Re: Breaking news: The Crusaders hate gay people
Posted: Sun May 26, 2019 8:25 pm
So did this just fizzle out?
The definitive rugby union forum. Talk to fans from around the world about your favourite team
https://forum.planetrugby.com/
Floppykid wrote:So did this just fizzle out?
yeah nah, probably his wrists where just a bit worn out.comets wrote:One of the saders backs is gay so i doubt Bridge will ever make fun of gay people....maybe bridge is a cripple in real life?
Aaron smith recommends Airport toilets for sex but Bridge recommends McDonald's toilets as the best place to have a quick wank...Harden up!!! wrote:yeah nah, probably his wrists where just a bit worn out.comets wrote:One of the saders backs is gay so i doubt Bridge will ever make fun of gay people....maybe bridge is a cripple in real life?
I think aaron was just trying to be like Sonny Bill with the toilets thing.comets wrote:Aaron smith recommends Airport toilets for sex but Bridge recommends McDonald's toilets as the best place to have a quick wank...Harden up!!! wrote:yeah nah, probably his wrists where just a bit worn out.comets wrote:One of the saders backs is gay so i doubt Bridge will ever make fun of gay people....maybe bridge is a cripple in real life?
Are you such a zombie that you still don't know how this started? Australian rugby players were being pushed to express support for a 'yes' vote in the (then) upcoming Gay Marriage referendum. After quite a few of them weighed in on it he didn't want it assumed that he was in support, so he let it be known he didn't support it. Enter the gay mafia, Australian, Kiwi, or otherwise, on a 'we'll bring him down' vendetta (all opposition to their agenda must be silenced), and it's gone from there. Try and hold that in your scone for more than 10 seconds, though I doubt it's possible.naki wrote:mightyreds wrote:re Nakis comment:
How many players do you think you’d keep on the the field if they stood down everyone who received an allegation on social media? It would be an interesting tactic for opposition fans; Beauden called me a nancy boy in Burger King, I demand you investigate and that he can’t play against the Chiefs this week etc
It has occurred to me more than once (especially when noticing the large numbers of people from NZ and other countries savagely laying into IF about the Bible quotes), that baiting opposition players into politically incorrect comments on social media, or in public, could become a real racket as a means of getting rid of key players from the teams your country will have to face. In a World Cup year, it must be very tempting for people outside Australia to try and get someone often described as 'our best player' omitted from the Test team.
It's quite possible that, with people noticing how well the moral indignation stance has worked in Izzys case, this racket will take on across the world rugby community, and coaches will have more to worry about than just who will be ruled out by injury before the RWC starts.
It's interesting how conspiracy theorists can take an intentionally ludicrous scenario (eg a player getting fired over a clearly baseless allegation with no investigation) and just run with it in their broken brains.
No, mightyreds, your boyfriend Izzy did this entirely to himself and needed no assistance from the gay kiwi mafia
guy smiley wrote:Mightyreds has entered a smart off with Naki.
Mentalreds;mightyreds wrote:Are you such a zombie that you still don't know how this started? Australian rugby players were being pushed to express support for a 'yes' vote in the (then) upcoming Gay Marriage referendum. After quite a few of them weighed in on it he didn't want it assumed that he was in support, so he let it be known he didn't support it. Enter the gay mafia, Australian, Kiwi, or otherwise, on a 'we'll bring him down' vendetta (all opposition to their agenda must be silenced), and it's gone from there. Try and hold that in your scone for more than 10 seconds, though I doubt it's possible.naki wrote:mightyreds wrote:re Nakis comment:
How many players do you think you’d keep on the the field if they stood down everyone who received an allegation on social media? It would be an interesting tactic for opposition fans; Beauden called me a nancy boy in Burger King, I demand you investigate and that he can’t play against the Chiefs this week etc
It has occurred to me more than once (especially when noticing the large numbers of people from NZ and other countries savagely laying into IF about the Bible quotes), that baiting opposition players into politically incorrect comments on social media, or in public, could become a real racket as a means of getting rid of key players from the teams your country will have to face. In a World Cup year, it must be very tempting for people outside Australia to try and get someone often described as 'our best player' omitted from the Test team.
It's quite possible that, with people noticing how well the moral indignation stance has worked in Izzys case, this racket will take on across the world rugby community, and coaches will have more to worry about than just who will be ruled out by injury before the RWC starts.
It's interesting how conspiracy theorists can take an intentionally ludicrous scenario (eg a player getting fired over a clearly baseless allegation with no investigation) and just run with it in their broken brains.
No, mightyreds, your boyfriend Izzy did this entirely to himself and needed no assistance from the gay kiwi mafia
Naki will be ok.Clogs wrote:guy smiley wrote:Mightyreds has entered a smart off with Naki.
Uhoh.
yes i'm igor whereas mightyreds is the Frankenstein monster...BillW wrote:Naki will be ok.Clogs wrote:guy smiley wrote:Mightyreds has entered a smart off with Naki.
Uhoh.
He's got Comets on his side
Utterly ridiculous claim. As if we'd waste beer by spitting it out....Shrekles wrote:What is the latest on this? Are we still arse pinching, beer spitting gay haters (sounds like most Cantabrians to be fair) or has all this blown over because nobody could actually come up with any evidence?
If it was castle however....Fat Old Git wrote:Utterly ridiculous claim. As if we'd waste beer by spitting it out....Shrekles wrote:What is the latest on this? Are we still arse pinching, beer spitting gay haters (sounds like most Cantabrians to be fair) or has all this blown over because nobody could actually come up with any evidence?
