Vern Cotter

[ratsapprentice]

****... I read that as "was really the point". Sorry about that!

Meh... unless they were physically restrained then they weren't being "forced" - also considering these guys are massive athletes, and they probably eat a good few kg of meat every week, it would be absolutely ridiculous of them to refuse to do it. I have a feeling they were probably just hesitant (as most people who have never had to kill their food before are - understandably), rather than outright refusing to do it.

 

[Tony Manx]

Wild always taste better than farmed as they get more exercise......

 

[Duck a l'Orange]

The PETA describing rabbits as "intelligent" is a bit of a stretch too; fair enough with pigs- smarter than dogs, apparently- but rabbits? Come on

 

[RedruthRFC]

The PETA describing rabbits as "intelligent" is a bit of a stretch too; fair enough with pigs- smarter than dogs, apparently- but rabbits? Come on

Good point. They wouldn't be considered intelligent by any definition of intelligence that a quick Google search threw up.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

I would say though that concerning the rabbits, hunting is ok as when you kill them it's done quickly and the rabbit doesn't know what's happening. However, by the sounds of it, in this situation, the caged rabbits would've seen the other rabbits being killed which, to me, seems very cruel. Again, maybe I'm just being too sensitive but it does eem wrong to me.

 

[LeinsterMan (NotTigsMan)]

My main problem with this is Hamilton TBH.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

****... I read that as "was really the point". Sorry about that!

Meh... unless they were physically restrained then they weren't being "forced" - also considering these guys are massive athletes, and they probably eat a good few kg of meat every week, it would be absolutely ridiculous of them to refuse to do it. I have a feeling they were probably just hesitant (as most people who have never had to kill their food before are - understandably), rather than outright refusing to do it.

Oh right, no worries then (Regarding the first paragraph)

For the bit I've bolded though, I have to disagree. Eating meat that you've bought from a super market is very different to actually killing the animal yourself, and just because you eat lots of meat doesn't and shouldn't make it any easier to take an animal's life. By the sounds of it, you've done a good bit of hunting so I understand why you probably don't consider it a particularly big deal killing a rabbit, but to many it would be quite a big deal. Clearly they weren't physically forced to do it, but I would argue that when it comes to unnecessarily killing an animal, you shouldn't be pushed to do it either. Something like that should be the person's choice, they shouldn't have who is effectively their boss making them do it. Just my opinion.

 

[ratsapprentice]

Ridiculous.

If they eat meat, they don't really have a leg to stand on when it comes to refusing to kill an animal.

As I said - it's understandable that they might be hesitant - but anything resembling refusal is morally and intellectually indefensible IMO.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

Ridiculous.

If they eat meat, they don't really have a leg to stand on when it comes to refusing to kill an animal.

As I said - it's understandable that they might be hesitant - but anything resembling refusal is morally and intellectually indefensible IMO.

If it was a case of needing to eat then I would agree with you, but seeing as it was an unnecessary exercise designed to "weed out the weaklings" then I can't see this as anything other than bullying by Cotter.

This is effectively the same as at a job interview the interviewer taking in some caged rabbits and saying kill them or it's really going to damage the chances of you being hired. That wouldn't be ok, so why is this?

Killing rabbits has no relation to playing rugby, so why a rugby coach was telling his players to kill rabbits at what was essentially a rugby trial is beyond me.

 

[j'nuh]

The PETA describing rabbits as "intelligent" is a bit of a stretch too; fair enough with pigs- smarter than dogs, apparently- but rabbits? Come on

I guess different people set different barometers on when an animal is intelligent enough that killing them should be off limits.

If it was a case of needing to eat then I would agree with you, but seeing as it was an unnecessary exercise designed to "weed out the weaklings" then I can't see this as anything other than bullying by Cotter.

This is effectively the same as at a job interview the interviewer taking in some caged rabbits and saying kill them or it's really going to damage the chances of you being hired. That wouldn't be ok, so why is this?

I agree. The player-coach dynamic and the threat of deselection of the player creates a power imbalance. The player must do as the coach says. For the coach to abuse the dynamic by forcing the player to do unusual things that the player does not want to do is wrong IMO.

 

[nickdnz]

From what I can gather they went on an outdoor style survival course, in order to condition them. From what Hamilton has said they weren't forced to kill the animals, although in an outdoor survival course it seems it was probably always part in parsol. I don't think Cotter designed the course himself, rather it was a French program. Perhaps Cotter did encourage it, but it's hardly ghastly.

