Luke Marshall Writes to Irish Independent

Well, this doesn't happen very often but a rugby player has exercised his right of reply to comments made about him in the Irish Sporting Press- in this case in the Independent, which has a poor reputation for inflammatory tabloid-stle journalism- because he is aggrieved at their content.

Brendan Fanning wrote this piece last month- http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/player-education-needed-to-help-reduce-serious-injuries-30602804.html- which notes with concern the rising injury rates across professional rugby.

He mentions Luke Marshall specifically as someone who is not taking enough precautions over his history of head injuries and is setting a bad example, and quotes a Dr Stewart making comments to similar effect. Well, Luke Marshalls response was published in the Independent today;

http://www.independent.ie/sport/rugby/other-rugby/letter-from-luke-marshall-to-the-sunday-independent-30638730.html

So what do we think? Its not often you see rugby players breaking ranks to engage directly with the media like this. It must have upset Luke Marshall quite a bit. Is he underplaying the risks of concussion? Do Fanning, and the Dr Stewart in the article, protest too much? And what can rugby do about the issue of head injuries?

Luke Marshall wrote:Dear Mr Fanning, I have read your Sunday Independent article dated 21st September 2014 headlined 'Player education needed to help reduce serious injuries'.

Many of my friends and relatives have also read it. I think your article is unfair and derogatory of me, and that view is shared by others to whom I have spoken.

There is no-one involved in sport who should adopt a cavalier attitude to the risks of serious sporting injury. I certainly do not because they can affect not only my livelihood, but my life itself. You have indicated in your article that another interview which I gave about my history of head injury, "beggared belief" with the implication that I treat this matter in some casual or offhand way. In your article, referring to me, you say ". . . whose bell has been rung so often he must feel like a fire engine. . ." Frankly, I don't actually know what this soundbite of yours is meant to mean, but it is presumably your attempt at a light-hearted jibe about the serious subject that I am being accused by you of trying to trivialise.

Your article also quotes Dr Stewart, who makes all sorts of completely unjustified assumptions about me, and ends his comments with a sarky "Thanks, Luke", after slating me for supposed playing the "hero", and recklessly setting a bad example to younger players. That again is totally unfair.

I have read a lot about head injuries and concussion, and I know that even the experts hold different opinions. The reality is that neither you nor Dr Stewart know anything about my situation, character or attitude. My employer, Ulster Rugby, takes the best available advice in relation to head and other injuries, and ensures that its players receive top-class treatment from relevant specialists. I am properly educated and informed by the medical experts about what I should and shouldn't do, and the time scales, and I follow the advice I receive.

You have told the world at large that my "future is patently uncertain". I don't know where that statement comes from either. I remain very optimistic about my rugby future, both with Ulster, and at the higher level. I am very well aware that rugby is a contact sport. The loss of Stephen Ferris to rugby, with his retirement this year, tells us all that no player, even with the best medical advice and treatment, can be given guarantees about freedom from injuries, or length of career.

I am a young professional rugby player who is increasingly being expected to take on media duties. I undertake those duties to the best of my ability, although I accept that, like others, I can get it wrong sometimes.

I have re-read the words of my earlier interview referred to in your article, and I don't see how it could possibly justify the comments you made. That interview was the latest of quite a number, in which I have been repeatedly questioned about the concussion issue.

My "head injuries" largely occurred in the season before last, and last season I played in 26 matches, which I don't consider a bad recent injury record at all.

Luke Marshall

Brendan Fanning wrote:

Mr Marshall

Thank you for you letter. I wish more players/coaches would correspond when they read something written about them which they don't like, rather than take the hump in silence, so I see this as a worthwhile exercise.

I don't doubt for a moment that you take your career and health seriously, or that you follow rigorously the first-class medical advice you are given and the return-to-play guidelines surrounding concussion.

