"He's had a lot of chances" - Pulver says Beale's on his final warning

Hey CS, You still haven’t been able to provide a single reason as to why it was in the best interests of either McKenzie or Patston to attend. OR why they should altruistically act outside their best interests to attend. So no change there - I can see that consistency is your strong suit. I can see your points, however I can't see the relevance. Credibility isn't an issue as you've said Beale pleaded guilty to the offence. The credibility of the complainant would only be in issue IF guilt to the complaint was in issue. Or if the ARU had established a wide ranging enquiry into all aspects of the Wallabies management and performance since June 2014 then there are a lot of issues which might be relevant including the performance of McKenzie and Patston. HOWEVER what the ARU did in fact establish was a tribunal to adjudicate on Beale's wrong doing. There's a difference. Culpability is also not an issue. Beale has admitted said wrong doing. So the only reasons you've raised for McKenzie and Patston to attend are in fact non-issues. The only possible reason you could thing they were relevant issues would be if you think the behaviour was excusable. If you think there's something along the lines of "Aww that Patston was really mean to some of the Waratahs on the last Spring Tour so it's ok for Kurtley to send offensive pictures about her around to the boys" IF you think Beale's behaviour is excusable then I would strongly disagree with you there. " A calm approach to evaluating the issues is recommended" - exactly dragging in irrelevant issues is not such an approach it's an approach that is only useful if your goal is obscurification not evaluation.

ENOUGH is ENOUGH. Two days of bile, hatred, misinformation and plain stupidity. Two days in our life that we will never recover. CHILL OUT.HAVE A CUP OF TEA, A VALIUM , A BEX & A GOOD LIE DOWN

The answer to the first question is credibility, which they now lack; the answer to the second is understanding, which would allow the attribution of culpability. On past form, I don't expect you to see these points any time soon. A calm approach to evaluating the issues is recommended. Cheers.

CS, "they had as much interest in attending as they did in making/supporting the complaint;" Why? What if neither of them particularly cared what happened to Beale at the tribunal? As to the complaint being closed again why ? There was certainly enough evidence without their testimony for the tribunal to reach a finding regarding Beale. You still haven't been able to provide a single reason as to why it was in the best interests of either McKenzie or Patston to attend. OR why they should altruistically act outside their best interests to attend. "Fortunately for the ARU, KB admitted some fault. " He admitted exactly as much fault as could be determined from his mobile phone / billing records. No more no less. Regardless of his admission the tribunal could have made a determination based on those records. "Without this context, any attribution of responsibility for causes and intentions is conjecture." More to the point it's irrelevant. Unless your suggesting that "some of my Waratah team mates didn't like Di Patston 'cause she was mean to them so I sent a funny picture around the boys" is some kind of excuse. What balderdash. Complete and utter tripe. There is no excuse for such behaviour. This is a strict liability kind of offence. Or at least it is outside the cloistered world of professional sport. IF there were issues with Patston's performance then they should be raised and investigated in the appropriate forum. To suggest otherwise is ludicrous. Attempting to conflate this matter with the the behaviour of McKenzie / Patston is irrelevant.

Ruckin' oaf, they had as much interest in attending as they did in making/supporting the complaint; if the resignations meant they no longer had any interest, then the complaint should have been withdrawn and the case closed. As it is, we're left with no more than a host of unanswered questions about untested evidence. Fortunately for the ARU, KB admitted some fault. Beyond these admissions, the cost of the non-appearance is that the allegations are left begging for credibility, i.e., what the complainants would have stood to gain by appearing. Yes, it's easy to write abuse about anyone, but difficult to be personally offended, since it's obvious you don't know who you're talking about. You've made some effort to miss the point. I guess it's technically possible that inventions could have been made from thin air, but however unlikely. On balance, the material relied on a pre-existing context conveyed to KB, to which we are not privy. Without this context, any attribution of responsibility for causes and intentions is conjecture.

AS as PS to CS IF MckEnzie and Patston had fronted the tribunal who exactly would they have been presenting their side of the story too exactly ? - The ARU - nope - The ARU board - nope - The players - nup - The rugby watching public in general - nada They would have been presenting their side of the story to the panel adjudicating on Beale's alleged misconduct. In a closed sitting no less. Yet somehow you think it's an opportunity to correct public misapprehension regarding their role in the ARU structure. That's an amazing leap of conjecture.

Tell me which part of my comment is incorrect? And at least I'm not a bleeding heart! You continue to focus on the victim and forget all the other indiscretions that have been listed too many times....

Blurred lines of responsibilities on everyone's behalf. It has been very difficult to watch this whole sordid incident unfold. It seems to have really polarized everyone from the ARU management , players and all the way through to the supporter base. I love my rugby. I've loved the countless hours of training ,traveling , playing , coaching, volunteering, sitting on boards and still do. I go to all the Superugby and NRC games that are held in the ACT, but, I for for one am completely over the ARU and a fair portion of the current Wallabies. The only good thing I have seen from the ARU in the past 3+ years is the NRC and that has had very little ARU input. The next 12 months will be most interesting for the players and management alike.

