Dave T

Yep, this is spot on. I've been around drug use at stages of my life, and I've been around lots of people who steer 100% clear. Your judgement can absolutely be clouded by small samples.

I do however think that clubs have the responsibility to be trying to manage outbreaks within their camps, and that is something that some teams clearly didn't do effectively last year. A players kid getting it at nursery shouldn't lead to 10 players from one squad being wiped out. There should be enough mitigants in place to create opportunities to break those chains. I am surprised that we put 20 people in a small changing room at the same time for example.

I think I am OK with this, haven't thought it through fully, so we'll see how it goes, but I'm OK with the principle. What clubs can do is make sure that at their workplace they are social distancing. I'm not allowed near my work colleagues. Obviously it is different in a team sport, but working outside, with strong measures in place is a strong mitigant. It has been quite clear over the last year or so that some clubs have been more able/willing to get the games on, even with some issues But when we see clubs behave like Saints did after winning the Cup, or Fev having drinks in a bar, or Steve Price campaigning for the important thing like hugging to celebrate a try etc. I think it is ok to put the onus on clubs to do much better. And part of that means you should have academies and reserves that can be called upon. I think there was a relaxation of loan rules last year, whether this needs to go further we will see.

How does this compare to the usual FTA deal?

Yep - they are also playing in Newcastle, Doncaster and Warrington - which is very different from Sydney in June. I am very excited to see what they can do, but England will be clear favourites.

I'm not sure what you mean by backs up my personal opinion. All we know about this is that he has gone through an RFL investigation and they have found him guilty. We have no idea of the presence or lack of evidence. If the verdict is published, then we may know more.

My post doesn't refer to your view on that. But you state that there was no evidence. That is the claim I'm interested in.

It's rather relevant to the thread and the point that you made at the start.

Could you link to the findings that you have read, you obviously know more than the rest of us? I have no idea whether he did this. But I do know that we have a disciplinary that often plays down things like this. But as things stand it is relevant to describe him as guilty.

OK, so you appear to be happy that we try and make things better for people. Do you agree trying to stop people calling others "f****** sp******" is a positive thing? I'm not referring to whether you believe this particular player did say that.

Understood. See my late edit regarding Steve Price using an offensive slur last season. Apparently he is a top bloke.

I do understand your points, and I don't know Dane at all, but I'm not surprised that somebody may use an offensive word despite respecting the groups linked to the slur. Edit: not exactly the same, but see Steve Price using the word m*** live on sky sports.

I called him guilty because he has been found guilty. I'm the one respecting process. You are not.

Do you have a link to that (not the Daily Star), I haven't seen anything from the RFL yet.

I do also think we need to be careful that we don't go the other way and give malicious allegations undue prominence here. If we go too far that way then we end up with all sorts of horrific things happening as history has shown when we don't believe victims.

There is always a risk of dishonesty, but the choice here is that you believe the accuser or you believe the accused in a 1 v 1 debate. I don't understand your last para. Nobody has judged anyone without the presented evidence.

What is the solution though? And obviously we don't know how the panel came to their verdict. It is a tricky situation, but it does lead us down a mirky road if we don't believe victims in one on one incidents. I'm thinking of more serious situations than this one.

Yes, I understood why it was there mate, I think your post was spot on without it.

Whilst we are on the same page on this general discussion - I do have to challenge on this one point mate. I find this line rolled out too often and undermines the rest of your argument, so I don't like to see this used, certainly not by people with your views on this, often as some kind of conciliatory point to lower tensions when debating with bigots. I don't think people do get offended on other people's behalf at all. People get offended by what they get offended by - and it doesn;t have to be a direct slur aimed at them for them to find it shocking and offensive. But also, in many cases, people are not complaining or challenging behaviour because they are offended, but because they are disgusted and find it wrong and are challenging that. Me being an ally of victimised groups is not being offended on their behalf, it is standing up for what I believe is right. 'Being offended on behalf of other people' is a right-wing argument used to dismiss their views being challenged - and that shouldn't be used casually as it fuels their viewpoint.

We don't see enough public support for the bigots here nowadays, so it's a refreshing viewpoint.

I think Fev are unwise to make their views known on this. They should keep it professional and let it go through the appeals process. Support their employee absolutely, but I'm not sure this line is wise: We stand by Dane and are appealing the decision

If we take your point to its natural conclusion then it becomes pretty dangerous, as people can do and say whatever they want to people as long as they make sure nobody else is around or within earshot.

He's been through the disciplinary and been found guilty.

This is a challenge. It does make it difficult to breakthrough against all these advantages - newer teams or teams with new investors would have to play a long game to be able to break through, and with P&R that could be a real risk. But it is also hard to argue against a system that heavily rewards having strong youth structures. It is where I think RL needs to stop looking at things like comp structures and focus on tweaks with things like the cap, development funding etc. to make sure those things are balanced.

Yeah, I get the benefits, and I think Wire do benefit tbh, let's be honest, a few different key plays in rugby matches over the last decade and our trophy haul would have been outstanding.