Kurtley Beale in Trouble

[TRF_heineken]

My problem with trying to inform any kind of opinion on this - is it just seems so nontransparent. 'Unnamed officials' mention the squad has a problem with the management/players - but I haven't found any quotes. Details have been leaked very slowly, but speculation seems to be offered three times a minute. Regardless of anything else, Beale was dissenting to a member of the management team on the plane. The texts are a bit irrelevant as it seemed they sorted it out. In my job if I slag off a member of the management team - there is a good chance I'll be clearing my desk as I do so. Beale already having problems doesn't help.

If the ARU are not running things well, then that is something that should be dealt with through players making professional complaints, not naughty text messages.

If I was to offer my bit of speculation - it seems to me that there are a number of players in Australian rugby (predominantly backs) that are just little sh*ts. The position the ARU is in means they are constantly negotiating out of weakness, in that players like Cooper, O'Connor and Beale have plenty of other options. They can play in France or play in the NRL - both of which can probably offer more money and a higher profile. So it seems there are a small number of headline players, who have been selected for the Wallabies from a very young age, that just have a sense of entitlement. What is amusing is that Deans was axed because he wasn't enough of a disciplinarian according to McKenzie, but McKenzie is having an equally miserable time managing players.

This!

If I were to take the Springboks under the rule of PDivvy, and compare them to this aussie team, then it speaks a lot about the type of person the little sh*ts are. The leadership of the team, are suppose to carry the team if there were problems with management, not make things worse and rise speculation. The Springbok-leadership like John Smit, Victor Matfield and so many others, saw the problem at hand, and instead of making matters worse they took the opportunity to lead by example and assist the management.

If I was a player, I would off course rather back my playing friend than the coach or his managerial team, they are after all there in a position to boss you around, and arrogant little sh*ts hates that.

If this problem with Mckenzie was there when he left the Reds and joined the national coaching setup, why wasn't it addressed earlier? Why now? Because now there is a friend that is in the firing line.

I see that there is a report that the ARU is "forced" to stand behind Mckenzie. Well duh! They appointed him, he has a contract with them, and all this is at the moment purely aimed at him is just speculation, Journalists thrive on sensation, and I feel that some (well most of them) just dislikes Mckenzie and will use anything they can to tarnish his reputation.

I wonder what will happen when they do fire Mckenzie? Will they appoint Cheika? Will he be able to run the roost? It certainly makes an interesting pattern. Both Deans and Mckenzie won the Super Rugby title before they were appointed as Aussie Coach, and now Cheika has also joined the group...

 

[tenpm]

My problem with trying to inform any kind of opinion on this - is it just seems so nontransparent. 'Unnamed officials' mention the squad has a problem with the management/players - but I haven't found any quotes. Details have been leaked very slowly, but speculation seems to be offered three times a minute. Regardless of anything else, Beale was dissenting to a member of the management team on the plane. The texts are a bit irrelevant as it seemed they sorted it out. In my job if I slag off a member of the management team - there is a good chance I'll be clearing my desk as I do so. Beale already having problems doesn't help.

If the ARU are not running things well, then that is something that should be dealt with through players making professional complaints, not naughty text messages.

If I was to offer my bit of speculation - it seems to me that there are a number of players in Australian rugby (predominantly backs) that are just little sh*ts. The position the ARU is in means they are constantly negotiating out of weakness, in that players like Cooper, O'Connor and Beale have plenty of other options. They can play in France or play in the NRL - both of which can probably offer more money and a higher profile. So it seems there are a small number of headline players, who have been selected for the Wallabies from a very young age, that just have a sense of entitlement. What is amusing is that Deans was axed because he wasn't enough of a disciplinarian according to McKenzie, but McKenzie is having an equally miserable time managing players.

I agree. There's just so much we don't know, so whatever we speculate might be totally off the mark and we risk blaming the wrong party/parties no matter where we stand on this issue.

