What a farce!

First topic message reminder :

I have only just been made aware of this:

http://www.lequipe.fr/Rugby/Actualites/Laurent-sempere-n-est-plus-suspendu-en-france/636835

Laurent Sempere was banned for 15 weeks by a 6Ns disciplinary pnel on behalf of EPCR for making contact with Marcos Ayerza's eyes. Due to an injury crisis Stade decided to appeal, but not to the original panel but internally in France. A tribunal made up of two FFR representatives plus LNR representatives decided there was insufficient evidence to have convicted Sempere in a French court. He has thus been cleared to play in the T14.

This is not the first time this has happened in France, with similar occurring a few years ago after a ban from the HEC. This was one of the main reasons that EPCR chose to use the 6Ns Union led disciplinary processes to avoid a repeat occurrence. All teams and Unions signed up to the process, though obviously that means nothing.

This is now being appealed to World Rugby for adjudication by EPCR but any decision by them will likely come after the original ban had ended.


Farce. Complete bloody farce.

broadlandboy wrote:Until he is tried in a French Court they are only guessing that he would be found innocent. It is not breaking Employment Law as he has no right to be picked to play( unless he has a very unusual contract which says he choses when he plays), they are not stopping his employment. The club agreed to the terms of the competition, which included the competition's right to discipline players.

Take it up with Comité National Olympique et Sportif Français

They think that cross border competitions have no right to ban players from French domestic tournaments.

No 7&1/2 wrote:

Both are the organisers of 2 tournaments yes. So you're saying French law would allow Suarez's ban to stand but wouldn't if it was done say in the European Championships by UEFA? What are the specifics of the law? Is a French club rugby ban earned in the cup applicable in the league, and do they run to European comps? Are they breaking the law if they do cross comps?

No, one is a global body. The other one is not.

You already know the answer to the soccer questions as you, yourself, noted them earlier in the thread. So why are you now asking questions you've already answered? It's a pretty bonkers tactic.

If you have a point to make then please feel free to make it.

It's the specifics on French law I don't know. I know that the rules in regards to rugby suspensions are different to football ones but that's just the games nowt to do with laws of countries. I know that I found (in football terms) the ban of Suarez from playing for Liverpool, then Barcalona, as ludicrous as it was punishing the club for something they had no control over. You're saying that fair, I disagree but a separate issue to employment law. I was asking, as you know, what the employment law of France covers. A ban from internationals at the world cup would presumably be legal as it would be world rugby? 6 Nations is run by a separate organisation so any ban would be illegal? Again would a ban from French club rugby which would be applied to internationals and Euro rugby be legal or not?

I did think I knew the answers but you've cast doubt in my mind. I have no overall point, just interested in where clubs and unions etc etc stand legally in terms of what suspensions they can apply.

No 7&1/2 wrote:
I did think I knew the answers but you've cast doubt in my mind. I have no overall point, just interested in where clubs and unions etc etc stand legally in terms of what suspensions they can apply.

Read the Tincu case. It answers your questions.

I'll just go back to thinking it's a bit of a farce then.

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'll just go back to thinking it's a bit of a farce then.

Having read about Tincu or not?

No 7&1/2 wrote:I'll just go back to thinking it's a bit of a farce then.

It is, why Phil thinks Tincu is relevant is beyond me as it predates the EPCR and the current participation agreements

Read the back story yes Phil. Pretty much like this, the French signed up to something and then tried to get around it. They shouldn't have signed up if they didn't want to play by the rules for me.

PhilBB wrote:

Sin é wrote:
Eddie Walsh is from Connacht, so he was independent of both Leinster & Munster.

In a similar situation in France or England, presumably the Citing Commissioners would want any French players to be available to represent their country and say if you used a French Citing Commissioner, he would want POC to be banned as he would be biased in favour of Munster's opposition in the Heineken Cup.

Eddie Walsh work(s)/(ed) for the IRFU at the time. He was judging his colleagues. Therefore, he was not independent.

Why is this basic fact so hard for so many followers of Irish rugby to comprehend?

