Comments on: RUPA appoint QC to investigation Tuqiri axing

By: AndyS

AndyS — Tue, 04 Aug 2009 02:38:07 +0000

The RUPA website states that “Currently 100% of Australia’s full time professional players are members.”, implying that it perhaps isn’t compulsory but the question is moot anyway.

By: Jameswm

Jameswm — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 11:06:35 +0000

The codes of conduct were prepared in consultation with the players. Then, when they’re enforced, they question them. These guys are paid shedloads of money and have to be responsible for their own actions.

And 100 years ago the game was amateur and the players under less scrutiny.

And you didn’t answer the questions:

1. who is paying for it?

2. is being a member of RUPA compulsory?

By: John Ryan

John Ryan — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 07:01:23 +0000

By God this would never have happened 100 yrs ago,those players should know their place,fancy questioning the edicts of the ARU,the nerve of them, I tell you unions are up to no good we should transport the lot of them,may you live in interesting times gentlemen

By: Jameswm

Jameswm — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 06:31:27 +0000

By the way – who is paying for this? RUPA? That means it’s coming out of the players’ pockets.

Revisiting every suspension for 5 years, are you kidding?

It’s a joke – and suggests it’s all out war between RUPA an the ARU. That’ll do no one any good.

Get over yourself Dempsey.

I wonder if being a member of RUPA is compulsory? Compulsory unionism?

By: Jameswm

Jameswm — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 01:45:17 +0000

sledge – it’s not just a morals thing. Lote used his Wallabies corporate credit card FFS. How stupid was that?

You’ve got 18-20yos there around him. He should have known better.

By: Wally James

Wally James — Mon, 03 Aug 2009 01:39:33 +0000

Bozo

I see your point however Spender QC cannot get the evidence unless there is a trial. In the absence of a trial he does not get the evidence at all. His appointment is therefore either superfluous (the Court can make a decision on the same evidence he hears) or pointless (he does not get the evidence at all. Either way its a fruitless exercise.

Cheers
Wal

By: bozo

bozo — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 12:19:44 +0000

reference to “it” in the last sentence was to the claim, not the ARU

By: bozo

bozo — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 07:38:41 +0000

Wally -The evidence will not only released to the parties and the Court. Courts in Australia are public forums. Anyone can sit in and listen to the hearing of a case. This is obviously a card the ARU knows it has in the deck. It will settle before the evidence has to be given.

By: Wally James

Wally James — Sun, 02 Aug 2009 03:01:25 +0000

It appears to me that RUPA inquiry insofar as it relates to Tuquiri is a complete waste of time.

The matter is already before the Court. Both the ARU and Tuquiri have indicated they will not release any information to anyone except their respective legal advisors and the Court. Consequently Spender QC will have little if any first hand evidence to act upon.

The Court will have before it all the necessary evidence to determine what happened and Mr Spender will not. Accordingly the findings of the Court are likely to be accurate and those of Mr Spender’s not. That is not intended to be a reflection upon Mr Spender just the reality he faces.

Further what business is it of RUPA’s? The facts seem to be peculiar to Tuquiri and on the face of it have no relevance to the playing population as a whole. The Code of conduct is there. The Court will decide what Tuquiri did and whether it breached the Code. That seems to be a matter between Tuquiri and the ARU

It appears to me to be an inappropriate respnse from RUPA, wasting both time and money.

By: sledgeandhammer

sledgeandhammer — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 12:36:29 +0000

Good on Lote fighting this one, and good on Dempsey for getting behind the players. The ARU has gone overboard with the ridiculous disciplinary codes. Lote’s behaviour may not have been morally correct, but enough of this sanctimonious, holier than thou bullshit. What happened should be an issue that Lote has to resolve with his wife, not the ARU.

By: bozo

bozo — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 11:23:43 +0000

LAS is right and wrong. Wrong; Spender is a QC..great connections with a past conservative era.
Right: Waste of momey and time. But it would be interesting to be told what is Spender’s brief?? – You can be sure he will give the correct answer.

By: Chris Beck

Chris Beck — Sat, 01 Aug 2009 00:31:01 +0000

Reopening all suspensions & disciplinary actions over the last five years? If they “find something” then the RUPA wasn’t doing their job then, while if they don’t it just makes them look like they weren’t.

And then he says it is important to get clarity and transparency. Is he implying that those are currently foreign concepts? If so, one could argue they need someone else in charge of the RUPA.

By: Norm

Norm — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 22:40:32 +0000

for your information las those appointed as QCs before the change still retain that title.

By: LeftArmSpinner

LeftArmSpinner — Fri, 31 Jul 2009 19:02:57 +0000

More noise from Dempsey, just a shame about the lack of substance. I would like to know if Dempsey knows the facts behind the case or is the SC, Senior Counsel (they are no longer called QC) is going to fnd it all out for RUPA. Why not just ask Lote?? He’s a current member, presumably.

Sadly, Dempsey doesnt appreciate just how well the Players, his members, are looked after.