Having said that, I can't help but sympathise with Patston. When you're a woman in a male-dominated field, especially one entrenched in 'macho' culture like professional sports, you have to deal with so much additional bull**** that your male counterparts don't have to shoulder. Being the 'token female' means you constantly have to prove that you've earned your position, that you deserve to be there. See, for example, the rumour that Patston got preferential treatment because she was sleeping with McKenzie. If - and that's a big if - it was true, then that's very unprofessional of both of them, but out of the two, McKenzie should have to shoulder more blame than Patston because he's her superior and is therefore in a position of power over her. But the majority of the talk seems to be on what it says about Patston.

From what I've read on this topic so far, I'm not sure she is guilty of anything other than not being able to deal with that additional bull****.

 

[dasNdanger]

aren't you now using your gender to manipulate this discussion in your favour, Das? Because one could easily infer the message behind your posts as 'well, I'm a female, so sorry, you males couldn't possibly understand'.

Not at all. I was giving my perspective as a woman, just as you are doing. We just have different perspectives in this. I think the problem lies with the ARU (including Di), and you think it lies primarily with Beale. Nothing wrong with seeing things differently at this point in this case. And until a clearer (and more accurate) light shines on the whole situation we're fairly free to speculate about who's at fault. Once the whole truth comes out we may have to do some back-peddling...which I am totally prepared to do...if need be.

Anyhoo...I found this perspective quite interesting, too.

Kurtley Beale is not Australian rugby's biggest problem

The issue that burns out of control for the Australian Rugby Union isn't Kurtley Beale. It's the abject lack of faith in coach Ewen McKenzie among the players who will be there after he's gone.

"I can't wait for this season to be over," is the common remark from several disaffected players right now.

Unfortunately, there's a Bledisloe Cup match on Saturday. Then there's a Spring Tour of Europe throughout November, taking on the Barbarians, Wales, France, Ireland and England.

It will stun all concerned if they win any of them. According to various sources within the team, it's that bad.

This season might end in late November, but the World Cup in England already looms large on the horizon. The pool stages will have just concluded this time next year.

If the shambolic state of the Wallabies as it stands is any indication, Australia will struggle to climb out of Pool A - the pool of death because it contains England and Wales - let alone make any impression in the knockout phase.

News Corp published on Monday a series of enlightening texts between Beale and Di Patston concerning a series of group messages between Beale and other players comparing Patston to an obese woman. The messages were accidentally sent to Patston.

As shown by their text conversation, Beale then showed deep remorse, to the point that he was in tears. Patston then said she wouldn't tell McKenzie.

End of story? Not bloody likely.

Many considered the leaking of the messages on Monday as a way to absolve the coach of blame about failing to take action sooner, or at least informing the ARU.

McKenzie has said he didn't know about these "deeply offensive" messages sent between a player and staff member until two weeks ago, when the side was in Buenos Aires.

As anyone who knows of the close relationship between Patston and McKenzie will tell you, this seems highly implausible: in her role, how could she not tell him?

As any sporting administrator worth their salt will tell you, the crime is bad, but the cover up is far worse.

This column has been critical of Beale in the past. The text messages to Patston are tasteless, even if he didn't mean to send them to Patston.

Yet it is evident he's being thrown under the bus as the ARU scrambles, praying for this latest humiliation to disappear.

It is evident that Beale won't face a fair disciplinary hearing, because Patston has resigned and is unlikely to give evidence. McKenzie also seems loath to appear.

It is evident the ARU would rather see Beale leave Australian rugby than stay, which is madness given what he achieved playing for the Waratahs less than three months ago.

Sniff around this story, though, and you quickly learn the problem with the Wallabies isn't Kurtley Beale.
It's Ewen McKenzie.

The Queensland Reds knew about the close relationship between McKenzie and Patston during his tenure from 2010 to 2013, and were grateful to see them go last year even though he secured a Super Rugby title during his time at the franchise.

How was ARU chief executive Bill Pulver not aware of this weird dynamic between the pair, when so many others knew about it?

And how was it allowed to infiltrate the Wallabies, who were trying to repair themselves after the Robbie Deans car crash?