And you're confusing the Citing process. It is not the Citing officer who decides the ban, ffs.

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that Provincial rivalry is probably greater than any intercountry rivalry.

You have not addressed the issue of perhaps using a French TMO might try and get POC banned so that he would be missing when Ireland play France.

You could also explain how you would address situation of the disciplinary committee being made up of people from countries whose interests might be best served if POC is banned.

marty2086 wrote:

It is, why Phil thinks Tincu is relevant is beyond me as it predates the EPCR and the current participation agreements

Erm, because it states the legitimacy of French law.

Remember? The whole point of this is that rugby is not above the law of the land. Once you've finally grasped that, you might be able to move forward.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Read the back story yes Phil. Pretty much like this, the French signed up to something and then tried to get around it. They shouldn't have signed up if they didn't want to play by the rules for me.

They also can't sign up to something that would be illegal.

Rugby needs to follow soccer's example.

Sin é wrote:

Why is it so difficult for you to understand that Provincial rivalry is probably greater than any intercountry rivalry.

You have not addressed the issue of perhaps using a French TMO might try and get POC banned so that he would be missing when Ireland play France.

You could also explain how you would address situation of the disciplinary committee being made up of people from countries whose interests might be best served if POC is banned.

That first sentence / question is so very village and so very telling.

I have addressed the issue of the Citing Officer (not TMO) being of a different nationality when I wrote that the Citing Officer doesn't determine whether a ban will ensue. Keep up, please.

Disciplinary Committees are not Citing Officers. This is a question of him being cited, not banned. Again, keep up.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Read the back story yes Phil. Pretty much like this, the French signed up to something and then tried to get around it. They shouldn't have signed up if they didn't want to play by the rules for me.

They also can't sign up to something that would be illegal.

Rugby needs to follow soccer's example.

So the agreement with the French is worthless. Would be interesting to see if an incident like the Suarez one would rose it's head in France and if they would challenge in a similar way.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

It is, why Phil thinks Tincu is relevant is beyond me as it predates the EPCR and the current participation agreements

Erm, because it states the legitimacy of French law.

Remember? The whole point of this is that rugby is not above the law of the land. Once you've finally grasped that, you might be able to move forward.

But not all law. We ignore the assualt ones etc.

No 7&1/2 wrote:
But not all law. We ignore the assualt ones etc.

Do we? Are you sure?

http://www.edinburghnews.scotsman.com/news/crime/rugby-player-convicted-after-headbutt-on-pitch-1-3719751

Oh.

So where are the players suing for rugby tackles? Is that because they are within the agreed rules? Oh.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So where are the players suing for rugby tackles? Is that because they are within the agreed rules? Oh.

We did this earlier when I had to reference Brian Moore, ffs.

Head butts aren't part of rugby so can be punished under law, tackles are so can't. If the French have agreed to the laws of rugby and the rules of a competition they should honour that. If they didn't like those rules they shouldn't have signed. Surely we can agree on that?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Head butts aren't part of rugby so can be punished under law, tackles are so can't. If the French have agreed to the laws of rugby and the rules of a competition they should honour that. If they didn't like those rules they shouldn't have signed. Surely we can agree on that?

No.

You can't expect a French company to arbitrarily sign up to something which breaks French law.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

It is, why Phil thinks Tincu is relevant is beyond me as it predates the EPCR and the current participation agreements

Erm, because it states the legitimacy of French law.

Remember? The whole point of this is that rugby is not above the law of the land. Once you've finally grasped that, you might be able to move forward.

I don't know if your stupid, pig headed or a troll

Lets look at a few things

1) This was a French Rugby disciplinary hearing, not a French court so the participants are not placed to apply the law of the land though it was not law they applied but a standard of guilt
2) The hearing assessed evidence that was presented to meet a lower standard, EPCR were not afforded the opportunity to present new evidence to meet the higher standard. This would not meet French law around fair trials
3) Had the offence been committed in a French league game the standard the panel applied would not have been applied, it would have been EPCRs this was an arbitrary decision with no precedent. I know how you like those.
4) Tincu is irrelevant as having signed a contract after the decision they forego its implications by signing up to the disciplinary rules within the participation agreement of the ERCC, that falls under European law. Think of it as a waiver

They did though, which is why I said they shouldn't have agreed to it.