The guy who made the comments has largely failed to follow up with any evidence. The whole thing has pretty much dissolvedShrekles wrote:What is the latest on this? Are we still arse pinching, beer spitting gay haters (sounds like most Cantabrians to be fair) or has all this blown over because nobody could actually come up with any evidence?
Fortunately not widely available in Canterbury.Shrekles wrote:If it was castle however....Fat Old Git wrote:Utterly ridiculous claim. As if we'd waste beer by spitting it out....Shrekles wrote:What is the latest on this? Are we still arse pinching, beer spitting gay haters (sounds like most Cantabrians to be fair) or has all this blown over because nobody could actually come up with any evidence?
I think you mean maccas don’t you? They’re the ones who allegedly have footage.JPNZ wrote:The guy who made the comments has largely failed to follow up with any evidence. The whole thing has pretty much dissolvedShrekles wrote:What is the latest on this? Are we still arse pinching, beer spitting gay haters (sounds like most Cantabrians to be fair) or has all this blown over because nobody could actually come up with any evidence?
AllegedlyWilderbeast wrote:I think you mean maccas don’t you? They’re the ones who allegedly have footage.JPNZ wrote:The guy who made the comments has largely failed to follow up with any evidence. The whole thing has pretty much dissolvedShrekles wrote:What is the latest on this? Are we still arse pinching, beer spitting gay haters (sounds like most Cantabrians to be fair) or has all this blown over because nobody could actually come up with any evidence?
Hello, what's this about spitting beer?Fat Old Git wrote:Fortunately not widely available in Canterbury.Shrekles wrote:If it was castle however....Fat Old Git wrote:Utterly ridiculous claim. As if we'd waste beer by spitting it out....Shrekles wrote:What is the latest on this? Are we still arse pinching, beer spitting gay haters (sounds like most Cantabrians to be fair) or has all this blown over because nobody could actually come up with any evidence?
JPNZ wrote:AllegedlyWilderbeast wrote:I think you mean maccas don’t you? They’re the ones who allegedly have footage.JPNZ wrote:The guy who made the comments has largely failed to follow up with any evidence. The whole thing has pretty much dissolvedShrekles wrote:What is the latest on this? Are we still arse pinching, beer spitting gay haters (sounds like most Cantabrians to be fair) or has all this blown over because nobody could actually come up with any evidence?
DickMo's supposed to have spit beer over a young lady iirc.Ted. wrote:Hello, what's this about spitting beer?Fat Old Git wrote:Fortunately not widely available in Canterbury.Shrekles wrote:If it was castle however....Fat Old Git wrote:Utterly ridiculous claim. As if we'd waste beer by spitting it out....Shrekles wrote:What is the latest on this? Are we still arse pinching, beer spitting gay haters (sounds like most Cantabrians to be fair) or has all this blown over because nobody could actually come up with any evidence?
finally a plausible explanation for Marius Jonker's forward pass intervention.Wilderbeast wrote:The touchy touchy feely feely accusation was worse but that seems to have disappeared. Seems he was just pissed, basically.
New Zealand Rugby (NZR) and the Crusaders have claimed an inquiry has found allegations made about the behaviour of two Crusaders players while on tour in South Africa last month were unsubstantiated.
NZR Head of Rugby Nigel Cass said NZR's Independent Complaints Service Manager Steph Dyhrberg had assisted NZR in carrying out a thorough and comprehensive investigation into two separate allegations against players George Bridge and Richie Mo'unga, which NZR took into account in reaching their decision.
"NZR's investigation has found that the allegations against George Bridge were not upheld," said Cass.
"With regard to Richie Mo'unga, the NZR investigation found that the allegations also could not be substantiated. Given the seriousness of these allegations, and the potential consequences, we needed to be confident that what was alleged, actually took place, and we weren't," said Cass.
Cass said Mo'unga acknowledged he had been drinking on the night when the complainant approached him with an allegation to which he responded in a way that was poor, but which NZR accepted was out of character.
"The way he responded to the complainant was inconsistent with NZR values and expectations, and he has acknowledged this and subsequently apologised.
"We feel that he has learned some valuable lessons and we are satisfied that he will not put himself in the same position again in future. We have made our expectations around behaviour clear to him. He has been reminded of his obligation to be a role model for the sport at all times, especially when approached by members of the public - even in a social setting," Cass said.
NZR has asked the Crusaders to urgently review their protocols for team post-match activity.
Crusaders CEO Colin Mansbridge said: "We will learn from this experience and use it as an opportunity for improvement. For us, this is not just about two members of our team; we all need to take some responsibility for this and learn from it. That is why we are reviewing our policies around alcohol and social media use to ascertain if our existing policies are robust enough and make changes if needed. If we apply the same growth mindset off the field as we do on the field, we'll all be better people as a result."
Cass said "this whole case serves as a reminder to all our teams, managers, coaches and players and staff that their behaviour has to be of the highest standard at all times and especially in their interaction with the public and that they uphold the rugby values of respect and responsibility at all times."
NZ Rugby and the Crusaders now consider both matters closed, and given the confidential nature of the employment process, no further comment will be made.
The complaints were laid by Cape Town types. You know Handyman, Sards etc.naki wrote:They really need to release more information about the Bridge incident as it's unclear whether he was absolved by the lack of security footage, the lack of access to that footage, or the footage itself. If they'd only been able to take witness accounts as ëvidence" that would make sense as at the time there were a number of people contradicting the complainants account.
No fine of any kind for either player would suggest an almighty Stormers in a tea cup.
I can assure you that 95% of the population didn't even know about this.JPNZ wrote: SA public leaving a lot to be desired.
That leaves 2,800,000 South Africans that were in on it.assfly wrote:I can assure you that 95% of the population didn't even know about this.JPNZ wrote: SA public leaving a lot to be desired.