McKenzie angrily denied during an awkward press conference last Friday that he was in an "intimate" relationship with Patston, but whatever they've got going on has been a constant source of speculation among the very highest echelons of Australian rugby for 18 months at least.

And that includes the current players.

What was her brief again?

At the Reds she was known as "Ewen's PA". Since coming into the Wallabies set-up, players say she has assumed the role of "amateur psychologist", questioning their body language and asking about their personal lives. The prying has annoyed them greatly.

In the process, it has eroded their faith in the coach, yet it goes deeper than Patston's role.

When McKenzie was appointed as Deans' replacement last year, it was widely considered to be the right move.

Then he appointed Ben Mowen as captain - an unpopular choice among the players.

When McKenzie last year dropped six players for drinking in Dublin in the lead-up to the Test against Ireland, Mowen escaped sanction even though he'd been drinking that night as well. It went down with some players like a pint of nails.

Tactically, McKenzie is considered a smart coach. In terms of "man management" - and let's face it, it's mostly about man management these days - he's said to struggle.

He's no Michael Cheika, the cranky but respected Waratahs coach who unlocked and nurtured the brilliance of Beale this year and achieved the impossible - a Super Rugby title for NSW.

There are claims that Pulver sounded Cheika out last week about taking over from McKenzie. It's been denied they met for that reason.

There are claims ARU chairman Michael Hawker has been doing the same thing, approaching former Springboks mentor Jake White. That's also been denied.

And there are claims the ARU simply doesn't have the money to sack McKenzie, and that means they will stick with him for another 12 months.

If that's so, we're in for a spectacular ride.

When the Waratahs won the Super Rugby title, many within the Australian rugby family were optimistic about the future of the game. A new dawn and all that malarkey.

Some of us, including this column, were sucked in by the hype. Rugby's back, baby? Maybe not.

The first Bledisloe Cup match at ANZ Stadium in August loomed as a watershed moment. There is no greater tonic for the game than beating the All Blacks.

Then the Wallabies failed to secure the win before the Eden Park massacre destroyed all hope.

Two months on, the Wallabies have become a smouldering, divided mess.

In terms of the big picture, Australian rugby is heading down a very familiar path to football about a decade ago. Those at the ARU who might consider that alarmist are deluding themselves about how dire the situation is becoming.

Soccer required an intervention from the federal government and billionaire Frank Lowy to rescue it.

Who or what will save rugby? It will take more than sacking Kurtley Beale.

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/australia-rugby/kurtley-beale-is-not-australian-rugbys-biggest-problem-20141013-115aan.html

das

 

[Helmy]

Not at all. I was giving my perspective as a woman, just as you are doing. We just have different perspectives in this. I think the problem lies with the ARU (including Di), and you think it lies primarily with Beale. Nothing wrong with seeing things differently at this point in this case. And until a clearer (and more accurate) light shines on the whole situation we're fairly free to speculate about who's at fault. Once the whole truth comes out we may have to do some back-peddling...which I am totally prepared to do...if need be.

das

So, would it not then be fair to say that Patson had no intention of manipulating the situation by crying, even if one could assume that could be the cased based on her being a woman? I mean, just because something looks that way, doesn't necessarily mean it is that way.

 

[dasNdanger]

So, would it not then be fair to say that Patson had no intention of manipulating the situation by crying, even if one could assume that could be the cased based on her being a woman? I mean, just because something looks that way, doesn't necessarily mean it is that way.

Not too sure. The more I read, the more I'm feeling not so good about the lady.

From another article:

Earlier on Friday, McKenzie said that he had employed Patston on the "qualifications they [people] have got and present, simple as that". He said that she had worked for the Queensland Government for 13 years in an auditing capacity and since that time she came and worked for the Reds and she did other things obviously prior to that. Patston is listed as officially joining the Reds in 2012.

