Kurtley Beale

[Gagger]

Thanks Gagger.

Let's visit the definition of naivety and foolishness once all of the horses have finished running.

In the meantime you should have a deeper think about what has been reported by the news outlets over the last three weeks. They are either all full of shit or there is one coherent story that fits the reports.

As for you imagining that there is something sinister about my post I can only hope you stay away from my planet.

This is what's been most disappointing about this whole episode for me - the way it's been handled by the press, which has led to so much of the public lapping it up.

I am of no doubt that like any situation there are two sides of the story. However, so far - bar the leaking of the texts - we have been solidly given just one side.

And yet despite the Beale camp having free reign to take as many swings as they want, almost nothing has landed. We keep having unsubstantiated rumours come and go. No direct quotes or evidence from anyone, other than Beale and his manager.

The best bit is that people like you come along, look at this one sided rumour fest and say "there is one coherent story that fits all the reports" like you're some kind of media savant for having figured out the narrative that one side has painted, unhindered, since day 1.

 

[I like to watch]

Nothing has landed?
FFS Di gone,Link gone.
Thank Christ nothing landed,someone might have lost their job!

 

[Paradox]

I'm not twisting anything - you made a series of "FACTS" in which you seem to have oversimplified matters either accidentally or on purpose.

Of course the "FACT" that you left out was that a District Court judge saw all the evidence to decide guilt or innocence and then fix an appropriate penalty based on evidence.

FACT: The district judge appointed to the tribunal found Beale guilty. Happy now?

It's actually quite interesting that it's ony when people are actually accused of something themselves, or have a close family member accused of something, that they become interested in evidence, proper process and the necessity for the accuser to prove their case. The rest of the time the opinions of people who haven't seen any of the evidence take precedence.

That's an irrelevant comment based on emotion.

 

[Muglair]

My very point Gagger.

The other side of the story has been presented by the ARU initially and then all has gone very silent. It has been admirable with no public evidence available how voluminous the commentary of the "other side" has been able to build a case for Beale's guilt and just how well managed the Wallabies have been.

While it is always possible that players, agents, journalists and ARU employees spend their spare time posting on here the vast majority of us will still listen to the press who happen to have a lot more access to the characters in this drama. The really unusual part is that there is not a lot of press coming the other way. GGR has decided that there is little legal risk in letting the "other side" run for all its worth, so why not the papers?

If Beale or another player sent the second text to Patston then you would think that could be cleared up by a forensic analysis of that phone too. Wilson's article says as much. You think it is just drivel. What makes sense? KB (Kurtley Beale) says here is my phone, let some detective run its software over it to look at every single thing I have used it for. BTW do not worry about checking the other phone which you are relying upon in evidence.

Almost implausible in a legal matter where the other side was pressing for his termination. Or is that more Wilson drivel? That is the position of a lot of posters is that is what the ARU should have been doing so I do not think it is unreasonable to accept it was the case.

The really interesting thing is how confident KB (Kurtley Beale) must have been that there was not more shit on his phone sent or received by him which would not actually provide more evidence of Code of Conduct breaches.

 

[Gnostic]

On the surface of this, you are in fact criticising the gaps of the very structures and procedures that these talented individuals chose to veil themselves in - one had free reign and glossed over every detail (micromanaged) and the other judiciously waived judgement when policy and procedure dictated differently (if initially viewed seriously as it is now). From the top down, senior management can only act on what is within structures i.e policy - the gaps or the engagement of how these policies are practiced is all politicking - including the support from players, which seems sensible as noone condoned the behaviour. If policy/procedures were followed in the first instance - Beale would already be on a plane overseas in another strip.

I think your dribbling if your questioning the independence of the panel - which includes a court judge whose very credibility is on the line by agreeing to take part. Noone likes the way it played out but i suspect it'll take more than this to abandon your passion for the game.

