RugbyRebels

Stom wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Stom wrote:
Just to second that.

And George, too? And Mako?

I'd not pick any players from Saracens (regardless of how good they are).

So you're the kind of person who'd chop off your nose to spite your face.

It just does not sit comfortably with me that players who were complicit in cheating (to the extent of some achieving dubious financial gain) should now have a nice easy season and still pick up their international bonuses. I'd much rather see England without them until the club is back in the Premiership. I think the long-term integrity of the game needs the gesture.

Eddie will pick them so it's a moot point.

Stom wrote:

Oakboy wrote:

Stom wrote:
Just to second that.

And George, too? And Mako?

I'd not pick any players from Saracens (regardless of how good they are).

So you're the kind of person who'd chop off your nose to spite your face.

You just realised that?

twitchy wrote:Eddie will pick them so it's a moot point.

Agreed.

Oakboy wrote:

Stom wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
I'd not pick any players from Saracens (regardless of how good they are).

So you're the kind of person who'd chop off your nose to spite your face.

It just does not sit comfortably with me that players who were complicit in cheating (to the extent of some achieving dubious financial gain) should now have a nice easy season and still pick up their international bonuses. I'd much rather see England without them until the club is back in the Premiership. I think the long-term integrity of the game needs the gesture.

Hard to argue that. Particularly as they will have no direct competition with those vying for their shirts.

But yes, EJ will pick them anyway so it doesn’t matter. As with most things in life it doesn’t tend to matter when those at the top of the pile get caught out, because they don’t suffer the same consequences.

As bad as it looked on the night.

Squad announced on Monday. Surely Lawrence is a cert now.

fivepointer wrote:As bad as it looked on the night.

Squad announced on Monday. Surely Lawrence is a cert now.

Why would Lawrence be a cert? There's plenty ahead of him, I'd have thought.

Oakboy wrote:

Stom wrote:

Oakboy wrote:
I'd not pick any players from Saracens (regardless of how good they are).

So you're the kind of person who'd chop off your nose to spite your face.

It just does not sit comfortably with me that players who were complicit in cheating (to the extent of some achieving dubious financial gain) should now have a nice easy season and still pick up their international bonuses. I'd much rather see England without them until the club is back in the Premiership. I think the long-term integrity of the game needs the gesture.

Were they complicit? Playing devil's advocate. Us thinking they knew what was going on, and had intent, is not the same as there being intent and thus them being complicit in cheating.

Stom wrote:

fivepointer wrote:As bad as it looked on the night.

Squad announced on Monday. Surely Lawrence is a cert now.

Why would Lawrence be a cert? There's plenty ahead of him, I'd have thought.

Not sure I can think of loads. Slade (also covering FB), Joseph, Marchant likely to be in the squad regardless, plus Devoto, Redpath, or one of the two leaving room for one more maybe, which I'd say is likely Lawrence. Sam James maybe.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:Were they complicit? Playing devil's advocate. Us thinking they knew what was going on, and had intent, is not the same as there being intent and thus them being complicit in cheating.

Is intent required for complicity?
The likes of Itoje and the Vunipolae were certainly "complicit" in entering into agreements with Nigel Wray in a way that they knew full well was being considered in addition to their salaries. They may have genuinely thought it was an allowable loophole - but to my understanding, that still makes them complicit.

Also, of course, our individual opinions aren't a court of law; and don't need to follow the same level of evidence - of have recourse to the same sanctions.

Which Tyler wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:Were they complicit? Playing devil's advocate. Us thinking they knew what was going on, and had intent, is not the same as there being intent and thus them being complicit in cheating.

Is intent required for complicity?
The likes of Itoje and the Vunipolae were certainly "complicit" in entering into agreements with Nigel Wray in a way that they knew full well was being considered in addition to their salaries. They may have genuinely thought it was an allowable loophole - but to my understanding, that still makes them complicit.

Also, of course, our individual opinions aren't a court of law; and don't need to follow the same level of evidence - of have recourse to the same sanctions.

Yep, complicity requires proof of intent, at least from a legal perspective. And you don't know what they knew, or thought, and opinion therein does not prove complicity and thus has no weight whatsoever whether anyone thinks it or not. As such, saying they're complicit is akin to saying COVID doesn't exist. It is purely opinion and factually incorrect.

Epaminondas Pules wrote:Yep, complicity requires proof of intent, at least from a legal perspective. And you don't know what they knew, or thought, and opinion therein does not prove complicity and thus has no weight whatsoever whether anyone thinks it or not. As such, saying they're complicit is akin to saying COVID doesn't exist. It is purely opinion and factually incorrect.

