Bath

Forum to discuss everything that is Tigers related

Moderators: Rizzo, Tigerbeat, Tigers Press Office, Tigers Webmaster

POSTIGER
Super User
Super User
Posts: 2988
Joined: Wed Dec 21, 2005 10:48 am
Location: In the office pretending to work

Re: Bath

Post by POSTIGER » Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:28 pm

g wrote:From what I have heard their fellow team mates gave evidence against them as some of the players were getting fed up with the bad name these players were giving the club.


Can't see how these three could have carried on playing for Bath if their own team mates spoke out against them.
Spot on g :smt023
I saw Marika Vunibaka play

Bill W
Super User
Super User
Posts: 20002
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 5:25 pm
Location: Essex

Re: Bath

Post by Bill W » Mon Jun 01, 2009 7:39 pm

POSTIGER wrote:
g wrote:From what I have heard their fellow team mates gave evidence against them as some of the players were getting fed up with the bad name these players were giving the club.


Can't see how these three could have carried on playing for Bath if their own team mates spoke out against them.
Spot on g :smt023
I have little doubt that the action taken by Bath RFC was likely justified. That all four chose to ask to be released from their contracts speaks for itself.

I do believe, however, that unnecessary media attention was drawn to the events by the statements made. "We can make no comment at this time." "Justin Harrison has asked to be released from his contract for personal reasons- the club have agreed."
The opinion expressed above is that of the author and does not imply any acceptance of it by Leicester Football Club PLC or their agents who in no way share responsibility with the author for its publication.

MJLTAW 2007
MOPAW 2007

Stuart Kirk
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 376
Joined: Sat Apr 17, 2004 6:40 pm
Location: Wolverhampton/ Peterborough/ Cov Uni

Re: Bath

Post by Stuart Kirk » Mon Jun 01, 2009 9:31 pm

A perfectly just resolution if the missed tests rumour is true - this is an automatic admission of guilt in the police and armed services - what's the problem if they have nothing to hide? No place in the game

Bill W
Super User
Super User
Posts: 20002
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 5:25 pm
Location: Essex

Re: Bath

Post by Bill W » Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:01 pm

Bath Rugby have now (rightly) said they will make no further comment.

The players have issued a statement through their solicitor and indicated they will be taking legal action(s).

The RFU are investigating and will respond within seven days.

Harlequins, note, have said nothing (and their players were involved at least in the punch up). How wise of Harlequins. Presumably they have asked questions and if necessary taken appropriate action. No need for media involvement.

Now down to RFU. They must take positive action, IMHO. The game does not need a protracted set of legal proceedings where the lawyers get fat and the game is brought into further disrepute.
The opinion expressed above is that of the author and does not imply any acceptance of it by Leicester Football Club PLC or their agents who in no way share responsibility with the author for its publication.

MJLTAW 2007
MOPAW 2007

Tigerbeat
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 5896
Joined: Mon Oct 01, 2007 9:14 pm
Location: The big wide world

Re: Bath

Post by Tigerbeat » Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:08 pm

Have the RFU not signed up to the drugs testing agreement with England Sport who work with WADA?

The Drugs testers do turn up at match days and select a number of players at random for drug testing.
SUPPORT THE MATT HAMPSON TRUST
www.matthampson.co.uk

Bill W
Super User
Super User
Posts: 20002
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 5:25 pm
Location: Essex

Re: Bath

Post by Bill W » Mon Jun 01, 2009 10:11 pm

Tigerbeat wrote:Have the RFU not signed up to the drugs testing agreement with England Sport who work with WADA?

The Drugs testers do turn up at match days and select a number of players at random for drug testing.
The RFU have so signed up and indeed claim to be leaders in the field!
The opinion expressed above is that of the author and does not imply any acceptance of it by Leicester Football Club PLC or their agents who in no way share responsibility with the author for its publication.

MJLTAW 2007
MOPAW 2007

g
Super User
Super User
Posts: 5340
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 6:14 pm
Location: Chesterfield

Re: Bath

Post by g » Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:05 pm

IMHO If they have quit the club and if the stories are true that other players have grassed them up, then to me that says they are guilty.So why are they taking legal action? They weren't sacked and they weren't asked to leave, THEY QUIT. So surely they have no right to take action against the club who paid their wages and supported them throughout their career.


I would have thought it would have been their legal team who would have advised them to leave.

Bill W
Super User
Super User
Posts: 20002
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 5:25 pm
Location: Essex

Re: Bath

Post by Bill W » Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:11 pm

g wrote:IMHO If they have quit the club and if the stories are true that other players have grassed them up, then to me that says they are guilty.So why are they taking legal action? They weren't sacked and they weren't asked to leave, THEY QUIT. So surely they have no right to take action against the club who paid their wages and supported them throughout their career.


I would have thought it would have been their legal team who would have advised them to leave.
Correct. So they can claim constructive dismissal.
The opinion expressed above is that of the author and does not imply any acceptance of it by Leicester Football Club PLC or their agents who in no way share responsibility with the author for its publication.

MJLTAW 2007
MOPAW 2007

g
Super User
Super User
Posts: 5340
Joined: Tue Mar 02, 2004 6:14 pm
Location: Chesterfield

Re: Bath

Post by g » Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:28 pm

Sorry Bill


But I am obviously very thick when it comes to things like that. If they quit how can they be dismissed? :smt017 And surely Bath have something in place to counter this.

I'd hate it for these 3 to quit then get something out of it financially from the club.


