like he was convicted of the crime that he was found not guilty of committing.

mfceiling

Former Former wrote: »

None of those are remotely comparable though. All those incidents made the sports news for a few days and we all moved on. The Jackson thing has been rumbling for nearly two years now.

It hasn't really rumbled on for 2 years. There hasn't been a word about Jackson or Olding as they attempted to restart their careers.
The mob literally moved on or waited in the grass.
The minute it was announced he had signed for LI and there they were again. Twats on Twitter sending messages to their sponsors to let them know that "they hadn't gone away"
He walked out of court with no charges against him but his name is mud....And some will hold that against him forever.

AbusesToilets

Bazzo wrote: »

Garces to retire after the world cup. Himself and Barnes are two big names that will need replacing on the international circuit.

Probably the two best refs over the last decade. Both seem fairly young, is there an age limit for refs?

Squidgy Black

AbusesToilets wrote: »

Probably the two best refs over the last decade. Both seem fairly young, is there an age limit for refs?

No age limit but they have to be able to pass regular fitness tests, one of the main ones being able to pass level 18 or higher on the YoYo test (which is like the bleep test but 2*20 metre runs with a 10 second rest after each return, but jumps right up to full speed fairly fast).

Exclamation Marc

Bazzo wrote: »

Garces to retire after the world cup. Himself and Barnes are two big names that will need replacing on the international circuit.

That's a shame. Two great referees. And with Nigel's calling being somewhat looser these days, there will certainly be a noticeable drop in quality.

Former Former

mfceiling wrote: »

It hasn't really rumbled on for 2 years. There hasn't been a word about Jackson or Olding as they attempted to restart their careers.
The mob literally moved on or waited in the grass.
The minute it was announced he had signed for LI and there they were again. Twats on Twitter sending messages to their sponsors to let them know that "they hadn't gone away"
He walked out of court with no charges against him but his name is mud....And some will hold that against him forever.

My point was that the Jackson affair is on a whole other planet to any other controversy that has ever hit European rugby for an absolute myriad of reasons. There's another Irish rugby player currently accused of pretty heinous sexual crimes and no-one really gives a sh*t. Some of the reasons for that are fair, others are not, but either way, that's where we are.

Going to France (especially the lower reaches of French rugby) was exactly the right thing to do, it was a classic case of out of sight out of mind. During the last couple of days, no one has even mentioned Olding. Another year or two there and maybe he'd have been able to come back to England. Going to London Irish this early was madness. Is it fair on him? Maybe not, but he hasn't helped his own case at any stage along the way.

bilston

Former Former wrote: »

There's another Irish rugby player currently accused of far, far more heinous sexual crimes and no-one really gives a sh*t. Some of the reasons for that are fair, others are not, but either way, that's where we are.

There is???

thecretinhop

pinko screaming liberals i hate them with a passion. sad pathetic clowns with nothing to do in life but ruin other people's lifes.

Former Former

bilston wrote: »

There is???

There is. Had we all forgotten this?

https://www.ouest-france.fr/sport/rugby/fc-grenoble-rugby/rugby-trois-ex-joueurs-du-fc-grenoble-poursuivis-pour-viol-6343063

Now, he's a very low-profile player which is why no-one cares, so it's a good example of why Jackson's dilemma is as much about who he is as what he was accused of.

mfceiling

Former Former wrote: »

Maybe not, but he hasn't helped his own case at any stage along the way.

He lashed out literally hours after the trial. That was understandable - maybe Ill advised but understandable. Within a few weeks his head was down and there hasn't been a whimper from him. His social media has been very quiet bar the odd picture of his dog. He hasn't really done anything of note so it's a bit unfair to day he hasn't helped his case along the way. I think if he'd stayed in France for the rest of his days he probably would have been ok. If he came back to England in 10 years there still would be a public outcry. There's a cohort of people who will never let this go.