Iwillnotstandby, I posted the links here last night, but they have been moderated for reasons mysterious to me, so you'll have to do your own research. The references to last year's spring tour can be found in the early reports on the affair as it broke from the SMH. The curious timeline concerning the central relationship can be found in the leak of DP's emails to the Daily Telegraph, as revised by the leak of KB's submission to the tribunal to (I think) the Australian.. Essentially, it appears we have different positions because you grant asymmetrical authority to the formal processes; whereas I tend to think that the best version of the truth is the one that best satisfies as much of the evidence as possible, with due weighting all round. Cheers.

"What’s the evidence Patston faked the second message?" There isn't any, it's just conjecture from the various conspiracy theorists out there.

Thanks Mike I could respond directly to your reply, so I hope this is not too confusing. I have been addressing things that I consider to be separate because so many people are concerned that they all amount to the same thing. Firstly, I was not aware of Higginbotham's support and public statement. I stand corrected but the point remains. It doesn't matter if it was his tah mates or others. How they appear has an adverse impact on how the game is perceived. How do you get to label the complaint scurrilous? The final outcome was not "didn't happen", it was "not proven", two entirely different propositions. Given that the first complaint was proven it is very hard to justify calling the second, scurrilous. Why hasn't the counter allegation been made by your wronged party? What is your evidence that the complaint was made up? No, the evidence is not already out there. There is a lot of people speculating to fill the gaps and trying to make up motives to attribute to all parties. Somehow a bunch of people are now treating all of the theories as somehow proven. They are not. All that is proven to date is that Kurtley Beale sent one inappropriate text message and was involved in an altercation with the same person. Nothing else was concluded. Sure there could be a whole bunch of questions asked about each player in the sordid mess, but since no-one seems to be willing to step up and give them substance, it remains nothing but a bunch of rumour mongering.

That doesn't even make sense as a response, RO. The original statements was the simple truth: Beale had the guts to apologise and face the independent tribunal. Patston didn't. She made a serious allegation, then appears to have done her best to prevent Beale having any chance of showing it to be false, whilst at the same time maintaining the complaint. That is pretty low. And its not a matter "having something to gain". Your constant references to this seem to show that you only appear to understand self-interest, not doing the right thing. That is not what we want in rugby.

"In terms of the complaint to the ARU, I’m not taking too narrow a view. The complaint related only to Kurtley...." You are taking too narrow a view and your own words show the reason why. It wasn't just "a" complaint. There was a second complaint made and it appears to have been a false one (unless someone can come up with an alternative explanation for the complainant's bizarre behaviour). Not only that, but the ARU appears to have known that that part of the complaint lacked support from an early stage, yet still persisted with it. That raises serious issues about the integrity of the process. "this is why I say Kurtley’s behaviour is still to be treated in isolation" Since you yourself are not treating it "in isolation", that is a strange thing to say. This is not a criminal proceeding. The only relevance of this complaint is as to how the incidents affect rugby. And that raises broader issues throughout the process. "....Hooper, AAC are both initially on record as saying they support him but do not mention in any way his behaviour or acknowledge that he had done anything wrong." Your anti-NSW bias is showing - what a surprise. Slipper went with them to urge McKenzie to keep Beale on the tour. Higginbotham spoke out publicly in support of Beale. But you only mention "his mates" because that is where your tunnel-vision is focused. "They may have had hard private words with him, but the damage to the game from their public statements is fairly significant." Even if that were correct, any fair-minded person would acknowledge that the bringing of a scurrilous complaint and then refusing to supply the evidence that could have proved or disproved it, yet still persisting with it, causes far more damage to the game. Any fair-minded person, that is. "I’m quite open to being shown that I’m wrong if you have the information. " Its all already there, and nothing new is ever going to convince you unless it fits in with what you have already decided.

What's the evidence Patston faked the second message? Kurtley has admitted to the first.

Hey In Brief, Let's assume the Beale sent the first text and Patston faked the second. Then they should both be sacked.

Hey CS, Ok so they both front the tribunal and present their side of the story. Lets, for a moment, ignore the fact that they might prefer to tell their side of the story in a forum and at a time of their choosing. Let's say they fron the tribunal and get everything out in the open. Then what ? They both get reinstated? - impossible. They get a cash payout? - not going to happen. They get hammered in cross examination by a very sharp bunch of lawyers possibly slip up under pressure and put themselves (particularly Patston) in a worse position should they decide to take action down the track. That could happen. In other words they had nothing to gain. "....since how can you be personally malicious toward someone you don’t know?" CS you are a fool of the highest order, a complete idiot, I think that it's pretty obvious to all readers that you've been abusing the internet privileges at whatever institution you're an inmate off and we can only hope that they take away your keyboard before you continue to pollute the internet further with your foul drivel. There you go - pretty darned easy to be personally malicious towards somebody you don't know isn't it? For clarification that above paragraph is used as an example only and isn't a reflection of my opinion " traction for the bad taste joke rested entirely on the knowledge of a persona who only existed in stories told to him by the others" It might not even have been that it could have entirely been based on her appearance and nothing to do with her persona. Regardless it does make a mockery of the notion that Beale was personally responding to the poor management skills of Patston at the time.