"She has a very strong background, very strongly qualified in lots of areas around psychology and human behaviour," he said.


http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/australia-rugby/di-patston-embroiled-in-spider--bite-lawsuit-before-joining-aru-20141013-115jb6.html

As far as I can tell, that's McKenzie saying that, which only goes to support the comments of the previous article that "since coming into the Wallabies set-up, players say [Patston] has assumed the role of "amateur psychologist", questioning their body language and asking about their personal lives. The prying has annoyed them greatly."

And you're right in saying that just because something looks a certain way doesn't mean it is that way, but I can't help it - her texts sound very manipulative to me. And I said that BEFORE reading these two articles I just quoted today. So, either there could be something to my gut feelings, or somebody at the SMH is reading my comments here and then posting articles that support my suspicions.

Just kidding, of course...but right now I haven't read anything to make me feel otherwise. If anyone does find something that's not so biased against Patston (and I do realize that the articles in the SMH do seem a bit biased), I'd be happy to read it and absorb the information. Perhaps it could change my perception of the lady.


das

 

[jonny24]

http://www.espnscrum.com/australia/rugby/story/244155.html

ARU backing McKenzie.

 

[dasNdanger]

http://www.espnscrum.com/australia/rugby/story/244155.html

ARU backing McKenzie.

I'd like to roll my eyes and say that the ARU will always be 'status quo', but I suppose I understand their reasoning. A change now would probably do more to undermine the team than to help it. However, I'll be really surprised if he's left to 'lead the Wallabies to the World Cup'. The only way I see that happening is if the 'clear-the-air session' really worked and we see a positive change in the team, and in the team's attitude, over the next few games.


das

 

[Helmy]

Not too sure. The more I read, the more I'm feeling not so good about the lady.

As far as I can tell, that's McKenzie saying that, which only goes to support the comments of the previous article that "since coming into the Wallabies set-up, players say [Patston] has assumed the role of "amateur psychologist", questioning their body language and asking about their personal lives. The prying has annoyed them greatly."

And you're right in saying that just because something looks a certain way doesn't mean it is that way, but I can't help it - her texts sound very manipulative to me. And I said that BEFORE reading these two articles I just quoted today. So, either there could be something to my gut feelings, or somebody at the SMH is reading my comments here and then posting articles that support my suspicions.

Just kidding, of course...but right now I haven't read anything to make me feel otherwise. If anyone does find something that's not so biased against Patston (and I do realize that the articles in the SMH do seem a bit biased), I'd be happy to read it and absorb the information. Perhaps it could change my perception of the lady.


das

The Sydney Morning Herald is one of the better news media outlets these days, so if I was going to believe anything that had been reported, it would be from them. My point is simply that it's hard for us to deduce from those txts that her crying was anything but a natural, human reaction to what had been sent. If anything, I'd say that she appears to be mentally unstable, which doesn't make her under qualified for the job, but might make dealing with pressure situations difficult for her to handle (as it would a mentally ill male colleague, I assume). However, I will concede that her employment looks dodgy, which isn't just the fault of her, but McKenzie and the ARU as well.

I'm starting to lean more toward what other posters have said, which is that it's hard to deduce what is going on, let alone point fingers at anyone, when the whole thing is such a ****ing mess.

 

[dasNdanger]

The Sydney Morning Herald is one of the better news media outlets these days, so if I was going to believe anything that had been reported, it would be from them. My point is simply that it's hard for us to deduce from those txts that her crying was anything but a natural, human reaction to what had been sent. If anything, I'd say that she appears to be mentally unstable, which doesn't make her under qualified for the job, but might make dealing with pressure situations difficult for her to handle (as it would a mentally ill male colleague, I assume). However, I will concede that her employment looks dodgy, which isn't just the fault of her, but McKenzie and the ARU as well.

I'm starting to lean more toward what other posters have said, which is that it's hard to deduce what is going on, let alone point fingers at anyone, when the whole thing is such a ****ing mess.