I understand with being squeamish about killing an animal (it's not something I like doing, despite not being a vegetarian), but at the end of the day killing what you eat if anything should give players more of an appreciation for what they probably take for granted. There are huge sections of the world that seem to assume their meat is grown in a supermarket freezer - and the hundred of kilograms of chicken that most of the players likely buy live a hell of a lot worse lives than those rabbits. Killing an animal that you intend to eat in my view, at least gives you some perspective.

Did the rabbits die unnecessarily? Well considering the food wastage in the western world, probably their deaths were of more value to the players than the chicken which is shelved past its expiry.

 

[ratsapprentice]

If it was a case of needing to eat then I would agree with you, but seeing as it was an unnecessary exercise designed to "weed out the weaklings" then I can't see this as anything other than bullying by Cotter.

According to who, PETA? Bear in mind this is the organisation that describes Eggs as "chicken periods".

They were on a team building exercise set up by French military personnel, their dinner was rabbit, they were asked to kill what they were going to eat.
There is nothing unreasonable about that. If the players had gone to a restaurant and eaten rabbits, you wouldn't describe the death of those rabbits as unnecessary, would you?
So what's the difference? That the players were confronted with the reality of the source of their diet?

Killing rabbits has a lot to do with eating them.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

From what I can gather they went on an outdoor style survival course, in order to condition them. From what Hamilton has said they weren't forced to kill the animals, although in an outdoor survival course it seems it was probably always part in parsol. I don't think Cotter designed the course himself, rather it was a French program. Perhaps Cotter did encourage it, but it's hardly ghastly.

I understand with being squeamish about killing an animal (it's not something I like doing, despite not being a vegetarian), but at the end of the day killing what you eat if anything should give players more of an appreciation for what they probably take for granted. There are huge sections of the world that seem to assume their meat is grown in a supermarket freezer - and the hundred of kilograms of chicken that most of the players likely buy live a hell of a lot worse lives than those rabbits. Killing an animal that you intend to eat in my view, at least gives you some perspective.

Did the rabbits die unnecessarily? Well considering the food wastage in the western world, probably their deaths were of more value to the players than the chicken which is shelved past its expiry.

All this stuff about killing what you eat giving you perspective is nice and all, but it has sweet f*** all to do with rugby, so why it was being done at a rugby trial is just stupid.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

According to who, PETA? Bear in mind this is the organisation that describes Eggs as "chicken periods".

They were on a team building exercise set up by French military personnel, their dinner was rabbit, they were asked to kill what they were going to eat.
There is nothing unreasonable about that. If the players had gone to a restaurant and eaten rabbits, you wouldn't describe the death of those rabbits as unnecessary, would you?
So what's the difference? That the players were confronted with the reality of the source of their diet?

Killing rabbits has a lot to do with eating them.

Why are you bringing PETA into it, I don't care what PETA have to say, but as someone earlier put very well, Cotter used his power as a coach to make the players do something that they didn't want to to do that had nothing to do with rugby.

Do you not understand how ridiculous it sounds that at a rugby trial a rugby coach was assessing rugby players on their ability and willingness to kill rabbits? What was the f***ing point?! If that's what Cotter bases his selections off of then I can understand why Scotland don't win anything.

 

[j'nuh]

According to who, PETA? Bear in mind this is the organisation that describes Eggs as "chicken periods".

They were on a team building exercise set up by French military personnel, their dinner was rabbit, they were asked to kill what they were going to eat.
There is nothing unreasonable about that. If the players had gone to a restaurant and eaten rabbits, you wouldn't describe the death of those rabbits as unnecessary, would you?
So what's the difference? That the players were confronted with the reality of the source of their diet?

Killing rabbits has a lot to do with eating them.

I agree that people who eat meat should confront themselves with what that means.

But if they choose not to... that's their choice. Humans can be inconsistent, and others can point that inconsistency out, but that does not give them the right to take away another person's agency. If someone eats meat and does not want to kill for it, it's not for anyone else to decide otherwise for them.

 

[nickdnz]

All this stuff about killing what you eat giving you perspective is nice and all, but it has sweet f*** all to do with rugby, so why it was being done at a rugby trial is just stupid.

Well an outdoor survival camp is probably not incredibly dissimilar to many exercises teams do for bonding or conditioning. I know many teams in New Zealand do similar things preseason. Obviously Cotter assumed it had some value, and by all accounts Scotland did better than expected in the last World Cup. Not sure why take such offense to it.

Again, I haven't seen where Cotter forced anyone to kill the rabbits, being substantiated. The person who made the claim retracted it.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

I agree that people who eat meat should confront themselves with what that means.

