Waratahs 2014

[Braveheart81]

If the ARU was so concerned, why wasn't their chief medical officer present for any of the appointments?

Why did the ARU make the decision without speaking to Folau first? At least give him that courtesy.

Folau was injured on Friday 21 March. The injury was diagnosed and protocols were followed from a couple of days after that date when he first saw a specialist.

If the ARU wanted to rule him out for a specified period of time, why didn't they make that decision then rather than letting Folau fly to South Africa on the expectation of being able to play and then Perth getting to the point where he was named in the team.

Wallabies with injuries have to follow ARU management of their injuries and provide updates and leap hurdles before they are able to return to the field. As part of that ARU injury management, Folau participated in a contact session on the Tuesday and then visited a specialist for a review who cleared him to play allowing the Waratahs to select him in their side.

If the ARU are so concerned about letting him play then why the fuck are they telling him that he needs to get through a contact session before he can play?

It is an absolute debacle from the ARU who appear to not be able to make decisions or communicate with their best players.

 

[Train Without a Station]

The ARU can't make a decision on the progress of an injury in advance Braveheart, I'm sure you know that. There is no set time you are ruled out of an injury (Barring concussion mind you). There is an estimate and you are assessed. Once you are assessed to have been sufficiently healed you are cleared to play.

Much like the Reds game and the Moore card/Quirk penalty issue, it's happened, what can be achieved by slagging off the ARU further now and debating the time frame and how they actually came to their conclusion? They received medical information and based on that ruled him out. Can't go back and change it now.

The ARU probably should have personally told Izzy perhaps, but at the same time the protocol is they advice the team doctor and go through them. Perhaps as a courtesy in this case a follow up phone call would have been much better form I agree.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Communication is the issue but there has been no indecisiveness as claimed. They received the information on the Thursday, reportedly late. They ruled him out on the Friday.

 

[Benaud]

I was more concerned that they went out of their way to point out that they don't trust the medical advice of the Waratahs medical staff. They are essentially irrelevant now and might as well not be employed. I guess the same goes for all medical staff in Australian rugby franchises - although the ARU have so far only singled out the Waratahs group as unreliable sources of medical advice.

 

[Braveheart81]

The ARU can't make a decision on the progress of an injury in advance Braveheart, I'm sure you know that. There is no set time you are ruled out of an injury (Barring concussion mind you). There is an estimate and you are assessed. Once you are assessed to have been sufficiently healed you are cleared to play.

Yes and no. Doctors make an assessment that something will take a certain period of time to heal and that you can't participate prior to that. The injury has been there for weeks now and if the ARU believed that there was a danger in Folau playing, they should have made a decision for him not to be involved in contact sessions long before Friday night.

Based on what the ARU said to the Waratahs when they ruled him out, it wasn't necessarily just for the Force game.

If the ARU were of the opinion that it was too dangerous for Folau to play, why did they put him through a contact session to test if he was alright?

The ARU has contradicted itself massively and it is a really poor look.

 

[Train Without a Station]

Doctors make an estimate. They then reassess. Everybody heals at different rates and I doubt any doctor would make a standard decision to be followed without any reassessment.

I don't know the specific but perhaps it hasn't healed as well as they initially expected? Perhaps the ARU are being overly cautious? Perhaps the Waratahs are being overly aggressive? We cannot know without looking at the specifics so to critique the decisions itself would be jumping the gun.

 

[TOCC]

Do we really know all the details? Who knows when paperwork was sent, when advice was passed..

Ultimately I can't see the ARU gaining anything by ruling one of the biggest players out, so you've just got to believe it was genuinely a medical issue.. Maybe for other reasons like insurance etc, maybe they(the ARU) have a doctor based in Sydney who they send cases to for a second opinion..

Heck, it wouldn't be the first time someone's received contradicting medical advice.


Timing was obviously an issue, but so too was communication, Izzy should have been informed in conjunction with the Team.

 

[tranquility]

Can completely sympathise how frustrating it would be having a bloke that good, stuck on the sideline who reckons he is good to go. At the same time, I can also understand the ARU being bloody nervous about him going down with a medium term injury. Bit of a minefield really.

 

[Ash]

From what I heard, it's a risk issue.

Folau and the Tahs were willing to gamble with Folau's health to the extent that Folau could need an emergency tracheotomy for what would be an innocuous bump. No doubt the ARU would not only be horrified about their high profile signing, but at the bad publicity that would result.