I can't disagree with any of that (except maybe the bit about her qualifications for the job). I enjoy the 'deducing' - probably why I like puzzling mystery stories over sappy love stories.


das

 

[nickdnz]

The Sydney Morning Herald is one of the better news media outlets these days, so if I was going to believe anything that had been reported, it would be from them. My point is simply that it's hard for us to deduce from those txts that her crying was anything but a natural, human reaction to what had been sent. If anything, I'd say that she appears to be mentally unstable, which doesn't make her under qualified for the job, but might make dealing with pressure situations difficult for her to handle (as it would a mentally ill male colleague, I assume). However, I will concede that her employment looks dodgy, which isn't just the fault of her, but McKenzie and the ARU as well.

I'm starting to lean more toward what other posters have said, which is that it's hard to deduce what is going on, let alone point fingers at anyone, when the whole thing is such a ****ing mess.

The SMH is a joke. Finding a source for their quotes is like trying to find a nun in a brothel. It's just a load of hyperbole, speculation and fiction.

 

[Helmy]

Are we talking about the articles posted or in general? Because the second article that Das posted was to my mind a well constructed article that had well supported facts and shed a bit more light onto Patson's background. Most importantly, it was air tight, meaning the writer nor the paper need worry about being done for defamation. You don't need a quote if the facts support what has been written, especially if that quote is a matter of opinion, or the speaker has asked not to have their name published, which can lead to messy legal and/or ethical situations. With Patson's legal history detailed in that article, I wouldn't be surprised if she did try to sue for defamation if given the opportunity.

 

[nickdnz]

Are we talking about the articles posted or in general? Because the second article that Das posted was to my mind a well constructed article that had well supported facts and shed a bit more light onto Patson's background. Most importantly, it was air tight, meaning the writer nor the paper need worry about being done for defamation. You don't need a quote if the facts support what has been written, especially if that quote is a matter of opinion, or the speaker has asked not to have their name published, which can lead to messy legal and/or ethical situations. With Patson's legal history detailed in that article, I wouldn't be surprised if she did try to sue for defamation if given the opportunity.

Right, not mentioning sources means you don't have to have any accountability for what is written.

"It will stun all concerned if they win any of them. According to various sources within the team, it's that bad"
"As anyone who knows of the close relationship between Patston and McKenzie will tell you, this seems highly implausible: in her role, how could she not tell him?"
"When McKenzie last year dropped six players for drinking in Dublin in the lead-up to the Test against Ireland, Mowen escaped sanction even though he'd been drinking that night as well. It went down with some players like a pint of nails."
"Tactically, McKenzie is considered a smart coach. In terms of "man management" - and let's face it, it's mostly about man management these days - he's said to struggle" (Who are these people?)
"As shown by their text conversation, Beale then showed deep remorse, to the point that he was in tears" (Umm, pure speculation).

It's a horribly written article with absolutely no transparency. I could write a similar article from home, not publish any sources and say what ever I like - providing I use language like "those close to the sources" etc, etc, etc. Again there is no attempt to be neutral, or supporting any opinion with facts.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Right, not mentioning sources means you don't have to have any accountability for what is written.

"It will stun all concerned if they win any of them. According to various sources within the team, it's that bad"
"As anyone who knows of the close relationship between Patston and McKenzie will tell you, this seems highly implausible: in her role, how could she not tell him?"
"When McKenzie last year dropped six players for drinking in Dublin in the lead-up to the Test against Ireland, Mowen escaped sanction even though he'd been drinking that night as well. It went down with some players like a pint of nails."
"Tactically, McKenzie is considered a smart coach. In terms of "man management" - and let's face it, it's mostly about man management these days - he's said to struggle" (Who are these people?)
"As shown by their text conversation, Beale then showed deep remorse, to the point that he was in tears" (Umm, pure speculation).

It's a horribly written article with absolutely no transparency. I could write a similar article from home, not publish any sources and say what ever I like - providing I use language like "those close to the sources" etc, etc, etc. Again there is no attempt to be neutral, or supporting any opinion with facts.

Yeah, I read that article too, and it's yet another article that grinds my gears. But it seems to be a trend in many countries, in South Africa we have a guy called Rob Houwing, who regularly writes for Sport24. Most of his "Opinion" articles are crap, just like this one in the SMH. They are getting paid to write these opinionated articles, so anything that might get people to read the website, they will use. They jump on the bandwagon and ride it to its full extent. Usually with very little facts,a lot of speculation, and a very one-eyed/biased view.

