Leinster Team Talk/Gossip/Rumours Thread XI (The Finals Countdown)

Jupiter Mulligan

Squidgy Black wrote: »

I would've thought by now that people wouldn't be jumping at conclusions off of sensationalist headlines.

What exactly do you find sensationalist about the following headline:-

Leinster rugby double probe: Academy player hospitalised and member of public 'urinated on' following Pro14 win

perhaps I lack imagination, but it appears pretty factual to me.

digzy

Faugheen wrote: »

You need to read my post again, because I did not say that.

Among my peer group, there has never been a fight among us over an alcohol-induced argument. That's the sort of **** scumbags do. Has there been arguments? Of course, never once came close to a scrap because we don't need to resort to that.

It's scummy behaviour, .

Unfortunately I’ve seen dental students do all of the above ( pi55ing into another guys pocket, perforated eardrum from punch,letting off fire extinguishers in hotels, ‘sword fighting ‘ in a pub with piss everywhere, drug taking, urinating on a girls dress at the trinity ball.....I could go on...)

It’s not just the scumbags I’m afraid.

Faugheen

Former Former wrote: »

An academy player and a retired player living overseas are not in the same peer group. They're total strangers.

I presume you're Irish and an adult. You can't really be surprised at this.

So these two weren't socialising in the same group?

If they weren't rugby players, they'd be looked down on and rightly so. You seem to be downplaying this by saying 'sure it happens all the time'.

Faugheen

digzy wrote: »

Unfortunately I’ve seen dental students do all of the above ( pi55ing into another guys pocket, perforated eardrum from punch,letting off fire extinguishers in hotels, ‘sword fighting ‘ in a pub with piss everywhere, drug taking, urinating on a girls dress at the trinity ball.....I could go on...)

It’s not just the scumbags I’m afraid.

Dental students can be scumbags. Scumbags aren't reserved for one particular group of people, but unless they are a particular group of people then all incidents will be downplayed.

Former Former

Faugheen wrote: »

So these two weren't socialising in the same group?

If they weren't rugby players, they'd be looked down on and rightly so. You seem to be downplaying this by saying 'sure it happens all the time'.

If they weren't rugby players, it wouldn't be news. At all.

It's great for people to make a point and bang their drum. Otherwise, meh.

Squidgy Black

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

What exactly do you find sensationalist about the following headline:-

Leinster rugby double probe: Academy player hospitalised and member of public 'urinated on' following Pro14 win

perhaps I lack imagination, but it appears pretty factual to me.

Because if you read the article, it's "alleged incidents" and littered with the word "allegedly".

There's absolutely nothing factual in it, other than the IRFU doing investigations on the back of these allegations.

People are extremely quick to jump at anything mentions despite there being no evidence presented that an individual was urinated on (other than social media gossip), or that the academy player was assaulted by an ex player. There hasn't been an official statement made confirming any of it.

Just to note, I'm not saying that this didn't happen, I'm saying wouldn't it be much more sensible to wait until there's some actual evidence to something rather than just blindly accepting what's put out into the media by a journo trying to sell a story?

story goes that the former player lamped the academy guy because he (academy guy) asked the former player his name!

Faugheen

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Because if you read the article, it's "alleged incidents" and littered with the word "allegedly".

There's absolutely nothing factual in it, other than the IRFU doing investigations on the back of these allegations.

People are extremely quick to jump at anything mentions despite there being no evidence presented that an individual was urinated on (other than social media gossip), or that the academy player was assaulted by an ex player. There hasn't been an official statement made confirming any of it.

Just to note, I'm not saying that this didn't happen, I'm saying wouldn't it be much more sensible to wait until there's some actual evidence to something rather than just blindly accepting what's put out into the media by a journo trying to sell a story?

Just because there's been no 'official statements' doesn't mean there's no evidence.

What do you expect a player to confirm or deny that he pissed on someone? Especially when that player has a history of pissing in places that he shouldn't be pissing on?

There's multiple witnesses, a hospital record and Leinster players who had to intervene in both incidents. To say there's no evidence is a pile of ****e and you know it is. Just because you don't know any of the evidence doesn't mean there's none there.