[bolded part only] Bollocks is it.

Which Tyler wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:Yep, complicity requires proof of intent, at least from a legal perspective. And you don't know what they knew, or thought, and opinion therein does not prove complicity and thus has no weight whatsoever whether anyone thinks it or not. As such, saying they're complicit is akin to saying COVID doesn't exist. It is purely opinion and factually incorrect.

Bollocks is it

You have proof then?

I'd be happy with some sanction coming down from England. If they didn't know they were involved in something wrong their only defence could be stupidity or wilful stupidity. But being stood down for 1-2 games and in the case of Farrell losing the captaincy seems more than sufficient.

I expect absolutely nothing to happen between the RFU and the players, self interest will easily win over any stated values of the game twaddle

So, sanction them on the basis that the review found no evidence of the players being complicit, but a few people on a messageboard think they were?

Sure, or drop the idea of having things like respect and sportsmanship as being part of the claimed values and just admit it's about naked self interest.

On the basis of there being no evidence?

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Which Tyler wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:Yep, complicity requires proof of intent, at least from a legal perspective. And you don't know what they knew, or thought, and opinion therein does not prove complicity and thus has no weight whatsoever whether anyone thinks it or not. As such, saying they're complicit is akin to saying COVID doesn't exist. It is purely opinion and factually incorrect.

Bollocks is it

You have proof then?

What proof does he need?

The players WERE complicit in their activities. Those activities do not break the law. Those activities do break a set of rules set down by the governing body. If the rules stated that complicity was punishable, the players would have been or could have been punished. They were not. Therefore there was no provision for such in the rules and they did not break them.

Of course, it's a shitty situation, but I'm not going to blame the players when they're not breaking the law or, if we're to take their lack of punishment as proof, the rules!

That doesn't makes Which's statement's "factually incorrect" and to call it such is to misunderstand the point of a bloody discussion! And that's what this is, a discussion board, ffs!

Stom wrote:

Epaminondas Pules wrote:

Which Tyler wrote: Bollocks is it

You have proof then?

What proof does he need?

The players WERE complicit in their activities. Those activities do not break the law. Those activities do break a set of rules set down by the governing body. If the rules stated that complicity was punishable, the players would have been or could have been punished. They were not. Therefore there was no provision for such in the rules and they did not break them.

Of course, it's a shitty situation, but I'm not going to blame the players when they're not breaking the law or, if we're to take their lack of punishment as proof, the rules!

That doesn't makes Which's statement's "factually incorrect" and to call it such is to misunderstand the point of a bloody discussion! And that's what this is, a discussion board, ffs!

They really weren't. In fact the review stated that there was no suggestion or evidence of the players being complicit. So it is factually incorrect. The players weren't complicit. We can think they are all we like, even discuss our opinions on such, but it doesn't make it correct, nor will it.

Haha. Do you think none of these players ever wondered why several clubs were offering them 400k, while Sarries were offering them 300k plus a house worth another half a million.

I’d certainly make the same choice if I was told it was all allowed.

I suppose it depends whether you’re making the distinction between them knowing it was outside of the rules, or that they simply knew they were being ‘paid’ outside of the salary cap. Either they were complicit in the latter (at least) or they are all absolute morons.

Hasn’t Jamie George got a fucking cryotherapy lab attached to his house or something?

Haha. Assumptions. Always a fucking winner. They must have known about something, because in my opinion they must have known about it. It is purely speculation, which has little basis whatsoever, whether you wish it did or not.

The players are, from a factual basis, wholly innocent of any complicity in this affair. They are not even not guilty. They are, again from a factual basis, innocent.

We can assume all we like, but it won't make a lick of difference to any facts.

I can’t speak for everyone but I don’t think any of us are actually planning to take legal action here.

It’s very possible my use of the word complicit is incorrect, but how could gifts of enormous value from a boss to an employer not be “something they must have known about”?

I’m not clear how it can be just an assumption, when the only alternative is them having no knowledge or interest in what they’re getting paid.

The complicit or otherwise 'opinion' really matters little to me. I think the players were an integral part of cheating but of course I cannot prove it. They certainly gained from what was going on (knowingly or otherwise).

I'd just say that no players can be picked from the Championship, full-stop. IF, a Saracens player were to take a substantial pay cut and go on loan to another club in the Premiership I'd consider him eligible for selection to the international squad.