However, given your history of four concussive episodes between March 9, 2013 and February 28, 2014, it is inevitable, for a high-profile player such as yourself, that this is a go-to subject when you deal with the media. So I was taken aback in your interview in another newspaper when you said that if you got another bang you would be like any other player, and that you didn't think it would affect you too much.

I couldn't make the connection between your history and that projection into the future, and neither could others with whom I shared your quotes.

Moreover, I think it is inaccurate of you to infer from Dr Willie Stewart's comments that he was slating you for "supposed (sic) playing the hero". My interpretation of his comments was that your position as a successful international player automatically accorded you 'hero' status among the many kids for whom you have signed autographs since your career took off.

I wish you every success in the rest of your career.

Regards,

Brendan Fanning

Luke has right of reply just like anyone else I guess, although I like to think he did so after taking advice from his employers. I think he's right to respond to the likes of Fanning, but maybe not directly. My advice would have been to publish an open letter elsewhere ( assuming that Luke is determined to respond ), and not directly engage with someone like Fanning who will relish the opportunity to fill column inches, spinning it as he so wishes.

Head injury is a very serious subject, and an issue that can have a devastating impact on a players career, as well their life outside of sport. Luke went through a very difficult time with repeated concussions, and for the likes of Fanning to trivialise those injuries, and basically poke fun at Luke in doing so, is despicable, but sadly not surprising.

What did Fanning have to say about BOD being obviously concussed while playing for Ireland, and then being allowed back on the field after a 10/15 minute break. Did he poke fun at BOD? Did he condemn both him, and the IRFU, at the time? Personally, I think it was a terrible decision to allow him back on the field, and just as bad to allow him, and Luke, to play v Italy the following game.

Commenting on this one seems like you include yourself in the circus that Luke Marshall seems to be so angry with - ie, people who don't know him or his attitudes, talking about him as if they do.

So, putting aside the dangers of being another voice Marshall doesn't want to hear from, I'll say a few things on the letter and the issue.

Firstly, it seems such a refreshingly HONEST letter - not just in the real anger and bitterness coming from the paragraphs but also, I gotta say, in the language used.  It's a real angry young guy letter, written totally by Luke himself, letting fly with his passion and asking nobody to help him refine it.  That's very likeable to see.  Good on ye, Luke, as the Aussie's say.

But I do think a little of his anger and his attitude to the tone of Brendan Fanning comes from people in the background who perhaps goaded him on, using his frustrations to somehow get across their own frustrations at the Irish Indo for considered past indiscretions.  I just feel some coaxing going on in the way he words his comments.  So maybe, as Fanning suggested, other people in the background (players?) who feel Marshall is right in his reading of the Indo piece might have been better off writing their own letters when they were also feeling under pressure.

The Indo is the Indo - especially the Sunday one! - it knows how to be confrontational and waspish in order to attract attention and sell newspapers.  But Brendan Fanning doesn't strike me as one of the more blunt and aggressive ones.  He seems to be very much a journalist's journalist, in that he likes to find issues worth talking about and analyse them in a journalistic way.  That sometimes requires direct language to make the points in a journalistic sense.  No journalist, good or bad, is a wallflower when it comes to language designed to make you sit up and listen.

So onto the topic.  I don't know Luke Marshall, I don't know what medical advice he gets, what tests he gets, what gets said to him about concussion, what gets said to him about the creeping dangers of repetitive concussions, what gets said to him about the special place that out-cold concussions get in the minds of concerned medical scientists..................  I don't know any of that and he has a right to place that fact before me or any journalist.

But we - me, many other people and journalists - can read the archives, can read the current medical thinking, can listen to the continuing real concerns expressed by prominent medical practicioners (one of them a relative of BOD himself) - and in reading all this stuff, we form our own opinions and are entitled to express them.

I think Fanning and most people who talk on this subject do so for one reason - concern for the welfare of the person, the player.  It isn't done to personally attack a player's decisions, it isn't done to undermine their careers, it isn't done as some vendetta against a certain team - it's done simply out of concern, real concern, for the players welfare.  

