Reason and Tuipulotu
-
[edit - split from another thread]
Anyone read the latest from Mark Reason? https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/opinion/110690533/mark-reason-akira-ioane-starts-world-cup-push-with-bruising-performance
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.
"The Blues have struggled with their leadership in recent seasons and the appointment of Tuipulotu is not the way forward. He failed a drugs test in France but was excused when the North American lab botched the 'B' sample. It's not a good look for a Super Rugby captain"
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
Isn't this libel from Reason? Someone should archive it in case it gets deleted.
The Blues have struggled with their leadership in recent seasons and the appointment of Tuipulotu is not the way forward. He failed a drugs test in France but was excused when the North American lab botched the 'B' sample. It's not a good look for a Super Rugby captain.
-
@Tim briefly discussed in another thread. Not how I vaguely recall it anyway. I thought it was found that the A sample was messed up, the B sample was clear.
-
@Kirwan I'm going ask a lawyer friend about it, but it seems to be straight libel.
-
From last year, statement from Drug Free Sport NZ:
"It absolutely negates the A sample. There should be no stain or questioning he is in the clear.
-
@Tim said in Alternative needed from the absolute crap of stuff.co.nz:
@Kirwan I'm going ask a lawyer friend about it, but it seems to be straight libel.
Not hard to meet the legal test. The implication from Reason is that Pat is a drug cheat who is lucky to still be playing after the ineptitude of others. A reasonable person would deduce that Pat is a drug cheat. As a professional sportsman his reputation would be diminished.
-
@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 ...
-
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.
-
@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.
-
@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.
-
@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 .
-
@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 ...
Reason just works from home in Wairarapa watching TV and writing stuff. Is he close to anything much to have actual sources? Doesn't strike me as an investigative type.
-
@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.
-
@Toddy said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
[edit - split from another thread]
Anyone read the latest from Mark Reason? https://i.stuff.co.nz/sport/opinion/110690533/mark-reason-akira-ioane-starts-world-cup-push-with-bruising-performance
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.
"The Blues have struggled with their leadership in recent seasons and the appointment of Tuipulotu is not the way forward. He failed a drugs test in France but was excused when the North American lab botched the 'B' sample. It's not a good look for a Super Rugby captain"
Reason is a cock regardless.
Yes, I'm pretty sure you're right that it was reported that his B sample was negative.
And wasn't it post Chicago?
Always made me wonder what Irish roid rager he got mixed up with escaped due to incompetence of the lab.
Click bait piston wristed gibbon.
-
@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 ...
-
@MajorRage said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
@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.
Farking A
-
Additionally, the testing was done in the USA, not in France. Supremely lazy hack work.
WADA and Six Nations demand answers on Tuipulotu
The World Anti-Doping Agency and Six Nations Rugby have demanded the laboratory in charge All Black lock Patrick Tuipulotu's drug tests explain the discrepancy in their results.
-
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 .
-
My friend is not a libel lawyer, but he viewed Reason's column as a clear case of libel.
-
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.
-
can they sting Reason for what is essentially an opinion piece though ?
-
@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 See the Media Council's Statement of Principles: http://www.mediacouncil.org.nz/principles
-
@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'
-
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.
-
Yeah you can't state that someone got away with being a drug cheat via a testing error as freedom of speech. I hope he gets the book thrown at him
-
@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?
-
Looking forward to Ian Anderson's article on the issue tomorrow..I assume
-
@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.
Opinion?
-
@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.
-
@MajorRage said in Reason and Tuipulotu:
@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.
Opinion?
Yeah the article is headed up as an "opinion" piece. And its wrong....
Independent Forum for Resolving Complaints
