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.

marty2086 wrote:

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?

We've reached this point already? You normally last a little longer.

Let's refresh - the ruling of EPCR is not gospel in France. Legally. Are you with me so far?

So you haven't given a straight answer to a straight question then? So do you believe the French clubs should pull out of the Euro comp and the national team should pull out of the 6 Nations (and all international comps) as they clearly don't agree and don't intend on following the rules? Or do you feel it's their right to ignore any rules as they see fit; and is that fair on the rest of the rugby playing world?

marty2086 wrote:

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?

The ban wasn't adhered to until they needed him. It was adhered to until the hearing was held that overturned it.

I don't understand the rest of the questioning as it clearly is based on a false premise.

No 7&1/2 wrote:So you haven't given a straight answer to a straight question then? So do you believe the French clubs should pull out of the Euro comp and the national team should pull out of the 6 Nations (and all international comps) as they clearly don't agree and don't intend on following the rules? Or do you feel it's their right to ignore any rules as they see fit; and is that fair on the rest of the rugby playing world?

Its a remarkably stupid question.

What you seem to be ignoring in your analysis is that the administrative regulations of EPRC cannot legitimately cover five separate legal systems. Therefore, no contract would be able to be drawn that all parties could agree to in full.

It's not a question of French clubs 'pulling out'. If EPRC wish to implement a set of rules that would require French law to be challenged then they have two options: 1) face the French clubs ignoring the rules that they are able to or 2) not inviting French clubs.

They clearly have chosen point 1 and they have done so safe in the knowledge of Tincu.

I feel that it is right to follow the law of the land, not the law of the blazer.

Why is asking your opinion on a subject stupid? The French clubs have joined this comp with no intention of obeying the rules they signed up to. Very dishonest. Surely they shouldn't have signed? They are also part of Internationals where the same thing can happen. Surely you'd like to see them pull out? If not why not?

PhilBB wrote:

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

So the EPCR are the Blazers now.... It's Animal Farm.

Even if it was French law that let him off the hook, French law can be overturned by European law, just as certain figures in PRL/LNR were threatening to go to European court if they didn't get their way, during the battle over the HEC, although that sort of misses the real point. The real point being that the ERCC is a European competition run under European law. Not a French competition run under French law. Whatever way you look at it, the actions of the French have turned the competition into farce, and the weak French Blazers had their part to play in that.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

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?

The ban wasn't adhered to until they needed him. It was adhered to until the hearing was held that overturned it.

I don't understand the rest of the questioning as it clearly is based on a false premise.

No it was until they needed him, that's why they only appealed his and not the two other bans that they also received for gouging

No false premise, the LNR don't apply the same standard as French law when holding disciplinary hearings, they adhere to the same standard as EPCR

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

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?

We've reached this point already? You normally last a little longer.

Let's refresh - the ruling of EPCR is not gospel in France. Legally. Are you with me so far?

Last longer? You mean you normally wait longer to tell me what Im saying?

Within a contract you can forego certain rights, it doesn't mean it overrides French law and adhering to the ban initially and with other bans is proof of it

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why is asking your opinion on a subject stupid? The French clubs have joined this comp with no intention of obeying the rules they signed up to. Very dishonest. Surely they shouldn't have signed? They are also part of Internationals where the same thing can happen. Surely you'd like to see them pull out? If not why not?

FFS.

They can't obey the rules they signed up to.

I've already answered these inane questions.

Munchkin wrote:
So the EPCR are the Blazers now.... It's Animal Farm.

Even if it was French law that let him off the hook, French law can be overturned by European law, just as certain figures in PRL/LNR were threatening to go to European court if they didn't get their way, during the battle over the HEC, although that sort of misses the real point. The real point being that the ERCC is a European competition run under European law. Not a French competition run under French law. Whatever way you look at it, the actions of the French have turned the competition into farce, and the weak French Blazers had their part to play in that.