Judge's credibility on the line? You really have no idea how these things work. The Judge and the panel will examine the evidence and produce a finding and penalty in keeping with the Organisational rules (Code of Conduct) that the proceedings are taking place under and (this a key point) the Terms of Reference as set by the Body (ARU) commencing the investigation. Just like a Royal Commission - if evidence is discovered that is not under the Terms of Reference the Panel cannot hear it, though they may refer it on (to the ARU in this instance) who can choose to investigate or not. The only way the Judge could lose credibility is if he chose not to abide by the Terms of Reference mandated for the investigation.

Now this explains why the second text wasn't investigated by the panel. It doesn't explain why the ARU has no interest in knowing who sent it. The rest of your post is non nonsensical.

 

[Gnostic]

My very point Gagger.

The other side of the story has been presented by the ARU initially and then all has gone very silent. It has been admirable with no public evidence available how voluminous the commentary of the "other side" has been able to build a case for Beale's guilt and just how well managed the Wallabies have been.

While it is always possible that players, agents, journalists and ARU employees spend their spare time posting on here the vast majority of us will still listen to the press who happen to have a lot more access to the characters in this drama. The really unusual part is that there is not a lot of press coming the other way. GGR has decided that there is little legal risk in letting the "other side" run for all its worth, so why not the papers?

If Beale or another player sent the second text to Patston then you would think that could be cleared up by a forensic analysis of that phone too. Wilson's article says as much. You think it is just drivel. What makes sense? KB (Kurtley Beale) says here is my phone, let some detective run its software over it to look at every single thing I have used it for. BTW do not worry about checking the other phone which you are relying upon in evidence.

Almost implausible in a legal matter where the other side was pressing for his termination. Or is that more Wilson drivel? That is the position of a lot of posters is that is what the ARU should have been doing so I do not think it is unreasonable to accept it was the case.

The really interesting thing is how confident KB (Kurtley Beale) must have been that there was not more shit on his phone sent or received by him which would not actually provide more evidence of Code of Conduct breaches.

Really. The "forensic evidence" was brought up by Beale in support of his case, as stated a week ago. Would he providing evidence of his poor character?

In addition can evidence of other acts be brought into an investigation into a specific act? Well Prosecutions are prevented from going on fishing expeditions in criminal matters but in this instance it would be dependant on the terms of reference but I seriously doubt it.

 

[Muglair]

I have looked up the dictionary and there is no actual definition of media savant.

However there is a company claiming to be one. It helps communicate their client's message to a target audience. I suppose that could fit if you think I am just a further conduit of Australia's media organisations to GGR.

My problem is with people on this site who, on the basis of no evidence at all, go around sprouting how wonderful the Wallabies environment is, what great managers were involved, how despicable Beale is etc etc.

If you have evidence great. Lets hear about it. It has all been speculation and opinion apart from the admitted fact that Beale sent an offensive and inappropriate text.

What is supposed to pass as thoughtful opinion has amounted to nothing more than deep seated prejudice against Beale (a lot of which is his own fault admittedly), a general slagging off about the players' intellect, ability, attitude and maturity, denigration of the character and ethics of journalists and pointed personal remarks against many of the posters who dare to point this out.

Of course if I am just naïve (as accused) then it is more likely that I am an idiot savant:

a person who is extremely unworldly but displays natural wisdom and insight.

 

[Ruggo]

So what I would like to know is if this was a player of a non indigenous background, would he still have a contract?

Genuine question not a wind up. Surely it must play a role?

But regardless it is good to see that Cheika's zero dipstickdickhead policy remains in full force.

I don't think it is race related either way. The bloke being regarded as an x factor player I think has more to do with it.

 

[Muglair]

I take the point about terms of reference etc. However I cannot fathom on what basis contents of the phone could be withheld. There would have been a chain of evidence or whatever so that Beale's team could not tamper or exclude anything. Remember he had to demonstrate that he did not send the text. Presumably he would have to have shown 100%.

While lawyers can argue that some things are not admissible I would have thought that while you might delete from the evidence unrelated personal messages it might not be possible to delete other offensive material.