If this case had anything to do with french law, they would reverse most bans issued by EPCR and 6 Nations. they do not.

This case was brought only because Stade have an injury crisis and they need the player. There was much less evidence for the other player banned, but they do not need him so just let the ban run.

LondonTiger wrote:If this case had anything to do with french law, they would reverse most bans issued by EPCR and 6 Nations. they do not.

This case was brought only because Stade have an injury crisis and they need the player. There was much less evidence for the other player banned, but they do not need him so just let the ban run.

Don't forget he served part of his ban already, so they accepted the ban until they needed him

marty2086 wrote:

I don't know if your stupid, pig headed or a troll

Lets look at a few things

1) This was a French Rugby disciplinary hearing, not a French court so the participants are not placed to apply the law of the land though it was not law they applied but a standard of guilt
2) The hearing assessed evidence that was presented to meet a lower standard, EPCR were not afforded the opportunity to present new evidence to meet the higher standard. This would not meet French law around fair trials
3) Had the offence been committed in a French league game the standard the panel applied would not have been applied, it would have been EPCRs this was an arbitrary decision with no precedent. I know how you like those.
4) Tincu is irrelevant as having signed a contract after the decision they forego its implications by signing up to the disciplinary rules within the participation agreement of the ERCC, that falls under European law. Think of it as a waiver

It was in London. Organised by the EPRC. How is that 'a French Rugby disciplinary hearing'?

And, before we go any further, could you explain point 4. Thanks.

marty2086 wrote:

LondonTiger wrote:If this case had anything to do with french law, they would reverse most bans issued by EPCR and 6 Nations. they do not.

This case was brought only because Stade have an injury crisis and they need the player. There was much less evidence for the other player banned, but they do not need him so just let the ban run.

Don't forget he served part of his ban already, so they accepted the ban until they needed him

Erm....http://www.stade.fr/actualites/news/communiques/2016-02-22-laurent-sempere-immediatement-requalifie

Phil, do you accept that the French knew this particular rule before they agreed to particpiate? I think they probably did so in my view they shouldn't have agreed to it.

No 7&1/2 wrote:Phil, do you accept that the French knew this particular rule before they agreed to particpiate? I think they probably did so in my view they shouldn't have agreed to it.

Sure they knew it. It underpins their society.

What rugby needs to move on from is the cosy click of blazers thinking that their 'power' exceeds the law of the land.

That's absolutely fine. Football obviously needs to as well judging by the Suarez incident. Do you think the French should pull out of Europe though, try to force it through that way as currently they seem to be fraudulently signing up to something they have no intention of playing to?

Banned on 27th January, reviewed in 22nd Feb - missed at least 3 matches before it was overturned.

I have been discussing this with our lawyer (at Cameron McKenna - http://www.cms-cmck.com/) who is a massive rugby fan - and player for Ireland schools several moons ago, and enjoys shooting the breeze about rugby. Not sure if he has spoken to anyone at their Paris office, but he is firmly of the opinion that the statement put out by Stade/LNR/FFR is complete Love sacks. Such a ban from playing would not be a contravention of French employment laws, especially as he is still employed and being paid.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

I don't know if your stupid, pig headed or a troll

Lets look at a few things

1) This was a French Rugby disciplinary hearing, not a French court so the participants are not placed to apply the law of the land though it was not law they applied but a standard of guilt
2) The hearing assessed evidence that was presented to meet a lower standard, EPCR were not afforded the opportunity to present new evidence to meet the higher standard. This would not meet French law around fair trials
3) Had the offence been committed in a French league game the standard the panel applied would not have been applied, it would have been EPCRs this was an arbitrary decision with no precedent. I know how you like those.
4) Tincu is irrelevant as having signed a contract after the decision they forego its implications by signing up to the disciplinary rules within the participation agreement of the ERCC, that falls under European law. Think of it as a waiver

It was in London. Organised by the EPRC. How is that 'a French Rugby disciplinary hearing'?

