Kurtley Beale

[Hugh Jarse]

"To lose him would be a major disappointment and a backward step for the code. He has been an extraordinary footballer at schoolboy, Super Rugby and international level.”

There wasn't the same sentiment from the establishment for the extraordinary footballer at Schoolboy, Super Rugby, and International level that was James O'Connor.

It certainly was no tragedy for Australian Rugby.

The tragedy for Australian Rugby seems to be that there are many folk within it that do not appear to have grasped the seriousness of what has happened.

 

[Train Without a Station]

What's behind Harris and others reporting this so called ARU and Cheika "contact"

Shithouse journalism and agenda pushing probably.

 

[Braveheart81]

Again, Patston's actions from a workplace relations law perspective are only part of the issue. It would seem to me that it's a lay down misere that the ARU is going to face a hefty payout here. Protections are very clearly in place to protect victims of workplace bullying and harassment.

That's only one aspect of the situation though.

The ARU is a public entity subject to substantial public interest and media attention. As I said previously, the thought that once these images existed they could be kept quiet and all parties could move on from the matter was naively optimistic from all concerned. The fallout just gets worse.

If the ARU takes one thing away from this hopefully it's to realise that these issues need to be brought to a head straight away and dealt with.

What should have just cost Kurtley Beale his job has gone way further and who knows where it will end.

 

[blues recovery]

And other than Growden, Harris is the most inaccurate , lazy journo in Australian Rugby. Even acknowledged by his brothers at the OZ.

 

[Thinker]

The resolution was that Patson would forgive the matter providing Beale showed it was merely an anomaly in his behavior not a pattern.

Let's not forget, Patson's reputation and potentially her ability to do her job were at stake by her escalating the matter.

Should the victim of harassment and bullying be obligated to escalate the issues if that makes their position untenable? I would hope not.

This.

I can't find anywhere where there is either a requirement to mention it or come to a concrete resolution. Not to mention that 84% of sexual harassment victims don't take matters to the formal stage for a variety of reasons.

Add the fact that both instances aren't required to investigate Beale or even sack him. One offence is enough, so depending what he said on the plane, the texts may be irrelevant.

 

[vidiot]

All managers have a clear responsibility to report such matters.

And all victims of sexual harassment have the right to not report it? She is still the wronged party. Beale made this happen. The other players may have been complicit. I'm not going to say Patston did everything perfectly, but blaming her for this mess is clearly not right.

I'm not going to assume that Patston can somehow be two of the three parties - the manager and the sexually harrassed employee.

 

[I like to watch]

Again, Patston's actions from a workplace relations law perspective are only part of the issue. It would seem to me that it's a lay down misere that the ARU is going to face a hefty payout here. Protections are very clearly in place to protect victims of workplace bullying and harassment.

That's only one aspect of the situation though.

The ARU is a public entity subject to substantial public interest and media attention. As I said previously, the thought that once these images existed they could be kept quiet and all parties could move on from the matter was naively optimistic from all concerned. The fallout just gets worse.

If the ARU takes one thing away from this hopefully it's to realise that these issues need to be brought to a head straight away and dealt with.

What should have just cost Kurtley Beale his job has gone way further and who knows where it will end.

How could the ARU have acted more swiftly?

 

[Train Without a Station]

It's interesting to read the comments (less so here and more on the main page and the roar) from a number of people that only certain pieces of information are being leaked to suit their own agenda and Beale is a scapegoat.

Beale's guilt seems to be a certainty. There's no excuses for it so I'm not sure how withholding any information will change anything there.

If there has been any improper actions from ARU Management, I'd imagine Beale's representatives would bring these to light. So far Moses has claimed Link knew, and claimed to have evidence, without providing it.

The alleged discretion have come out, yet Moses is happy to try and smear Link's reputation, without proving his slander.

 

[Train Without a Station]

How could the ARU have acted more swiftly?

Perhaps not taken all this time to conduct an investigation?

Oh hang on. The Dublin incident was criticized for being dealt with too swiftly with a proper process and subsequently new procedures developed.

Welcome to the ARU. No matter what they do, they're management is deemed shithouse.

 

[ACT Crusader]

If the ARU takes one thing away from this hopefully it's to realise that these issues need to be brought to a head straight away and dealt with.

Just not in the lead up to the first test of the year aye....

In seriousness though, timing of when an issue is dealt with and is made public is an important issue. Jumping the gun publicly isn't helpful, nor is holding out because it may adversely impact something else.

In this case we only have very limited official information - offensive texts in June and they came to the awareness of ARU senior officials just recently.

All the rest seems to be agenda driven half truths, fill in the blanks journalism and keyboard warriors trying to explain it from their own perspective.