All these articles are doing is to create factions of opinions. And the worst of it all, it's all written by men, When can we get a female written article about this??

 

[Helmy]

Right, not mentioning sources means you don't have to have any accountability for what is written.

"It will stun all concerned if they win any of them. According to various sources within the team, it's that bad"
"As anyone who knows of the close relationship between Patston and McKenzie will tell you, this seems highly implausible: in her role, how could she not tell him?"
"When McKenzie last year dropped six players for drinking in Dublin in the lead-up to the Test against Ireland, Mowen escaped sanction even though he'd been drinking that night as well. It went down with some players like a pint of nails."
"Tactically, McKenzie is considered a smart coach. In terms of "man management" - and let's face it, it's mostly about man management these days - he's said to struggle" (Who are these people?)
"As shown by their text conversation, Beale then showed deep remorse, to the point that he was in tears" (Umm, pure speculation).

It's a horribly written article with absolutely no transparency. I could write a similar article from home, not publish any sources and say what ever I like - providing I use language like "those close to the sources" etc, etc, etc. Again there is no attempt to be neutral, or supporting any opinion with facts.

'Documents lodged with the Queensland Supreme Court state Di Patston had been working as an administrative officer with the then Maroochy Shire Council on Queensland's Sunshine Coast in 2003 when she alleged she was bitten by a spider on the upper thigh.'

The article details the source of their facts, i.e. documents taken from the Queensland Supreme Court, providing a background for what the article is angling toward: Patston's employment history is somewhat dodgy.

'The court documents, which show Patston was employed 11 years ago by a local shire council, appear to contradict Wallabies coach Ewen McKenzie's statement that she had previously worked for 13 years for the Queensland Government.'

Patston and McKenzie have been caught in a supposed lie. These documents, a source just as reputable as any quote, being legal documents and all, show that Patston doesn't have the working background that McKenzie claims she did. Important, I would assume, because the article is trying to show she was unfit to be in the Wallabies set-up. This is followed by a bunch of waffle before the article goes to make this point: 'The revelations that Patston was employed as an administrative officer with the then-Maroochy Shire Council in the early 2000s – and not the Queensland Government – have raised further questions about the ARU's oversight of her employment and her exact role with the Wallabies.'

'Last week the ARU was forced to defend Patston's credentials, saying she had worked for the Queensland Government for 13 years after an electronic resume for a "Di Patston" featured on the Linked In website, claiming she had been worked for the Federal Misconduct Commission and completed three degrees. Fairfax Media could find no such body as the Federal Misconduct Commission and the universities involved said they did not have record of anybody by that name completing degrees at the time.'

Again, we have a number of different sources. One taken from the Linked In website, and another from three different universities. To save space in the article, I presume they didn't directly quote each university individually. So, the author continues to build on there being something amiss about Patston's employment with the ARU. The author has also done research and discovered there is no such thing as the Federal Misconduct Commission, pointing toward another lie/fabrication.

'On Monday, the ARU refused to answer a series of questions put to it last week by Fairfax Media regarding Patston's employment history and qualifications for her role with the Wallabies, citing her resignation.'

Here we have balance. Fairfax offered the ARU the opportunity to defend their position, but were left empty handed when her resignation was used as an excuse. The other side has been given the chance to make their own claims.

'Patston declined to comment.'

Balance again, with Patston also given the chance to comment.

After doing all this it would seem we're talking about two different articles. I'll link the one I'm referring to at the bottom of this post, which is clearly referenced. In regards to the article you're speaking of, sensationalist journalism is nothing new and I would agree that it's a terrible blotch on the art of journalism, hence why I chose not to pursue the career after all. But, SMH isn't all bad and it's one of my go to websites if I want to find some decent journalism as opposed to the crap served up by most other media outlets (though blogs are the future in this department, I feel).

http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/australia-rugby/di-patston-embroiled-in-spider--bite-lawsuit-before-joining-aru-20141013-115jb6.html

 

[MojoPin]

This whole situation is getting to be such a mess that it really seems the only way we'll get a sense of what's really going on is on the field. How the Wallabies respond in November will be very telling of how the camp is dealing with things, methinks.