And, before we go any further, could you explain point 4. Thanks.

Maybe you would like to go get your facts straight Phil before attempting to lecture everyone else. He was banned by the EPCR, this was overturned in France as stated at the top of the thread

LondonTiger wrote:A tribunal made up of two FFR representatives plus LNR representatives decided there was insufficient evidence to have convicted Sempere in a French court. He has thus been cleared to play in the T14

As for point 4, the French signed a contract that said they would adhere to the disciplinary rules of the EPCR. That supercedes the Tincu finding, which contrary to your assertion, is not employment law.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Phil, do you accept that the French knew this particular rule before they agreed to particpiate? I think they probably did so in my view they shouldn't have agreed to it.

Sure they knew it. It underpins their society.

What rugby needs to move on from is the cosy click of blazers thinking that their 'power' exceeds the law of the land.

So the EPCR are the blazers, and FFR are not?

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Phil, do you accept that the French knew this particular rule before they agreed to particpiate? I think they probably did so in my view they shouldn't have agreed to it.

Sure they knew it. It underpins their society.

What rugby needs to move on from is the cosy click of blazers thinking that their 'power' exceeds the law of the land.

You fail to see the irony that contract law forms part of the law of the land, you can't sign a contract and then turn around and fail to uphold your end of it. Even Mourad isn't crazy enough to not know that

LondonTiger wrote:Banned on 27th January, reviewed in 22nd Feb - missed at least 3 matches before it was overturned.

I have been discussing this with our lawyer (at Cameron McKenna - http://www.cms-cmck.com/) who is a massive rugby fan - and player for Ireland schools several moons ago, and enjoys shooting the breeze about rugby. Not sure if he has spoken to anyone at their Paris office, but he is firmly of the opinion that the statement put out by Stade/LNR/FFR is complete Love sacks. Such a ban from playing would not be a contravention of French employment laws, especially as he is still employed and being paid.

Interesting.

The 3 matches were for the French hearing, of course.

marty2086 wrote:

Maybe you would like to go get your facts straight Phil before attempting to lecture everyone else. He was banned by the EPCR, this was overturned in France as stated at the top of the thread

LondonTiger wrote:A tribunal made up of two FFR representatives plus LNR representatives decided there was insufficient evidence to have convicted Sempere in a French court. He has thus been cleared to play in the T14

As for point 4, the French signed a contract that said they would adhere to the disciplinary rules of the EPCR. That supercedes the Tincu finding, which contrary to your assertion, is not employment law.

You're awfully confused.

The EPCR hearing was in London.

The EPCR doesn't over rule French law.

Is it sinking in yet?

Munchkin wrote:

So the EPCR are the blazers, and FFR are not?

FFR have to follow the laws of France, Munchy.

See the difference?

marty2086 wrote:
You fail to see the irony that contract law forms part of the law of the land, you can't sign a contract and then turn around and fail to uphold your end of it. Even Mourad isn't crazy enough to not know that

Yeah you can, if that part of the 'law' contradicts another.

Ask Perpignan. Or Stade.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Maybe you would like to go get your facts straight Phil before attempting to lecture everyone else. He was banned by the EPCR, this was overturned in France as stated at the top of the thread

LondonTiger wrote:A tribunal made up of two FFR representatives plus LNR representatives decided there was insufficient evidence to have convicted Sempere in a French court. He has thus been cleared to play in the T14

As for point 4, the French signed a contract that said they would adhere to the disciplinary rules of the EPCR. That supercedes the Tincu finding, which contrary to your assertion, is not employment law.

You're awfully confused.

The EPCR hearing was in London.

The EPCR doesn't over rule French law.

Is it sinking in yet?