And I'd assume, Fanning talked on the issue out of concern for players affected by repeated concussions, and questioned the 'culture' in rugby sometimes where the player/coach can 'decide' how concussed a player is.  We've witnessed it often enough with O'Driscoll, waving away medical advice to come off as if he knew his fuzziness wasn't serious.  We saw it in France last year when a coach forced a player back onto the field who was totally out-of-it mentally.

The concern is real, the concern was real about Luke.  Luke Marshall has a right to defend himself and defend his career choices; but a journalist has a clear right to discuss the continuing concerns of the medical profession that modern rugby (with more games, heavier hits and careers that last longer than yesteryear) is a potential ticking time bomb. Serious brain injuries might only come into clarity when the player's career is long over.  
A young player like Luke doesn't want to think about the years after rugby - every young person thinks they'll be young forever and easily brush aside any infirmity.  But the rest of us have a duty to remind even the young that age happens, and you seriously do want to prepare to be the healthiest you can be going there.

"whose bell has been rung so often he must feel like a fire engine"

Fanning, the caring journalists journalist.

Good post SecretFly. Unfortunately we are part of that circus you refer to, when we are discussing any players or coaches on here. It's a good reminder to be careful about what you say about players you don't know.

Good for Luke for responding to what he felt were inaccurate and unfair statements about him.

I am delighted to see any article which keeps this topic at the forefront of peoples' minds. There is still a lot of work to do to get the message across. Just last week I had a parent discuss a player's concussion management in a way which suggested that the RTP protocol would be circumvented to allow him to return earlier than adviced.

MADNESS!!!

Munchkin wrote:"whose bell has been rung so often he must feel like a fire engine"

Fanning, the caring journalists journalist.

Luke seems not to have understood that line either.  What do you think it means?    To me it says he's had his warning - loud and red.  And he has.  It's his own business how he progresses with the knowledge of those scares - but it's also the right of Fanning to say Luke Marshall has well and truly been warned - in any man's language.

I don't read much Fanning but I've flicked through enough Independents in my 40 plus years to know he isn't one who stands out for me as divisive, dismissive, smug or 'down-hereist' (that last one seems to be the main charge made at Indo rugby journalists)

So help me out - find me the articles where Fanning is a genuine bastard and I'll openly and honestly agree with you that he's nasty.  But I genuinely wouldn't have slotted him in as a journalist of that ilk.  Maybe I've totally missed out on that....like I say, willing to be proven wrong

SecretFly wrote:

Munchkin wrote:"whose bell has been rung so often he must feel like a fire engine"

Fanning, the caring journalists journalist.

Luke seems not to have understood that line either.  What do you think it means?    

Maybe I have misunderstood the question Secret but having "your bell rung" is a term used, mostly in USA, to indicate that you had a head unjury severe enough to make you concussed and leaving you ringing in your ears and a wozzy feeling.

I suspect Luke was annoyed at the flippant remark at the end especially as he seems to feel that Fanning was accusing him of not taking the issue seriously.

SecretFly wrote:

Munchkin wrote:"whose bell has been rung so often he must feel like a fire engine"

Fanning, the caring journalists journalist.

Luke seems not to have understood that line either.  What do you think it means?    To me it says he's had his warning - loud and red.  And he has.  It's his own business how he progresses with the knowledge of those scares - but it's also the right of Fanning to say Luke Marshall has well and truly been warned - in any man's language.

I don't read much Fanning but I've flicked through enough Independents in my 40 plus years to know he isn't one who stands out for me as divisive, dismissive, smug or 'down-hereist' (that last one seems to be the main charge made at Indo rugby journalists)

So help me out - find me the articles where Fanning is a genuine bastard and I'll openly and honestly agree with you that he's nasty.  But I genuinely wouldn't have slotted him in as a journalist of that ilk.  Maybe I've totally missed out on that....like I say, willing to be proven wrong

I think I understand it ok, and really I think Luke does also; " it is presumably your attempt at a light-hearted jibe about the serious subject that I am being accused by you of trying to trivialise."