 

[goodNumber10]

regardless of Patston there are two points here:

Q: Was what Beale did ok in a modern work environment?

Answer: No, it was sexist and bullying

Q: Is there a bigger issue with Patston within the ARU set up?

Possibly.

the point is you can't let Beale off his bad behaviour because she's might or might not be a tw*t, and you can't look at ther credentials and suitablitity for the job in the context fo the incident between her and Beale.

 

[Peat]

Not mentioning your sources is standard practice in journalism for the simple reason that if you do mention the name, that person stops talking to you, and probably tries to sue. Politics, showbiz, business, sports... it goes for everything. It's use here should in no way invalidate the article.

Nor should sloppy writing. There's a reason they refer to journalists as hacks.

In general, sports journalists don't take swings at players, coaches and administrators. Obviously criticism is part of the job but they don't want to burn bridges, as that means losing access, which means they can't do their job. If they're taking a swing at those people it's probably because they've got an in who will keep them in the loop. Now, some journalists pull rabbits out of hats, and some pull stories out of their arses

But it is very unlikely these articles aren't coming from inside sources. The real question is whether these sources are telling the truth themselves - and what pieces of the truth have been omitted.

I daresay if you searched around Aussie sites you'd find out whether the journos are to be trusted or not.


Anyway, just did a google for Ewen Mckenzie. Lea'ifiano and Cooper have both backed Patston to some extent - http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport...090541783?nk=1abe9f372690a61c160df8fec7eca1de - interesting to see neither saying ought about McKenzie himself.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...088244607?nk=1abe9f372690a61c160df8fec7eca1de - I like this one, it seems to capture the heart of it to me.


We still don't know what happened. We don't know whether the issue was Patston's gender, or that she wasn't up to taking on a nebulously defined role, or that being up to the job in Queensland when people was winning isn't the same as being up to the job in the national team when they aren't winning. Or some mix. We don't know whether McKenzie knew about the texts. We don't know if her relationship with McKenzie was inappropriately close. And so on. We will probably never know the whole truth.

But we can be very sure that McKenzie's having real trouble commanding the respect of the dressing room as a whole and that there is a substantial level of discontent there. And that deserves real investigation, not simply going "Oh they're unmanageable arrogant little tossers".


Any links to any current Wallaby going out to bat for McKenzie gratefully appreciated.

 

[TRF_heineken]

Anyway, just did a google for Ewen Mckenzie. Lea'ifiano and Cooper have both backed Patston to some extent - http://www.couriermail.com.au/sport...090541783?nk=1abe9f372690a61c160df8fec7eca1de - interesting to see neither saying ought about McKenzie himself.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spo...088244607?nk=1abe9f372690a61c160df8fec7eca1de - I like this one, it seems to capture the heart of it to me.

What is weird is that according to that article, the only 2 players offering support to Patston weren't part of the tour when Beale had the spat with her on the Plane. Lealifano, however, was part of the team in June.

I can't read the second article, it asks me to subscribe...

I don't normally agree with Phil Kearn's commentary, but what he is saying makes perfect sense. And I hope the investigation will do the same

 

[nickdnz]