By quitting they are admitting guilt, just like Harrison did surely?

Rizzo
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 12062
Joined: Tue Feb 08, 2005 1:54 pm
Location: Somewhere down the crazy river

Re: Bath

Post by Rizzo » Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:33 pm

A good lawyer specialising in employment contracts can always find something. Constructive dismissal can mean being put in such a position that your continued position and employment is untenable and you are unable to perform your required job because of pressure and circumstances around you.
Don't waste your time away thinking about yesterday's blues
Demelza - another Mother

SkippyTiger
Bronze Member
Bronze Member
Posts: 425
Joined: Fri Feb 03, 2006 11:36 pm
Location: Leicester

Re: Bath

Post by SkippyTiger » Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:56 pm

The 3 will state that they were forced to quit on the grounds that they believed the club was forcing them to do something against their principles (take a drug test when not legally required by WADA).

They will state that the club put them in an impossible situation leaving them no choice but to quit, thus opening the way for a constructive dismissal suit.

There is no proof that any of these players actually did anything wrong. Refusal to submit to a non-WADA drug test is not grounds for dismissal.

The players can state they they refused on moral/privicy grounds and felt that the club was making them scapegoats.

The only 'facts' are that some Bath players were involved in a rumpus (love that word!) in London, and that several players have refused a drug test that the club have tried to force them to take (the club, not any governing body, an important difference).

Several players have since resigned from the club. They have not yet stated their reasons. I imagine because their legal teams have advised them to keep silent until the expected court case. Their resignations can not be seen as admission of guilt.

Bill W
Super User
Super User
Posts: 20002
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 5:25 pm
Location: Essex

Re: Bath

Post by Bill W » Mon Jun 01, 2009 11:58 pm

Rizzo wrote:A good lawyer specialising in employment contracts can always find something. Constructive dismissal can mean being put in such a position that your continued position and employment is untenable and you are unable to perform your required job because of pressure and circumstances around you.
Very good Rizzo.

Their lawyers statement implied that Bath had not gone through disciplinary procedure correctly. In Employment Law Procedure is everything. Without sight of their contracts though very difficult to comment further. There seemed to be a major sticking point as to whether they had or had not refused to provide drugs samples. Their solicitor had previously stated that they did not need to provide such samples since the season was over.

We should not be here. They have put far too much data into the public domain.

Down to RFU. Bringing game into disrepute. Guilty. 2 year ban. End of story.
The opinion expressed above is that of the author and does not imply any acceptance of it by Leicester Football Club PLC or their agents who in no way share responsibility with the author for its publication.

MJLTAW 2007
MOPAW 2007

Easty
Senior Member
Senior Member
Posts: 299
Joined: Fri Apr 27, 2007 10:35 am
Location: Norfolk

Re: Bath

Post by Easty » Tue Jun 02, 2009 12:01 am

There seems to be some mixed readings of this situation. People have read the 'missed' drug tests as being the standard sportsmen type random tests carried out by official sports bodies, however this is not the case as Chief Exec clearly states that it refers to ~ "failure on three occasions to take a drugs test following allegations surrounding player conduct on Sunday, 10 May", so all the speculation of WADA situation is irrelevant.

We need to stop thinking about this as a 'sports' issue and treat it as a basic 'Company' one between employer & employee. A lot of companies have in place a 'Drugs & Alcohol' policy stating what isn't acceptable, obviously as they are sportsmen, any 'drug' related issue would be deemed unacceptable. This will state that, if there is sufficient suspicion an employee can be requested to take a test. I would suggest that following alegations (referred to by both parties) the club felt they had no option other than to request their employees to take such a test. Given that their employees have not complied (for whatever reason), the next stage would be to hold a formal disciplinary with them, which was (as reported) the trigger for their actions.

Whilst the statement from the players state alot of things being "scurrilous and unsubstantiated allegations" I see no suggestion of any 'action' being taken on their part, this would be along the lines of "we are now considering our options".

Whilst alcohol and many drugs pass through the body in a relatively short period of time, there are a number of substances which remain within the bloodstream for around 28 days, given that the allegations refer to 10th May, time is ticking, therefore Bath RFC were on a deadline to force the issue and insist on a test.

To answer your point Bill, the RFU will be on the same deadline, so if they wanted to ask for a test (not sure if the same employee / employer and D&A policy would be valid) they need to get a move on, because in around 9 days they will be unable to prove or disprove any alegations.

If the RFU do request a test & the players continue to 'resist' a test for the following few days, it would be hard to see how they can avoid the "No smoke without fire" tag being applied and that would undoubtedly impact on their future careers.

Bill W
Super User
Super User
Posts: 20002
Joined: Wed Mar 02, 2005 5:25 pm
Location: Essex

Re: Bath

Post by Bill W » Tue Jun 02, 2009 12:10 am

SkippyTiger wrote: Refusal to submit to a non-WADA drug test is not grounds for dismissal.

.
No it isn't. But they were not dismissed. They quit. They quit rather than attend a meeting to explain why they would not provide samples. Or so their solicitors statement says. Because anonymous individuals had made scurrilous allegations against them.

Easty, just picked up your comments, concur.

RFU could rule that failure to take test was itself bringing the game into disrepute.
The opinion expressed above is that of the author and does not imply any acceptance of it by Leicester Football Club PLC or their agents who in no way share responsibility with the author for its publication.

MJLTAW 2007
MOPAW 2007

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Cardiff Tig and 2 guests