This isn't just 'social media gossip'. These incidents happened. I'm a Leinster fan and I think many would argue that I wouldn't normally let a bad word be said about them, but this behaviour just feeds the likes of McKenna about the way rugby players act with drink in them, and they've been protected for a long time now.

Bridge93

The attack was unprovoked. Academy player bumped into ex player a bit in the middle of the free for all that is the line for the bar to buy drinks. Ex player swings round and cracks him knocking him out. Couple of nights (2 or 3) nights spent in hospital

Jupiter Mulligan

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Because if you read the article, it's "alleged incidents" and littered with the word "allegedly".

There's absolutely nothing factual in it, other than the IRFU doing investigations on the back of these allegations.

People are extremely quick to jump at anything mentions despite there being no evidence presented that an individual was urinated on (other than social media gossip), or that the academy player was assaulted by an ex player. There hasn't been an official statement made confirming any of it.

Just to note, I'm not saying that this didn't happen, I'm saying wouldn't it be much more sensible to wait until there's some actual evidence to something rather than just blindly accepting what's put out into the media by a journo trying to sell a story?

In other words, contrary to what you previously wrote, you're not actually criticising the "sensationalist" (your description) headline, but are upset about what you consider the sensationalist content of the article?

Thanks for clearing that up!

Dial Hard

salmocab wrote:

We don’t know where he lives, there seems to be an assumption who it is. It could be someone living in England

Plenty of people know who he is and where he lives, including me; I have a family member in Leinster Rugby.

Jupiter Mulligan

Dial Hard wrote: »

Plenty of people know who he is and where he lives, including me; I have a family member in Leinster Rugby.

Any idea why charges aren't being pressed? Surely Leinster Rugby doesn't condone such scummy behaviour.

Dial Hard

Jupiter Mulligan wrote:

Any idea why charges aren't being pressed? Surely Leinster Rugby doesn't condone such scummy behaviour.

At the end of the day, that's up to the academy player in question but my guess is, what's the point? The ex-player involved has left the country. Gardai can't question him and does anyone seriously think he's going to be extradited back over a drunken pub assault?

Not sure what people think Leinster can do about it either. As has already been pointed out, they can't sanction someone who no longer works for them.

Faugheen

Former Former wrote: »

If they weren't rugby players, it wouldn't be news. At all.

It's great for people to make a point and bang their drum. Otherwise, meh.

Professional sportspeople are held to a higher standard whether you like it or not.

If you saw two ordinary people in the same group scrapping you’d call it for what it is. If you saw someone pissing on a complete stranger you’d call it for what it is.

Because rugby players are involved you’re playing it down.

Interested Observer

Squidgy Black wrote: »

Because if you read the article, it's "alleged incidents" and littered with the word "allegedly".

Because if they don't use the word allegedly then they open themselves up to legal action.

I've no doubt both of these incidents happened, from various things I've seen. Both reflect really poorly on Leinster.

Jupiter Mulligan

Interested Observer wrote: »

I've no doubt both of these incidents happened, from various things I've seen. Both reflect really poorly on Leinster.

Actually, they both reflect pretty poorly on the perpetrators.

Given the identity of both individuals, it's hard to know what "Leinster" (by which I assume you mean Leinster rugby) can do. Perhaps the lad who holds an IRFU contract can be reprimanded by his employer, but it's hard to know what the Branch can do about the other lout. Maybe write to him and ask him to give back his HEC winner's medal?

Exclamation Marc

Interested Observer wrote: »

Because if they don't use the word allegedly then they open themselves up to legal action.

I've no doubt both of these incidents happened, from various things I've seen. Both reflect really poorly on Leinster.

Huh? How is it a poor reflection on any institution what someone did potentially 5+ years after they've were employed by said institution?

Unless Leinster somehow encouraged it or turned a blind eye, it reflects poorly on the people who did it.

Shefwedfan

Interested Observer wrote: »

Because if they don't use the word allegedly then they open themselves up to legal action.

I've no doubt both of these incidents happened, from various things I've seen. Both reflect really poorly on Leinster.

Not sure why they reflect on Leinster? they reflect badly on th eperson

Former Former

Faugheen wrote: »

Professional sportspeople are held to a higher standard whether you like it or not.

If you saw two ordinary people in the same group scrapping you’d call it for what it is. If you saw someone pissing on a complete stranger you’d call it for what it is.