I would understand 'bell' to mean a knock to the head, as I think most would.

Any concussion should act as a warning to whoever happens to be unlucky enough to get one. Luke Marshall doesn't need Fanning to warn him of the dangers. I'm sure he gets top medical advice from specialists in the field. That's not to say that Fanning, as a journalist, shouldn't highlight the dangers of concussion. He should. It's how he goes about doing that which is at issue, and of which has prompted Luke Marshall to reply in the manner he has.

Where have I said that Fanning is a b......? I don't hold him to be the great example of sports journalism that others should follow, as you do, but as I don't know him personally, I don't have the right to question his character. He's a journalist doing what journalists do - fill column inches. A good journalist can do that without having to insult a player who has been at the receiving end of the very issue that he is championing - The effects of concussion, and player welfare. A good journalist would make certain of his facts.
The reply to Luke's letter doesn't deal with Luke's complaint with Fanning himself. The caring journalist sidesteps that with pointing more blame at Luke for daring to want to be treated in the same manner as any other player should he be concussed again, and trusting in the medical advice given.

Good to hear Luke is confident about his future in Ulster and Ireland colours. He is going to have a very difficult battle on his hands with Olding and McCloskey. Good to hear he is optimistic about it.

Munchkin wrote:
Where have I said that Fanning is a b......? I don't hold him to be the great example of sports journalism that others should follow, as you do, but as I don't know him personally, I don't have the right to question his character. He's a journalist doing what journalists do - fill column inches. A good journalist can do that without having to insult a player who has been at the receiving end of the very issue that he is championing - The effects of concussion, and player welfare. A good journalist would make certain of his facts.
The reply to Luke's letter doesn't deal with Luke's complaint with Fanning himself. The caring journalist sidesteps that with pointing more blame at Luke for daring to want to be treated in the same manner as any other player should he be concussed again, and trusting in the medical advice given.

There we go.  If I were a journalist writing my pieces in the indo, I might expect a letter from Munchkin telling me I have a pretty high estimation of a pretty low life job!  Some guys can never be right.

A 'good' journalist - who knows what they are.  I don't give a good god damn about Fanning, if you want to get choosey about it - any more than I give a good god damn about any of them.  I don't lose sleep over them.  But I'll repeat that 'facts' are always in the eye of the beholder and that I think the subject might require more discussion than the man who seems to have insulted a young player by bringing it up.

That's what happens.  Subject brought up - individual players used as examples.  Luke ain't alone and he won't be the last.  Should Sexton complain when journos allude to his angry young complex man bit?  "Stop compartmentalising me!"  Should O'Gara have complained when he was often cast as a wheeler dealer grumpy horse betting guy.  Maybe he should.  But the point is I applaud Luke's right to reply and right to feel what he feels - said so - as I equally realise that journalists have a job and that your idea of a 'good' one might be my idea of an insufferable bore and vice versa.

Fact remains that Luke Marshall had a serious run of serious concussions and Fanning has a right to allude to it - no censorship based on 'sensitivities'.

Rory_Gallagher wrote:Good to hear Luke is confident about his future in Ulster and Ireland colours.  He is going to have a very difficult battle on his hands with Olding and McCloskey.  Good to hear he is optimistic about it.

All three of those guys are entitled to be optimistic I'd say! All major talents in their own way. They could each be starting for an Irish province apiece. I've never known us to have so much talent concentrated in one position. We're not going to be able to hold onto them all forever. We already had to let Chris Farrell go, and he's doing very well in Grenoble. Farrell is a fine player we'd be grateful to have most years, and so would a lot of other teams, but its talent overload in the 12 jersey at Ulster.