But if they choose not to... that's their choice. Humans can be inconsistent, and others can point that inconsistency out, but that does not give them the right to take away another person's agency. If someone eats meat and does not want to kill for it, it's not for anyone else to decide otherwise for them.

This is spot on. A rugby coach has the right to push his players to do whatever he wants them to when it comes to rugby. But what a coach doesn't have the right to do is to tell a person to go against their morals, regardless of whether he agrees with those morals or not.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

Well an outdoor survival camp is probably not incredibly dissimilar to many exercises teams do for bonding or conditioning. I know many teams in New Zealand do similar things preseason. Obviously Cotter assumed it had some value, and by all accounts Scotland did better than expected in the last World Cup. Not sure why take such offense to it.

Again, I haven't seen where Cotter forced anyone to kill the rabbits, being substantiated. The person who made the claim retracted it.

1. My issue isn't so much with the killing rabbits as it is a coach pushing players to do something that is outside the bounds of rugby, so if they don't want to do it, he has no right to push them to do it.

2. I don't think the fact that Hamilton retracted the claim shows anything other than that he simply doesn't want to bite the hand that feeds him. He would've had no reason to make up what he said, so I don't believe that he would've done. Again, it comes down to the coach having complete power over his players, so if Cotter told Hamilton to retract the statement, that's what Hamilton would have done.

 

[ratsapprentice]

It was at a training session, a session designed to push players out of their comfort zones - that's what team building exercises depend on.

What Cotter sees, and what the players are supposed to show - is that they can overcome things things that are challenging to them.
Those challenges do not have to directly relate to rugby - see other common team building exercises; abseiling, bungee jumping etc.

No one was asked to do anything that could reasonably be described as amoral, the players were faced with a challenge - one that they apparently accepted willingly.

Vern Cotter's hand no longer feeds Jim Hamilton, Toby... he's retired from international rugby.

But if they choose not to... that's their choice. Humans can be inconsistent, and others can point that inconsistency out, but that does not give them the right to take away another person's agency. If someone eats meat and does not want to kill for it, it's not for anyone else to decide otherwise for them.

You're right, it is - and by all accounts, they made their choice to kill the rabbits.

Do you seriously think that the situation involved Vern Cotter saying to his players "anyone who doesn't kill these rabbits is going home".
That clearly wasn't what happened... what do you think would happen if a player had not been selected or, in extremis, kicked out of the squad?

The press would either ask Vern, or the player (who at this point has nothing much to lose) why they had been dropped or not selected, and the player tells the media exactly why.... cue media ****storm.

- - - Updated - - -

This is spot on. A rugby coach has the right to push his players to do whatever he wants them to when it comes to rugby. But what a coach doesn't have the right to do is to tell a person to go against their morals, regardless of whether he agrees with those morals or not.

It's got nothing to do with morals, unless you're suggesting that a player who is ok with eating an animal that was killed explicitly in order to feed humans, could legitimately claim moral objection to killing it himself.

That's not a moral dilemma, it's one of spine.

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

It was at a training session, a session designed to push players out of their comfort zones - that's what team building exercises depend on.

What Cotter sees, and what the players are supposed to show - is that they can overcome things things that are challenging to them.
Those challenges do not have to directly relate to rugby - see other common team building exercises; abseiling, bungee jumping etc.

No one was asked to do anything that could reasonably be described as amoral, the players were faced with a challenge - one that they apparently accepted willingly.

Vern Cotter's hand no longer feeds Jim Hamilton, Toby... he's retired from international rugby.



You're right, it is - and by all accounts, they made their choice to kill the rabbits.

Do you seriously think that the situation involved Vern Cotter saying to his players "anyone who doesn't kill these rabbits is going home".
That clearly wasn't what happened.

Killing rabbits at a training session is so pointless though. If you can genuinely tell me that killing a rabbit made the Scotland players better rugby players then I will stop defending my point, but otherwise it has no bearing towards what they were doing at all.

And they didn't really have a choice. If your coach tells you to do something, you do it. Of course Cotter didn't tell the players that if they didn't do it they'd go home, but at a RWC Training camp, no player is going to not do what their coach tells them to.

For your point about no one being able to describe it as amoral, that's not for you to decide. That's the whole point of a person's morals, they are what that person believes in and no one else should have the right to take them away. I am not religious, I find most religions ridiculous, but that doesn't mean I have the right to take away anyone's right to be religious.

Yes, I am saying it's an idea of morals. Just because someone eats what is fed to them on a plate doesn't mean they're ready to slit an animals throat. I'm sorry that you're too macho to understand that and see it as spineless, but that does go against some people's moral codes.