Because rugby players are involved you’re playing it down.

I am calling it for what it is. Unacceptable behaviour that is newsworthy because it's rugby players involved. If you can see me defending this sort of thing anywhere, point it out.

However, when I see people clutching their pearls, fanning their brow and shrieking "WHAT DOES THIS SAY ABOUT RUGBY", I can also call that for what it is.

Jupiter Mulligan

Former Former wrote: »

However, when I see people clutching their pearls, fanning their brow and shrieking "WHAT DOES THIS SAY ABOUT RUGBY", I can also call that for what it is.

Well let's analyse your second claim a bit.

From what has been reported, it appears that a former Leinster rugby player punched a kid on the head for an as yet unknown reason in a bar. The punch was so violent as to have KO'd the kid and send him to hospital in an ambulance for a brain scan.

Later that day/night, the said thug "attended an official function in the RDS to mark the 10th anniversary of the province's first Heineken Cup title win."

For me, Leinster Rugby could - and should - have shown a bit of balls by advising him not to attend - assuming that they were aware of the incident before the function took place.

That for me is where Leinster Rugby may have dropped the ball.

Bridge93

It happened at the function

salmocab

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

Well let's analyse your second claim a bit.

From what has been reported, it appears that a former Leinster rugby player punched a kid on the head for an as yet unknown reason in a bar. The punch was so violent as to have KO'd the kid and send him to hospital in an ambulance for a brain scan.

Later that day/night, the said thug "attended an official function in the RDS to mark the 10th anniversary of the province's first Heineken Cup title win."

For me, Leinster Rugby could - and should - have shown a bit of balls by advising him not to attend - assuming that they were aware of the incident before the function took place.

That for me is where Leinster Rugby may have dropped the ball.

A kid got punched now? Academy players are generally in their 20s.

Faugheen

salmocab wrote: »

A kid got punched now? Academy players are generally in their 20s.

And this fella is twice his age.

Playing it down again with straw man arguments that contribute absolutely nothing.

salmocab

Faugheen wrote: »

And this fella is twice his age.

Playing it down again with straw man arguments that contribute absolutely nothing.

It’s not straw man, calling someone a kid who is a grown adult is just using words to make something sound worse, there is no need to do that because it’s already a crap set of circumstances. There aren’t enough details out for this to go anywhere but using language to make something sound worse doesn’t help any side.

Jupiter Mulligan

salmocab wrote: »

A kid got punched now? Academy players are generally in their 20s.

Maybe stick to the assault and leave the semantics to when you're next playing scrabble.

Bridge93

Did anyone think it was an actual child he hit? Like the use of the word kid in this context is very common. Everyone knows what’s meant when calling a young player a kid. Being obtuse for the sake of it to make an issue of the terminology

Jupiter Mulligan

Bridge93 wrote: »

It happened at the function

Thanks. Makes things messier. Imagine assaulting someone at a free bar! The guy must have been plastered.

But perhaps his post professional rugby life has been a disaster, in which case he probably needs help.

Shefwedfan

Faugheen wrote: »

Professional sportspeople are held to a higher standard whether you like it or not..

I never really understand that statement



Professionals all over the World are held to a standard. No company in the World should accept anyone that getting pi**ed and goes around hitting people

Buer

salmocab wrote:

It’s not straw man, calling someone a kid who is a grown adult is just using words to make something sound worse, there is no need to do that because it’s already a crap set of circumstances. There aren’t enough details out for this to go anywhere but using language to make something sound worse doesn’t help any side.

He's not a grown adult. He's a kid. These lads aren't long out of school and are still developing mentally and physically

This was an altercation between an academy player and a former forward who could flatten other test level forwards with a punch let alone a 20 year old.

This stuff happens at end of season blow outs. It shouldn't though. Hopefully this turns out to be the catalyst for changing that. This crap cannot go on and it's not the first time stupid stuff has happened at an end of season session.

Full investigations should indicate who the culprits and instigators were and they should be significantly sanctioned where possible.

salmocab

Jupiter Mulligan wrote: »

Maybe stick to the assault and leave the semantics to when you're next playing scrabble.

It’s not semantics you called him a kid he’s clearly not. Saying someone assaulted a kid makes it sound way worse than he assaulted another adult.