RUPA sides with the ARU on the issue, reportedly.

 

[Tomikin]

Seriously .. What reason does the ARU have for keeping izzy out of the game.. You know it wasn't the specialist that cleared Izzy he gave advice and the Tah's cleared him.. ARU called the same specialist with the same advice and said.. your kidding yourself.

THERE ARE NO TIN FOIL HATS HERE.. FOR GOD SAKE... It could have been handled better as in earlier informaation to izzy and the tahs on what the aru was worried about and then the CMO and the TAH's doctor could have got the results together discussed it and come out with a response.

In no way is it good for the ARU for Izzy to NOT play rugby... and Nathan Grey the smug fluffybunny shouldnt imply it was...

 

[Pfitzy]

Anyway, the big issue is that Douglas wasn't offside for that first Force penalty on the weekend. Fuck you Gardiner!

 

[Pfitzy]

Oh yes, the Izzy thing: the ARU stance is cool by me, though their communication is fucked as usual. They're protecting their interment and I get that.

But what about any other player from here on in? If player welfare is the primary concern of the ARU (and RUPA), then are all players going to get a second opinion from the ARU chief medico?

 

[USARugger]

Internment is definitely an interesting way to describe Izzy's situation

 

[Inside Shoulder]

try as i might I can't see a conspiracy here - but I remain open minded and hopeful

 

[Braveheart81]

From what I heard, it's a risk issue.

Folau and the Tahs were willing to gamble with Folau's health to the extent that Folau could need an emergency tracheotomy for what would be an innocuous bump. No doubt the ARU would not only be horrified about their high profile signing, but at the bad publicity that would result.

RUPA sides with the ARU on the issue, reportedly.

It surprises me that RUPA hasn't sided with the wishes of a player who has been given every opportunity to get the opinions of specialists and be explained the injury and the risks associated with it.

 

[Lindommer]

There's no conspiracy here, IS, just monumental incompetence.

1. If the ARU spoke to IF's specialist while he was in SAf that would be a gross infringement of doctor/patient confidentiality.
2. If the ARU asked another specialist for a second opinion that medico wouldn't've/shouldn't've had access to the first bloke's medical records.
3. For a consultant specialist to rule IF shouldn't play last weekend as "that sort of injury needs x amount of time to heal", well that opinion should be reserved for the lecture theatre.
4. The Tahs have advised us the ARU didn't consult their team doctor, who was monitoring IF's condition for the past fortnight. Flahive's the medico on the spot and wouldn't for one moment jeopardise IF's health if he was at risk.
5. IF has told us via Rugby HQ the ARU weren't in contact with him over this whole sorry episode. A bloody good way to drive him back to league.

I fail to understand why the ARU think they have a role to play here. IF's playing for the Tahs ATM, he's consulted a specialist in Sydney who was obviously comfortable with him flying to SAf, the Tahs have a perfectly competent medico on the spot monitoring IF's recovery and she's passed him fit to play. Come here, ARU clowns, no, closer than that: WHILE PLAYERS ARE UNDER THE CONTROL OF THEIR SUPER SIDES DURING THE SUPER RUGBY SEASON, BUTT OUT.

The ARU's actions here have opened up a can of worms and it's only going to bite them on the arse in the future. What's that old saying? Ah yes, too many cooks spoil the broth.

 

[Brumby Jack]

Let's not forget Cheika is off to the judiciary tonight about cameramangate.

Here's some footage of him preparing

 

[ShtinaTina]

Oh yes, the Izzy thing: the ARU stance is cool by me, though their communication is fucked as usual. They're protecting their interment and I get that.

But what about any other player from here on in? If player welfare is the primary concern of the ARU (and RUPA), then are all players going to get a second opinion from the ARU chief medico?

It sets a messy precedent.

 

[ShtinaTina]

It surprises me that RUPA hasn't sided with the wishes of a player who has been given every opportunity to get the opinions of specialists and be explained the injury and the risks associated with it.

I thought that RUPA sides with the medical directive, but aren't happy with the communication or lack there of with the patient/player.

 

[wamberal]

It se
It sets a messy precedent.

What? That the ARU, as the employer, takes an active interest in the welfare of a highly paid employee who is engaged in a relatively dangerous occupation?

What's messy about that?