Philbert, you are the one confused. When did I say anything about were the EPCR hearing was held and I didn't say it overrules French law

marty2086 wrote:

Philbert, you are the one confused. When did I say anything about were the EPCR hearing was held and I didn't say it overrules French law

Points 1 and 4 in your post above, Martyn.

This is yet another 7+17 moment.

Do you think the French should pull out of Europe as they have agree to something they had no intentions of following? Will they pull out of the 6 Nations too?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Do you think the French should pull out of Europe as they have agree to something they had no intentions of following? Will they pull out of the 6 Nations too?

Yes, of course I do. And they should pull out of NATO.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

Philbert, you are the one confused. When did I say anything about were the EPCR hearing was held and I didn't say it overrules French law

Points 1 and 4 in your post above, Martyn.

This is yet another 7+17 moment.

In your eagerness to try and contradict me you fail to grasp that the hearing Im talking about is the second hearing, there was more than one, the hearing that was held by the FFR and LNR that overturned his ban in France

Maybe try being less of a smartass

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:

So the EPCR are the blazers, and FFR are not?

FFR have to follow the laws of France, Munchy.

See the difference?

FFR didn't have to take part in the commission. It wasn't a French court. EPCR would be under European law, not French. It was the French blazers that let him off the hook.

Now, are you saying that EPCR are blazers?

marty2086 wrote:

In your eagerness to try and contradict me you fail to grasp that the hearing Im talking about is the second hearing, there was more than one, the hearing that was held by the FFR and LNR that overturned his ban in France

Maybe try being less of a smartass

The second hearing released him to play, so you seem to be finally recognising where the legitimacy of decision rests. This is progress.

And point 4? No answer? Thought not.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Do you think the French should pull out of Europe as they have agree to something they had no intentions of following? Will they pull out of the 6 Nations too?

Yes, of course I do. And they should pull out of NATO.

So we generally agree on the rugby front then. I have no idea waht NATO has got to do with it. If they don't want to pull out of those comps though I think they need to abide by the rules they have agreed to abide to.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

In your eagerness to try and contradict me you fail to grasp that the hearing Im talking about is the second hearing, there was more than one, the hearing that was held by the FFR and LNR that overturned his ban in France

Maybe try being less of a smartass

The second hearing released him to play, so you seem to be finally recognising where the legitimacy of decision rests. This is progress.

And point 4? No answer? Thought not.

Again with telling me what Im thinking and saying?

What exactly did I say along those lines?

And what am I meant to be answering?

NATO are in this with the Blazers. Damned obvious.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

In your eagerness to try and contradict me you fail to grasp that the hearing Im talking about is the second hearing, there was more than one, the hearing that was held by the FFR and LNR that overturned his ban in France

Maybe try being less of a smartass

The second hearing released him to play, so you seem to be finally recognising where the legitimacy of decision rests. This is progress.

And point 4? No answer? Thought not.

So Phil talking of legitimacy you think its legitimate that he was banned and the ban was adhered to until they needed him and then said we need him, this ban is harsh what can you do in contravention of the contract they signed with EPCR?

Or that the FFR and LNR applied a standard that they don't even use in their own hearings?

Munchkin wrote:

FFR didn't have to take part in the commission. It wasn't a French court. EPCR would be under European law, not French. It was the French blazers that let him off the hook.

Now, are you saying that EPCR are blazers?

WTF???

'EPCR would be under European Law'???? What on earth is that kind of statement?

It was French law that let him off the hook.

And, yes, sadly EPCR had to go for the 50/50 World Rugby controlled nonsense, making them blazers. It's not a professional, independent, organisation led disciplinary committee.

Sadly, of course, that Committee was led by Pat Barriscale

No 7&1/2 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Do you think the French should pull out of Europe as they have agree to something they had no intentions of following? Will they pull out of the 6 Nations too?

Yes, of course I do. And they should pull out of NATO.

So we generally agree on the rugby front then. I have no idea waht NATO has got to do with it. If they don't want to pull out of those comps though I think they need to abide by the rules they have agreed to abide to.

The reference to NATO was a nod to the stupidity of the question.