SecretFly wrote:

Munchkin wrote:
Where have I said that Fanning is a b......? I don't hold him to be the great example of sports journalism that others should follow, as you do, but as I don't know him personally, I don't have the right to question his character. He's a journalist doing what journalists do - fill column inches. A good journalist can do that without having to insult a player who has been at the receiving end of the very issue that he is championing - The effects of concussion, and player welfare. A good journalist would make certain of his facts.
The reply to Luke's letter doesn't deal with Luke's complaint with Fanning himself. The caring journalist sidesteps that with pointing more blame at Luke for daring to want to be treated in the same manner as any other player should he be concussed again, and trusting in the medical advice given.

There we go.  If I were a journalist writing my pieces in the indo, I might expect a letter from Munchkin telling me I have a pretty high estimation of a pretty low life job!  Some guys can never be right.

A 'good' journalist - who knows what they are.  I don't give a good god damn about Fanning, if you want to get choosey about it - any more than I give a good god damn about any of them.  I don't lose sleep over them.  But I'll repeat that 'facts' are always in the eye of the beholder and that I think the subject might require more discussion than the man who seems to have insulted a young player by bringing it up.

That's what happens.  Subject brought up - individual players used as examples.  Luke ain't alone and he won't be the last.  Should Sexton complain when journos allude to his angry young complex man bit?  "Stop compartmentalising me!"  Should O'Gara have complained when he was often cast as a wheeler dealer grumpy horse betting guy.  Maybe he should.  But the point is I applaud Luke's right to reply and right to feel what he feels - said so - as I equally realise that journalists have a job and that your idea of a 'good' one might be my idea of an insufferable bore and vice versa.

Fact remains that Luke Marshall had a serious run of serious concussions and Fanning has a right to allude to it - no censorship based on 'sensitivities'.

Surely a good journalist is a 'journalists journalist?

Anyway, there's 'facts', and there's baseless assertions. True that journalists can't always tell the difference between the two, but when a baseless assertion has been stated as fact, and that baseless assertion can have a negative impact on a players career, then the journalist responsible should have checked his 'facts':

"You have told the world at large that my "future is patently uncertain". I don't know where that statement comes from either. I remain very optimistic about my rugby future, both with Ulster, and at the higher level."

I'm sure clubs will be lining up to sign Marshall after reading that....

As for Sexton, and whoever else, getting a bit of stick for particular character traits from the press? Well, it goes with the territory, and you learn to cope with it. It's a different ball game when dragging a players name into the frame of a very serious issue - head injury - and falsely accuse that player of trivialising what is a very serious subject, and not only that, but one that the player has himself suffered from.

Yes, Fanning has the right to allude to Marshall's run of injuries, and bringing the subject to the fore is to be applauded, but in doing so he should get his facts straight. If he is really concerned about concussion in sport, which I have no reason to doubt he is, then it would be a positive for him to be a bit more 'sensitive' towards those who have been on the receiving end. Like Marshall. Not doing so simply weakens his own efforts.

Luke has a right to respond and Fanning is sticking by his article. I suspect the next time he trys for an interview with an ulster player they may be less than forthcoming with him.

That's the only way to deal with slights from journalists (real or imagined).

Yes, I don't think Fanning will be getting an exclusive interview with Luke Marshall any time soon.

I don't think Marshall (or Ulster) are the first to feel that way about Fanning.

If I was Luke I would be quite distrustful of the media too. In fact, I think if I was any Ulster player I would be. My most vivid memory of the tragedy that occurred when Nevin Spence and his brother and father lost their lives was at the first home game back at Ravenhill since that happened.

There was of course a minutes silence. And I have never, I mean never, felt a minutes silence so impeccably and totally observed. No-one in the stadium was moving or shuffling or anything. The players were obviously united in their grief and to offer anything less than total respect would have felt like a violation.

So nobody in the stadium moved, nobody talked, nobody broke the silence. Except for one group of people. The press photographers. The sound of their cameras and their jostling for position I remember feeling very conflicted about. Wouldn't the human thing to do be to simply acknowledge the sanctity of the moment? Did they have to get their pictures of the Ulster squad in this very public, yet very personal and difficult moment? Thats how the press can, at times, seem desensitised and inhumane. It must be part of what happens when you are exposed to tragedy again and again. I cannot put myself in the shoes of the Ulster players and staff. Their grief, as friends and teammates of Nevin, is greater than the grief of we fans who admired him without knowing him. But I feel that I would have felt that it was intrusive.