'Documents lodged with the Queensland Supreme Court state Di Patston had been working as an administrative officer with the then Maroochy Shire Council on Queensland's Sunshine Coast in 2003 when she alleged she was bitten by a spider on the upper thigh.'
The article details the source of their facts, i.e. documents taken from the Queensland Supreme Court, providing a background for what the article is angling toward: Patston's employment history is somewhat dodgy.
'The court documents, which show Patston was employed 11 years ago by a local shire council, appear to contradict Wallabies coach Ewen McKenzie's statement that she had previously worked for 13 years for the Queensland Government.'
Patston and McKenzie have been caught in a supposed lie. These documents, a source just as reputable as any quote, being legal documents and all, show that Patston doesn't have the working background that McKenzie claims she did. Important, I would assume, because the article is trying to show she was unfit to be in the Wallabies set-up. This is followed by a bunch of waffle before the article goes to make this point: 'The revelations that Patston was employed as an administrative officer with the then-Maroochy Shire Council in the early 2000s – and not the Queensland Government – have raised further questions about the ARU's oversight of her employment and her exact role with the Wallabies.'
'Last week the ARU was forced to defend Patston's credentials, saying she had worked for the Queensland Government for 13 years after an electronic resume for a "Di Patston" featured on the Linked In website, claiming she had been worked for the Federal Misconduct Commission and completed three degrees. Fairfax Media could find no such body as the Federal Misconduct Commission and the universities involved said they did not have record of anybody by that name completing degrees at the time.'
Again, we have a number of different sources. One taken from the Linked In website, and another from three different universities. To save space in the article, I presume they didn't directly quote each university individually. So, the author continues to build on there being something amiss about Patston's employment with the ARU. The author has also done research and discovered there is no such thing as the Federal Misconduct Commission, pointing toward another lie/fabrication.
'On Monday, the ARU refused to answer a series of questions put to it last week by Fairfax Media regarding Patston's employment history and qualifications for her role with the Wallabies, citing her resignation.'
Here we have balance. Fairfax offered the ARU the opportunity to defend their position, but were left empty handed when her resignation was used as an excuse. The other side has been given the chance to make their own claims.
'Patston declined to comment.'
Balance again, with Patston also given the chance to comment.
After doing all this it would seem we're talking about two different articles. I'll link the one I'm referring to at the bottom of this post, which is clearly referenced. In regards to the article you're speaking of, sensationalist journalism is nothing new and I would agree that it's a terrible blotch on the art of journalism, hence why I chose not to pursue the career after all. But, SMH isn't all bad and it's one of my go to websites if I want to find some decent journalism as opposed to the crap served up by most other media outlets (though blogs are the future in this department, I feel).
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/australia-rugby/di-patston-embroiled-in-spider--bite-lawsuit-before-joining-aru-20141013-115jb6.html

Right, I was referring to this one Das also contributed:
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/australia-rugby/kurtley-beale-is-not-australian-rugbys-biggest-problem-20141013-115aan.html

As a general rule I find SMH offer predominantly opinion pieces. Everyone is a columnist instead of a journalist. Purely out of curiosity, did you study Media Studies or Journalism?

Not mentioning your sources is standard practice in journalism for the simple reason that if you do mention the name, that person stops talking to you, and probably tries to sue. Politics, showbiz, business, sports... it goes for everything. It's use here should in no way invalidate the article.

Protecting sources is a common practice, and I'd 100% understand why players and sources within the ARU would want to keep their identity hidden. But the article which I am quoting doesn't offer quotes from unnamed officials, makes generalizations as to what 'everyone' knows - and provides nothing short of speculation and 'those in the know' talk. It's just tabloid rubbish.

 

[Helmy]

Right, I was referring to this one Das also contributed:
http://www.smh.com.au/rugby-union/australia-rugby/kurtley-beale-is-not-australian-rugbys-biggest-problem-20141013-115aan.html

As a general rule I find SMH offer predominantly opinion pieces. Everyone is a columnist instead of a journalist. Purely out of curiosity, did you study Media Studies or Journalism?

Journalism Studies before opting out of the one year post-graduate studies of straight Journalism, as I think it's turned into an unethical profession full of self-serving jackasses who are doing it solely to see their name in print, or their faces on the TV. You're right, journalists do need to be held accountable for what has happened to news media today. A start would be, as heineken said, offering a female point of view in all of this. But, 50% of the world's media is owned by Rupert Murdoch, a straight, white, male, Republican, so it's unlikely we'll see anything framed in that way without it being seen as a hysterical feminist for some time.