Even so, the phone may be the property of the Waratahs or the ARU and they may have a legal right to the whole transcript.

Even then if I was Pulver I would be sure as hell asking for the transcript before I gave him another contract. Mind you if you believe the drivel Wilson writes Pulver does not seem to be always able to get hold of phones and transcripts.

 

[Gagger]

Nothing has landed?
FFS Di gone,Link gone.
Thank Christ nothing landed,someone might have lost their job!

Of the litany of accusations and smears against DP and EM, how many have been proven?

And interestingly, none of these allegations were worthy of anyone commenting on, reporting or even sending malicious emails about - until Kurtley Beale's conduct and career came in to question. Coincidence?

 

[rimmerdee]

I feel they made the right decision


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[MungoMan]

Of the litany of accusations and smears against DP and EM, how many have been proven?

And interestingly, none of these allegations were worthy of anyone commenting on, reporting or even sending malicious emails about - until Kurtley Beale's conduct and career came in to question. Coincidence?

How many were directly tested? Mr K Beale was the subject of the proceedings and no-one else.

 

[Gagger]

My problem is with people on this site who, on the basis of no evidence at all, go around sprouting how wonderful the Wallabies environment is, what great managers were involved, how despicable Beale is etc etc.

I have no problem with you having a problem with that (except as you admit, there is a lot of evidence, now proven of Beale's wrong doing).

I do have a problem with you crediting one sided shambolic reporting laced with zero evidence.

These two wrongs don't make you right

 

[Gagger]

How many were directly tested? Mr K Beale was the subject of the proceedings and no-one else.

They may be tested soon enough

 

[Ruggo]

We all mature at different rates and I am sure we have all done dumb shit through that learning process. I suspect most would have learnt lessons from experience and been afforded a second chance. Not Kurtley Beale, people have given him generous quantities of support yet he still keeps making a dickhead of himself. There come a time when you just have to draw a line in the sand and call a dead beat a dead beat. Beale must be beyond this point with his wrap sheet but nope, he survives another day. His levels of self entitlement must be through the bloody roof.

I'm glad Quade Cooper has been mentioned in this thread. He has proven the shining example and a total paradox to Beale who is still proving himself to be a dead beat and given the precedent, I suspect will continue to do so.

Oh and at the end of the day, Patston was his superior in the workplace and we all know how that should work in the real world.

 

[waratahjesus]

That was a lot of fun. You know his position on anything before he even opens his mouth!

can you stop bullying me by slandering my backed up views in a forum i choose not to contribute in? Just because my view is different from yours does not give you the right to dismiss it as i haven't yours.

cheers sir,
hope you have a great day.

 

[Quick Hands]

QH. Yes, the masses are calling for blood.

But the fact is his defenders are portraying it as, poor old Kurtley being picked on because he's unpopular.

When this is in fact not the case.

People are unhappy because a player with a track record of repeated infringements, who was already supposedly on his last chance, has been yes again slapped on the wrist on the dubious basis that one text was supposedly less offensive than the other.

Kurtley is unpopular with many, not because they just don't like the look of him. He's unpopular because he has a history of poor, disruptive behaviour off the field, and lacking professionalism in his attitude at times.

Many thought he should have been dealt with by the ARU when he failed to adhere to the strict guidelines put in place by the Melbourne rebels after assaulting his captain when intoxicated whilst recovering from injury.

These incidents do not occur in a vacuum. On the basis of the sole text as the only blemish on a career, surely it would be unfair to end a player's career over it if he had been very contrite and there was adequate punishment. This is not the case.

All we know that his behaviour will only be maintained for a short period, much like his form, and his work ethic that ensures his performance. We know this because that's how his whole career has gone.

Then there's the fact that Beale is just not good enough a player to compromise your integrity over. At his best he is a fullback that is weak under the high ball, a 12 that is weak in the tackle and contact, or a 10 that lacks the organisation and vision. And that's at his best.