Ulster managed the players very well, they shut the media out to allow them to grieve. But even months later when Thornley had Luke Marshall for an interview about his debut for Ireland he asked him about Nevin;

Irish Times wrote:http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/international/home-debut-can-t-come-quick-enough-1.1320383?page=2

The tragic death of Nevin Spence, along with Spence’s brother and his father in mid-September, is still something that Marshall understandably struggles to discuss publicly. “I played Ulster schools with him. I would have known him all the way through,” he says, his voice quietening and head lowering as for once he loses his engaging smile. “It was crazy so it was.”

It felt intrusive to pry any further, so we reverted to the influence of Mark Anscombe...

And fair play to Gerry Thornley for recognising that that wasn't a subject Luke could or should be probed on, when the poor guys grief was too real and raw, and for quickly moving on to a different subject. Thats good journalism. And that was a great interview that really gets across the warmth of Marshalls character and the good person he truly seems to be. But if I was Luke, being asked about that topic in the press would already leave me inclined to already distrust journalists. It's still stressful to go over such painful ground, no matter how delicately its handled.

When you add to that the constant speculation over his head injuries in the press, that must be very tough too. I did a search for Luke Marshall on the Irish Times website- so many of the references to him are as the go-to example of the problems of concussion. When concussion is discussed in the Irish rugby press these days, Luke Marshall is the example du jour. When he goes for an interview, he gets asked about it. When he opens the sports pages, well, there's plenty of times he's done that and there's his name he's reading and its in relation to concussion.

That must be a tremendous psychological weight on his shoulders. It's no wonder he's upset about it.

Munchkin wrote:
Surely a good journalist is a 'journalists journalist?

Yeah, you have a lot of fun with that one.   Now, I asked you to tell me why he isn't.  I mean he seems to have a reputation in certain places that I genuinely wasn't aware of.  And that seems to be really colouring the texture both of this thread, the opinions on it and of Marshall's own sensitivity to what Fanning wrote.
I must have missed all that fun over the years so I'm giving you the outlet to inform me.  What seems to have given Fanning the basteraud reputation he seems to have with certain people on this thread?  
If he's a devil, I want the detail so that I can judge whether it's all devilish stuff in reality or whether he's just another journalist who has opinions that others don't share.... now there is a novel idea!  
Wouldn't the world be a much nicer place with some Aussie and New Zealand .. or even English journalists instead!  Now there's a fine bunch of men for pleasant respectful chat in the sports pages.

Fanning isn't in the deliberate wind up merchant league of Franno or Jones yet he loses all moral high ground because his piece isn't balanced. If he had referenced Jackman, Fogarty or even Clarke rather than deriding a current player and his provincial medical support then he may have had a piece worth debating. Good on ye Luke for responding to a Journo who doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

Post by SecretFly Today at 11:00 pm:"



I thought I had answered that fairly well. What exactly are you wanting if Fanning's inaccurate spiel about Marshall isn't enough?

In addition to the baseless assertions, and the making light of Marshall's injuries, the reply by Fanning to Marshall's letter is enough for me to question Fannings journalistic integrity, or lack of.

I've read enough of Fanning in the past to make me doubt his objectivity as a journalist. I could dig them up, but won't. The present article on Marshall is enough without the need for added support, or indeed the deflection from the current dispute between Fanning, and Marshall.

Munchkin wrote:Post by SecretFly Today at 11:00 pm:"



I thought I had answered that fairly well. What exactly are you wanting if Fanning's inaccurate spiel about Marshall isn't enough?

In addition to the baseless assertions, and the making light of Marshall's injuries, the reply by Fanning to Marshall's letter is enough for me to question Fannings journalistic integrity, or lack of.