 

[chasmac]

How did the information about the text messages come to light?
Did Patston tell Link or another senior manager once she was back in Australia?
Did the senior players tell McKenzie when they were putting their case for keeping Beale in Argentina?
Either way, I don't think Patston has done anything out of line, she is the victim.
Beale should go, preferrably to the Northern Hemisphere.
Patston probably won't be seen again.
McKenzie will be judged on his actions but I hope he doesn't get forced out.
The players who received the text and did nothing, should all get hauled over the coals.
The senior players who have backed Beale should get hauled over the coals.
Any player who does not have 100% focus on making ammends by stuffing the All Blacks at Suncorp on the weekend should pack their bags and leave the camp immediately.
I'm tipping that the game on the weekend will be very willing. Big effort from all players. Let the rugby do the talking for once.

 

[Braveheart81]

How could the ARU have acted more swiftly?

By ARU I include everyone in the organisation.

Clearly more people (mostly or entirely players) other than Beale and Patston knew about the initial text messages.

Presumably in time we may find out (the ARU certainly will) some of the people who were privy to the information in June when it happened through Beale's disciplinary process.

The culture of secrecy and protected species seems to be well ingrained in Australian Rugby and it is hurting things badly. Protecting the protected species has ultimately turned out to be a bad idea each time but continues to happen. We're now less than a year out from the RWC and the coach may be about to go as well. If the coach goes over this issue, who knows how long the CEO will last.

 

[Scrubber2050]

In my head nothing, at the moment Links being assinated for no reason. Nothing has come out that his done anything.

And then put Chekia in the job..gee thanks..

Let's get rid of the two best Ozzie coaches by 2015 world cup (if Chekia fails)..

Give Like till next world cup then get the best guy for the job.

Chekia with Fisher and Larkham helping.

Bet there is a lot of Tahs boys happy with this turn of events.

Robbo displaces Slipper
TPN displaces Moore (when fit)
Simmo, Horwill and Carter all scrapped
Backline of Phipps, Foley, KB (Kurtley Beale), Horne, AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) and Izzy sounds about right

Might be a token Brumbie as well.

 

[Pfitzy]

You're way out of line here and out of your depth. Firstly, your reference is not from the ARU MPP (their Anti-D&H policy is below).

My apologies. I was looking at the 2010 copy that Google fetched - I hasten to add I've never worked for Fairfax so we can't blame their training for my lazy research

So let's look at 2014 version, to see how far I'm "out of my depth", hmm? Located here for those playing at home:

http://www.rugby.com.au/Portals/18/Files/Administration/Policies/Member Protection/Member Protection Policy 2014.pdf

In the TOC, it states at the top, starting Page 4 of the document:

PART A: MEMBER PROTECTION POLICY

All the content from here until PART B (regarding the screening/work with children requirements), are therefore part of the MPP by definition.

Your point about me looking up a document that was not part of the MPP is therefore invalid.

Part of this content is a Position Statement listed as 7.3 Anti-Discrimination & Harassment - which includes the following clause:

If any person feels they are being harassed or discriminated against or bullied by a person or organisation bound by this Policy, they may make an internal complaint. In some circumstances, they may also be able to make a complaint to an external organisation.. The complaints procedure is outlined in Part C of the Policy.

You're absolutely right in that she did not have to pursue the complaint.

You're absolutely right in that there is no limit applied to these complaints - even if they no longer work with the applicable body (Part 3 Who This Policy Applies To on page 4 of the document if you were looking).

But let's pretend (or not) she does want to pursue it.

The policy statement explains we'd need to look up Part C (page 24) to see how to pursue complaints. All sorts of good stuff about complaints remaining confidential, how they're documented and communicated to each party, legal obligations etc.

Skipping forward to a particularly relevant passage about procedures for complaints resolution, we see:

Informal approaches
Step 1: Talk with the other person (if safe, reasonable and appropriate) If the Complainant feels confident to do so, approach the other person(s) to discuss the issues and try and resolve the problem directly.

Let's just stop right there for a moment and consider the point that by contacting Beale, and the subsequent dialogue (including apologies and whatnot) she has already engaged in an Informal Approach and therefore seeks to resolve the complaint.

While that's sinking in, please note that your second point - that she doesn't have to pursue it - is also now invalid by her actions and off the table as a discussion point in this thread as it relates to the MPP.

For the sake of completeness - where do we go from there?

In the opinion of each party - which we only know to be Beale and Patston at this stage of the trail - has this been resolved using Step 1?

I'd suggest Beale (in his ignorance) thinks his apology has been accepted, and things are sweet. He might be choosing to ignore the "but don't do it again or else" bit that we've all been discussing. Which is again, his problem.

I'd suggest Patston feels she's done a good thing by letting it slide, but obviously hasn't let it slide completely, because its still on the table as a future option as we've seen. She probably feels its resolved, for now.

Which, by definition, is in no way a resolution. That implies an end, which its not. If KB (Kurtley Beale) wasn't stupid, he would have realised that too.

So the policy has been followed through to Informal Approach but no further action has taken to complete the resolution either via Step 1 or Step 2 of the informal options at this stage.