the one after the final warning... what an imbecile

Thanks CS, I was not aware of that element of the timeline and I didn't see that in any of the media reports. Can you point me to the source? It's interesting but does not alter the fact he did send it. There is no difference between him drafting the original email or simply forwarding it. He still could have chosen not to send it. The background is immaterial. If correct it certainly does show that others were involved and this is why I say Kurtley's behaviour is still to be treated in isolation(simply to determine what he did, not to say there are not others who may warrant investigation). In my view if there is information suggesting others were involved that must be investigated. Kurtley should not be some sort of sacrifical lamb. Everyone who sent or received the text is potentially involved. In terms of the complaint to the ARU, I'm not taking too narrow a view. The complaint related only to Kurtley as there were no other persons of interest known to the complainant. I can see that the ARU may not have discharged it's arguable obligation to follow up anyone else who was involved. With regard to last season's spring tour, how do we know players raised questions? (it is entirely possible that I have not read something that was previously published and I'm happy to be informed). Which players and exactly what concerns? Rumour and hearsay do not give anyone enough to formulate a clear concern or plan for investigation. There at least needs to be a who and what. These all go to what the ARU may have done, should have done and ultimately did or did not do. None of which offer any exculpation of Kurtley's behaviour. I will reiterate, a separate matter. Not a matter to be dismissed, but not a matter which offers an excuse for the matter raised as a formal complaint. I'll happily follow the reasoning you offer if there are facts closely enough linked that the conclusion is one that most reasonable people would make. To be honest, you seem to show that you have possession of information I don't so maybe I've following the wrong logic trail. I would very much like to know the facts as you see them. I'm not willing to simply accept press reports as establishing a fact. Why? because it is very easy for people to start rumour and innuendo. There is a point where even if there are legitimate grounds for complaint, they cannot reasonably be investigated unless sufficient detail is offered, especially in what is not a legal matter as there is very little to compel witnesses or gather evidence. So without refuting your argument but accepting it as possible but needing to be verified, who complained and what was the complaint? Perhaps to protect the complainant we could settle for exactly what is the complaint? If the complaint was made to some journalist and not the ARU, why would it be followed up? Legitimate complaints could be made through legitimate channels. If it was, then we need to ask why the ARU didn't follow it up. Maybe there was a cover up but there are elements to be made known before we get to that point. I'm not indulging in speculation about his mates. Hooper, AAC are both initially on record as saying they support him but do not mention in any way his behaviour or acknowledge that he had done anything wrong. This creates the impression that the behaviour is accepted by the playing group. They may have had hard private words with him, but the damage to the game from their public statements is fairly significant. Folau had the sense to offer the support while acknowledging what Kurtley did was unacceptable. Hooper especially should have had the sense not to appear to take side (appearance being the issue, I have no idea what he actually thinks or said to Kurtley privately, the public record is all I can consider). If you take nothing away from this other than I am actively interested in what information you have considered in coming to your conclusions, then I'll be satisfied. I'm quite open to being shown that I'm wrong if you have the information. Flick me some news links or documents for those things I've been saying are speculation.

Ruckin' oaf, you say: Neither Patston or McKenzie have anything to gain by attending I've read this comment several times, but it's evidently wrong. If they have a good case, this was a golden opportunity to present their side of the story. As it is, they've left public questions unanswered over their roles in the business, i.e., they have apparently lost quite a lot, reputation-wise, unless of course they had even more to lose in the telling (in which case they wisely refrained from attending). And speaking of June the first message was sent about 3 days or so after Beale would have meet [sic] Patston. He must be incredibly astute to work all that out about her in 3 days. And yet not astute enough to make any kind of complaint about her performance to anybody whatsoever. This is incorrect. On Patston's evidence and Beale's phone records, KB sent the first message 5 days before he had ever met her, i.e., he sent the message about someone who was effectively a complete stranger to him personally. The implications are quite telling: (a) there was nothing personally malicious in the matter, since how can you be personally malicious toward someone you don't know? (b) traction for the bad taste joke rested entirely on the knowledge of a persona who only existed in stories told to him by the others, i.e., we cannot impute any authorial intention, which must lie elsewhere in the playing group. Think about it [see also my comment below in response to iwillnotstandby].

ED. I agree "truer words were neve spoken. Michael Hawker, failed Business executive is already on record as stating "I wanted KBs contract torn up' His golf partner.one BP, has also stated that he was of the same persuasion Bills next door neighbour and,the Parrots, most overrated rugby footballer, John Eales has been as quiet as a church Mouse Alan of course subsequently went on to prove himself as Australias' most useless coach when you factor in the players efforts on the ,84 tour. Strangely enough have not heard a mouses squeak from the "women of Rugby" and congratulate Michael on his first public utterance since around January 2013. Di Ps phone is ARU property. Would it be that her refusal to return same is "THEFT. Richard Egan.