I've read enough of Fanning in the past to make me doubt his objectivity as a journalist. I could dig them up, but won't. The present article on Marshall is enough without the need for added support, or indeed the deflection from the current dispute between Fanning, and Marshall.

So my suspicions are right?  It's his presumed lack of 'objectivity' in the past that has done the damage to his reputation well in advance of this episode?  But nobody who read this full article could come close to calling it proof of a 'lack of integirty'.  

The only assertion he made about Luke Marshall was that his future "is uncertain".  That is not 'baseless'.  It's true.  

Not only did he qualify that by saying there are no guarantees for any player , but his point admits the truth that Marshall will be looked at much more closesly now should another serious concussion incident happen.  And not by prying Fanning either but by serious medical professionals.  
All of us obviously hope his career is long and healthy but he's on the medical radar now, and serious intervenion of a medical nature would happen if he gets any more similar serious injuries.  Many of us had the same feeling some months back when discussing the topic here on 606.  Many of us pondered the future for him if he has any more concussion moments.  We didn't need Fanning to talk about it - it's there in the 606 records.  And I don't seem to recall anyone being accused of a lack of integrity.

Plus, he wasn't making light of Marshall's injuries either but wondering why Marshall's very own language (quoted) seemed to be doing just that.  Maybe it's all perception afterall.  Fanning percieved Marshall to be flippant about the seriousness of concussion and Marshall in turn percieved Fanning to be insulting him.

Em... we'll leave it there so for you anyway, Munchkin.  I guess nobody is going to be changing their opinions on this one.

SecretFly wrote:

Munchkin wrote:Post by SecretFly Today at 11:00 pm:"



I thought I had answered that fairly well. What exactly are you wanting if Fanning's inaccurate spiel about Marshall isn't enough?

In addition to the baseless assertions, and the making light of Marshall's injuries, the reply by Fanning to Marshall's letter is enough for me to question Fannings journalistic integrity, or lack of.

I've read enough of Fanning in the past to make me doubt his objectivity as a journalist. I could dig them up, but won't. The present article on Marshall is enough without the need for added support, or indeed the deflection from the current dispute between Fanning, and Marshall.

So my suspicions are right?  It's his presumed lack of 'objectivity' in the past that has done the damage to his reputation well in advance of this episode?  But nobody who read this full article could come close to calling it proof of a 'lack of integirty'.  

The only assertion he made about Luke Marshall was that his future "is uncertain".  That is not 'baseless'.  It's true.  

Not only did he qualify that by saying there are no guarantees for any player , but his point admits the truth that Marshall will be looked at much more closesly now should another serious concussion incident happen.  And not by prying Fanning either but by serious medical professionals.  
All of us obviously hope his career is long and healthy but he's on the medical radar now, and serious intervenion of a medical nature would happen if he gets any more similar serious injuries.  Many of us had the same feeling some months back when discussing the topic here on 606.  Many of us pondered the future for him if he has any more concussion moments.  We didn't need Fanning to talk about it - it's there in the 606 records.  And I don't seem to recall anyone being accused of a lack of integrity.

Plus, he wasn't making light of Marshall's injuries either but wondering why Marshall's very own language (quoted) seemed to be doing just that.  Maybe it's all perception afterall.  Fanning percieved Marshall to be flippant about the seriousness of concussion and Marshall in turn percieved Fanning to be insulting him.

Em... we'll leave it there so for you anyway, Munchkin.  I guess nobody is going to be changing their opinions on this one.

No, your suspicions are wrong. I knew that was what you were fishing for, Fly. I responded to what was in the article, and nothing more, as much as you might like to believe otherwise.

"But nobody who read this full article could come close to calling it proof of a 'lack of integirty'.  "

Are you referring to Fanning's response to Marshall's letter or the article Marshall was responding too? Either way I don't agree. Maybe you see it that way, but as I have already detailed, there's enough to counter that view from the current article alone.

No, we are not going to agree, and yes, we will leave it there