Reason and Tuipulotu
-
My suggestion: Put Mark Reason and Tuipolotu in a ring and let's see who da man.
-
@booboo said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
@MajorRage said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
@Kirwan said in Alternative needed from the absolute crap of stuff.co.nz:
@Nepia said in Alternative needed from the absolute crap of stuff.co.nz:
@Toddy said in Alternative needed from the absolute crap of stuff.co.nz:
I always thought Patty was cleared because his b sample was clean, rather than the b test being 'botched'. It's a pretty shocking fact to get wrong if he has.
I think the news reports at the time suggested that the A sample was botched by the lab.
Reason being Reason I guess.
Close to slander if he got it around the wrong way.
I'm sure Reason has own sources who have confirmed to him that this whole thing was a cover up.
In other news, I understand Reason is a protege of a Walrus ...
I understand that para 1 is taking the piss ...
Not really. It wouldn't surprise me if in conversation Jones and told Reason he thought the whole thing was a cover-up, typical NZ rugby etc etc ... and Reason has taken that as fact.
It's either that or Reason does have facts behind is view, in which case I think they should be exposed.
-
@MajorRage said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
@jegga said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
@Kirwan said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
@MajorRage said in Alternative needed from the absolute crap of stuff.co.nz:
@taniwharugby said in Alternative needed from the absolute crap of stuff.co.nz:
Treason is a cnut of the highest order, most knew that @MN5 I just mentioned your old mate again.
Hope someone takes him to task over his comments, but I bet they wont in this farked up (social) media world we live in now.
I'm sure the NZRFU will be informed, and if he's wrong, then legal action should occur.
I think the NZRU have an obligation to protect their players from these sort of smears. Absolutely should be legal action.
They never did anything any of the times muckrakers said players were poached or when likes of Phil Kearns said we cheated our way to the 2011 title . There’ll be no consequences for Reason I bet .
I don't think thats the same. Poaching is more or less opinion and Kearns was just being Kearns.
The offical report we heard is that Patty's A sample was bull shit which was proved by the B sample. Reason is stating that "He failed a drugs test in France but was excused when the North American lab botched the 'B' sample." Which is the opposite.
So either the NZRFU is lying to cover him, or Reason is inaccurate in a libelous manner.
Both are scandal and both are worthy of follow up.
It’s not the same but the NZRU did nothing , poaching isn’t a matter of opinion either . Multiple nh column writers accused of trying to poach Rupeni and even if trying to change the rules when we were doing the opposite. There were certainly grounds for libel there , nothing happened. At worst there’ll be an apology from his news outlet and he’ll return to his previous behaviour soon enough .
-
-
TV broadcasts are subject to Broadcasting standards, which include being factually correct, surely there is something that governs clickbaiiters for a major 'news' outlet?
And broadcasting standards can be questioned by the general public, surely similar standards must apply here?
-
Fuck that makes my blood boil. There is zero doubt that the A sample was messed up and caused the false positive. Totally cleared by the B sample and he still spent time in purgatory while that was sorted out. For Reason (lol the irony) to essentially say it was a testing error of a positive result is bullshit.
Really hope we see some action on this from NZRU and/or Pat.
-
@taniwharugby said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
TV broadcasts are subject to Broadcasting standards, which include being factually correct, surely there is something that governs clickbaiiters for a major 'news' outlet?
And broadcasting standards can be questioned by the general public, surely similar standards must apply here?
The NZ Media Council is the organisation dealing with complaints against websites like stuff. The question remains, how does a member of the public prove that Reason is lying? A full decision of Drugfree NZ will count as facts; I haven't seen the decision on PT, so don't know whether it contains enough info to base a complaint on.
-
@Stargazer they shouldnt have to, he should have to prove what he is saying is true.
-
-
@MN5 he still cant state things that are untrue, unless he knows them to be fact, Otherwise he should say it is fiction
-
@taniwharugby Yes, it all depends on the standard of proof required, but a member of the public making a complaint about an article that they claim is defamatory and not based on facts, should at least make it plausible that the article is factually incorrect. You can't just say he's lying and leave it at that. You'll have to indicate why.
-
@taniwharugby said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
@MN5 he still cant state things that are untrue, unless he knows them to be fact, Otherwise he should say it is fiction
I don't hate him to the degree you do but again, is he guarded by having freedom of speech?
-
@MN5 dont think freedom of speech gives you the right to go around publically making up lies about people, and if not lies, he needs to back it up.
All he seems to have done is thrown a line out there, if he was of the opinion it was untrue or a cover up, maybe he should have written that it was his opinion, as this would likely offer him the protection under 'freedom of speech'
-
-
@Toddy said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
I actually emailed Stuff and queried the statement. Got an email back saying thanks for the email and they stick by Mark's opinion and that his articles are always well researched.
Did you tell them we have an entire thread here dedicated with providing them with constructive criticism?
-
-
@Toddy said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
I actually emailed Stuff and queried the statement. Got an email back saying thanks for the email and they stick by Mark's opinion and that his articles are always well researched.
Interesting that they responded. I contacted them a couple times on a piece that was a complete fabrication, and was proved so a day later..no response and article is still up.
Independent Forum for Resolving Complaints