This is the grey area we find ourselves in. Step 1 has kind of been done, but then not.

Its a factor that would probably complicate any legal proceedings she wants to bring, because the ARU:

1) Has the MPP in place which is part of all employee and Body agreements (it would be a huge clusterfuck for a smaller organisation that didn't have this sort of policy)

2) Has the Complainant entering into an informal resolution process that was progressing but then got a bit muddled.

I'd say she'd still win, and I'd back her all the way, but its not going to be the financial calamity for rugby some think. Particularly as whatever is left of Kurtley's allowance should be going into it.

And as the details are in the public domain, the PR damage has been done.

I just hope everyone has learned from it.

 

[Braveheart81]

Bet there is a lot of Tahs boys happy with this turn of events.

Robbo displaces Slipper
TPN displaces Moore (when fit)
Simmo, Horwill and Carter all scrapped
Backline of Phipps, Foley, KB (Kurtley Beale), Horne, AAC (Adam Ashley-Cooper) and Izzy sounds about right

Might be a token Brumbie as well.

I don't think you'd find a single Waratahs fan who is hoping that Cheika becomes Wallabies coach anytime soon.

 

[SCPR]

Coming late to the party (and jumping into the flames for my first forum post!) but the thing that I find most striking about this whole saga and the posts on this forum is how it highlights the essential difficulty professional sports (and, in particular, football codes) face.

There is a lot of management speak and talk of policies, codes and procedures on here. Now, don't get me wrong, this is a professional environment and high standards should be the norm not the ideal. But, this is, at the end of the day, a male rugby team. I am not excusing or justifying the behaviour, merely highlighting the cultural undercurrents that run with that.

There is a real tension between what constitutes modern management theory (with all the diversity and inclusiveness that entails) and some of how a rugby team traditionally operates.

An example that leaps to mind is the NRL's one-punch = sin bin rule. There were howls and howls from certain sectors about the game going "soft" and how it was never like that back in the day. But does anyone rationally doubt it is a necessary stand in light of modern player safety issues (e.g. the NFL concussion lawsuits).

An interesting article about what I'm talking about is at ESPN's Grantland, though in the finest American and NFL tradition, it is slightly hysterical - http://grantland.com/features/ray-rice-domestic-abuse-nfl-culture/

I think a similar dynamic, though undoubtedly with different historical and cultural context, is playing itself out here.

 

[boyo]

I understand you're not absolving him of blame.

But you are saying potentially that Patson had unethical motives. What exactly would she gain from holding something like this over a player?

The only thing I can see based on Beale's record, is his fear of breaking any rules. Which he should be fucking fearful of anyway, because he was already on a tight leash.

It's not exactly going to get her climbing up the corporate ladder. It's a player, somebody who is really low lying fruit in the org structure, not anybody that can do anything to get her head.

Yes it's possible there was sinister motives. But it seems unlikely. If Beale, however, was unhappy about having his career hanging by a thread, over actions that mind you would have ended said career, he could have at any point in time gone to the people he begged Patson not to tell and come clean.

Let's remember, she's complied with his requests which were part of his apology in all this.

What's the old saying? Be careful what you wish for?

Are you playing management-speak bingo?

 

[Train Without a Station]

I'd suggest Beale (in his ignorance) thinks his apology has been accepted, and things are sweet. He might be choosing to ignore the "but don't do it again or else" bit that we've all been discussing. Which is again, his problem.

I'd suggest Patston feels she's done a good thing by letting it slide, but obviously hasn't let it slide completely, because its still on the table as a future option as we've seen. She probably feels its resolved, for now.

Which, by definition, is in no way a resolution. That implies an end, which its not. If KB (Kurtley Beale) wasn't stupid, he would have realised that too.

She's let it slide, on the provision (as she has warned) it is an isolated action of misbehavior by Beale, not a part of a trend or pattern.

If that was the case, it has been resolved.

That proved to be not the case, so she escalated the matter.

Why do you not feel it's fair that she has openly told Beale she will not report the matter, if he doesn't do anything else out of line?

 

[Braveheart81]

Are you playing management-speak bingo?

Why won't someone just say synergies already so I can mark my final box and claim the prize.

 

[Train Without a Station]

There is a lot of management speak and talk of policies, codes and procedures on here. Now, don't get me wrong, this is a professional environment and high standards should be the norm not the ideal. But, this is, at the end of the day, a male rugby team. I am not excusing or justifying the behaviour, merely highlighting the cultural undercurrents that run with that.

Fair comments. I think one thing needs to be remembered though.

Each one of these players has a manager to kick up 10% too. What are these guys doing to educate these players and earn that 10%?

In a professional environment I'm forced to deal with this all on my own. They essentially have private counsel to mentor them on these matters. A lot of blame needs to go to these people who constantly blow smoke up their asses and fail to inform them of the realities of the real world.