I've certainly never defended him as poor old Kurtly, nor have I ever said that he shouldn't be punished. What I've done is try to point out flaws in arguments (on both sides) and asked for proper process and heaven forbid competent leadership and management by the ARU.

I actually find it quite bizarre that at the hearing on Friday the ARU are calling for him to be sacked and on Saturday Bill Pulver is saying that the ARU is entering into negotiatons with KB (Kurtley Beale) for a new contract.

Had the ARU genuinely wanted to get rid of him, they didn't need to have a disciplinary tribunal, all they needed to do was not offer him a contract.

 

[TahDan]

This is what's been most disappointing about this whole episode for me - the way it's been handled by the press, which has led to so much of the public lapping it up.

Thank you Bill Pulver.

But can I ask you something? Really? It's the press's handling you're disappointed in? My god mate, were you born yesterday? The press handled this the way they handle EVERY scandal. It's therefore the job of administrators to handle the fall-out so that the press don't have much to write about. How can be disappointed in the press and not the ARU and Wallabies management? That's about as logical as blaming sharks for eating surfers and deciding they need mass culling for just doing what they're supposed to do.

I am of no doubt that like any situation there are two sides of the story. However, so far - bar the leaking of the texts - we have been solidly given just one side.

That's simply not true. The ARU presented precisely Link and Patston's version, and exclusively that version from the get go. The tribunal has now cast doubt over that, and questions remain as to why the Beale camp's suggestion of a forensic analysis of both phones was rebuffed (particularly given how much more transparency it would have added)

The best bit is that people like you come along, look at this one sided rumour fest and say "there is one coherent story that fits all the reports" like you're some kind of media savant for having figured out the narrative that one side has painted, unhindered, since day 1.

Across fairfax and news ltd a consistent picture has emerged, and it's frankly one of a stupid young footballer whose abuse of a senior staff member at the Wallabies was both poorly handled and symptomatic of deeper problems within the management team. It's a little more nuanced than the ARU version, but just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's wrong.

 

[Quick Hands]

The Act goes on to say that the harassment can be by a group of co-workers.

In which case the onus is on the employer and line managers to provide a safe workplace.

 

[Brumby Runner]

I'm still very confused about what actually happened to cause this whole Link/Di/Beale saga and it seems like the full truth isn't going to come out, which is frustrating. I respect the tribunal's findings which seemed to be at least partially in Beale's favour, although having a legal background I'm also aware that the findings were most likely a result of a lack of evidence against him.

In terms of whether he should get a top up, I tend to think he shouldn't merely based on what he brings to the wallabies, which clearly is not much. He's a bench player at best next year. When you look at the types of backs that might be vying for 1 or 2 bench spots next year (JOC (James O'Connor), AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper), Tomane, Horne, Godwin, Lilo, Hunt, Foley, Cooper etc) you have to ask yourself if Beale is really needed. His performances for the wallabies are inconsistent at best. Lilo's game last week was better than Beale's played for the wallabies this year. When you add the texting saga the ARU MUST SURELY come to the conclusion that he is not worth a top up.

The two things that will counter that, have really nothing to do with the national team, namely 1) marketability; and 2) the Waratahs. If this whole saga has taught me anything its that NSW still rules rugby with a iron fist. The NSW powerbrokers and sydney media have major influence and what's best for the tahs is best for oz rugby. Both will put major pressure on the ARU to resign the star tah player and will crucify the ARU if it doesnt throw a bag of money at him.

Surely, on the basis of his and competing players' form he doesn't warrant a top up. After that, isn't it in the hands of the Waratahs? If they are able and willing to offer him a contract that he finds acceptable, wouldn't that be the end of it? Sure the ARU probably have to sanction the contract, but they wouldn't be obliged to contribute to its cost.

On the other point, having lost his appeal to probably nearly all the female followers of rugby, and to a good proportion of the male as well, wouldn't his marketability be at a low point also?