Wallabies star David Pocock announced his Super Rugby retirement on Tuesday and spoken publicly for the first time about Israel Folau’s axing.
Wallabies flanker David Pocock says it was “really sad” to see his former international teammate Israel Folau sacked by Rugby Australia.
Folau’s four-year, $4 million contract was terminated two weeks ago after he posted a biblical quote on social media saying homosexuals would go to hell unless they repented.
Pocock has long been a supporter of same-sex marriage and has previously told Folau, a devout Christian, he “strongly disagrees” with the controversial fullback’s position on the issue.
Pocock announced his retirement from the Brumbies and Super Rugby on Tuesday in bid to overcome a recurring calf injury and play at the World Cup in September.
The 31-year-old activist also spoke about Folau’s sacking for the first time publicly.
“It’s been a really tough situation for rugby and at the end of the day we have so much more in common than the few things we might divide us,” Pocock said.
“As a sport, we want to be inclusive and create a safe space for people so when they turn up play rugby they feel like they can be whoever they are.
“I’ve always said sport is at its best when it’s inclusive and it’s actually challenging society to be more
inclusive. Rugby has done a great job over the years of doing that.
“It’s been dealt with now by Rugby Australia. I’m really sad to see him go but I really hope we can continue with the great work that has been done in creating that safe space.”
With Folau warned previously about his social media use and the latest issue again playing out very publicly, Pocock admitted the situation could have been better handled.
“It can always be done better but it’s such a tough situation. I don’t know, it’s a very hard situation to come up with a winner and it’s just sad,” Pocock said.
“It is what it is now and we all need to move on and think about how we can play our part in creating a kinder society and more inclusive society because we’re facing some much bigger issues than that.
“We’re facing some serious issues with climate change, the ecological crisis we’re in and we need people to be coming together and taking some meaningful action.”
Pocock was then asked if he had considered a career in politics after football.
“I’m not sure, we’ll wait and see. It’s not something I’ve thought a lot about. It looks like a pretty hard slog,” Pocock said.
neostars
Roar Rookie
Here the post from the book Folau quoted. 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 New International Version (NIV) 9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men[a] 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.
concerned supporter
Roar Rookie
Jez. Due to irregular sunspots some scientists are saying there may be a mini ice age arriving similar to what finished about 1880.
concerned supporter
Roar Rookie
Kiwikrs Are you being critical of Professor PeterRidd?
Kiwikrs
Roar Rookie
I was being facetious
bigbaz
Roar Guru
Why is that?
jeznez
Roar Guru
I’m not a scientist, I can only read what I read and make a decision as to who I find convincing. I’ll leave it to the actual qualified folk to debate each other. Anyway, think we should be getting back to the rugby!
Kiwikrs
Roar Rookie
Ok my appologies that was a semi rhetorical question. But as you've still not put forward any facts or claims to refute the original article, other than an ad hominem arguments based on your opinion of who is better funded, I'm going to leave this debate here.
jeznez
Roar Guru
You asked: Who’s funding a climatologist to say everything is ok and there’s no threat I suggested an answer. I can’t see why it is hard to acknowledge that coal, oil and gas companies, automotive and non-renewable based electricity companies, steel manufacturers, the nations that live off the profits of some of those industries along with other high power consuming industries have a stake in saying that man made climate change based on CO2 emissions is not a thing. I’ll put a lot more stock in the larger numbers of scientists that promote the opposing view since it it a lot less clear to me who might have as vested an interest with anywhere near as deep a set of pockets. If all these scientists were for sale it is clear which side of the debate would be able to buy their endorsement. Since the less funded side seems to have more scientists supporting them, my assumption is they are probably the ones telling the truth.
Kiwikrs
Roar Rookie
How so? One adjunct professor whose contract hasn't been renewed since 2013 and one skeptic who was fired for publicly criticising pro climate change colleagues
Kiwikrs
Roar Rookie
Crazy that you would find opinionated people on am opinion site
Kiwikrs
Roar Rookie
Absolutely not. But regardless, that wasn't my question. All I did was link an article with some facts and information about CO2 benefits and history. I then tried to avoid a political argument by neutralizing it and conceding that both sides had vested interests. If anyone wants to refute or discuss the facts contained in the article I'd love to hear it but ad hominem arguments or who's got deeper pockets speculation is really a waste of time.
Kiwikrs
Roar Rookie
I'll guarantee tray if the IPCC came out and said there was no threat from climate change that they'd see their funding dry up quick smart. No one is giving grants or funding to a cause without a threat. Now you're going off the bigger risk? So you don't know you're just hedging your bets and arguing about it?
Taniwha
Roar Rookie
jeznez, The money flows in only one direction and it's not towards the ''nay-saying camp'' as you claim. Follow the money if interested in knowing the truth.
Lux Interior
Roar Rookie
"100% to find in the affirmative". You're asserting that as a fact (without evidence) and then posing a question based on your unproven assumption. What's the bigger risk? Losing some money or losing the human habitat?
Bobby
Roar Rookie
Too many cows
Sage
Roar Rookie
Damn it you're right!! I don't hold much faith in that science stuff myself either. Speaking of duplicit name changing, I played golf (badly) yesterday arvo and the Hazard area is now called a Penalty Area. Sneaky buggers. The name change was Anthropomorphic but many are denying that. I hear Al Gore plays golf too, yeah.
Sage
Roar Rookie
Well said that man (that's you Jez)
jeznez
Roar Guru
I'm trying to answer his own question of where is the financial backing for the various sides coming from. It's utterly clear which side of the argument has the deeper pockets. And we've got so many examples such as the cigarette industry, asbestos industry etc fighting very hard to silence and discredit science in order that they can continue doing what they were doing. I rather suspect the same thing is happening here, the pools of cash incentivised by either side of the argument is incredibly weighted towards the nay-saying camp.
robel
Roar Pro
There have been many, many ice ages and warming periods in that interval, the last ice age peaking ~40,000yrs ago. In the last 10,000yrs we've had the Gulf of Carpentaria created, the disappearance of the Saharan savannah and transformation into a sand sea. The Permian extinction probably had many causes, including vulcanism, the Cretaceous extinction (~65mil years ago) is thought to have been caused by a meteor impact. All of these are or resulted in climate changes.
Kiwikrs
Roar Rookie
So the IPCC is 100% funded to find in the affirmative. Should we discount everything they say?