Of course EPCR are blazers. The World Rugby bs on only having Unions run/own competitions forced the 50/50 split - remember? Still, it's a 50% progression in the right direction from the amateur shambles that was ERC.

You are awfully confused on this. EPRC isn't part of European law, Champ. It's just a business based in Switzerland. It isn't covered 'by European law', it's just a business. It doesn't trump French law.

There is the source of your confusion. Do some reading on it to alleviate your confusion.

marty2086 wrote:

No it was until they needed him, that's why they only appealed his and not the two other bans that they also received for gouging

No false premise, the LNR don't apply the same standard as French law when holding disciplinary hearings, they adhere to the same standard as EPCR

OK - shows us the timeline as you think it played out.

And your second sentence shows that you haven't been paying attention. Have a look back to the point raised by Tincu to the French authorities about non-French competitions banning players from playing in French competitions. Had you understood that, you wouldn't have written the drivel about LNR because, as is blindingly obvious, they have the power to ban French players from their competition as it is not cross border.

marty2086 wrote:
Last longer? You mean you normally wait longer to tell me what Im saying?

Within a contract you can forego certain rights, it doesn't mean it overrides French law and adhering to the ban initially and with other bans is proof of it

I'm looking forward to this timeline.

PhilBB wrote:

No 7&1/2 wrote:Why is asking your opinion on a subject stupid? The French clubs have joined this comp with no intention of obeying the rules they signed up to. Very dishonest. Surely they shouldn't have signed? They are also part of Internationals where the same thing can happen. Surely you'd like to see them pull out? If not why not?

FFS.

They can't obey the rules they signed up to.

I've already answered these inane questions.

So you agree they shouldn't have signed and that they were dishonest. Should they now pull out of the comps, club and international?

Or be thrown out?

No 7&1/2 wrote:Or be thrown out?

A claim of dishonesty is remarkably stupid when you understand that there is precedent for this.

What SHOULD happen is that rugby should follow soccer's lead and ban players only from the tournament in which they committed an offence.

EPRC know that there is the opportunity for French law to over rule their disciplinary procedure. It's something that we have to live with if we want to play in a competition with the French.

It's a bit like having to deal with one employer of all players and officials in Ireland. It's far from perfect, but it's an unfortunate (at the moment) cost to bear.

No it isn't. You've already said that the clubs will have known about this. And then they've signed something with the full knowledge they don't intend to honour that. That's very dishonest. So my question for you is do you think that's morally right and should they pull out of the tournaments, club and international? As we've already discussed football has set precedents for banning people in more than one competition.

No 7&1/2 wrote:No it isn't. You've already said that the clubs will have known about this. And then they've signed something with the full knowledge they don't intend to honour that. That's very dishonest. So my question for you is do you think that's morally right and should they pull out of the tournaments, club and international? As we've already discussed football has set precedents for banning people in more than one competition.

This is getting painful.

1. They CANNOT honour the clause of abiding by the disciplinary procedure, as has been noted countless times, as it would be impossible for them to do so.
2. It is not dishonest as all parties to the contract would be fully aware of Tincu.
3. Is it morally right that French law usurps the World Rugby's nonsense? Yes, it is.
4. Should they pul out of tournaments? No.
5. The football fan was set by FIFA, so it is not analogous to a tournament based in Switzerland.

I understand what you're saying on the fact they cannot honour it, I've taken your word on that. It is dishonest as they've signed up to the fact they will honour it. Is it morally right that they do that?

World Rugbys nonsense it may be, personally I see great sense in switching to international bans relating just to that etc but currently it's not, teams should play to the agreed rules and negotiate change.

Why should they continue in tournaments whose rules they disagree with and ignore. again just dishonest, have the courage of their convictions and pull out surely.

Suarezs ban was earned in an international tournament, as above I don't thin that should be passed to clubs; which way do you support?

No 7&1/2 wrote:I understand what you're saying on the fact they cannot honour it, I've taken your word on that. It is dishonest as they've signed up to the fact they will honour it. Is it morally right that they do that?

World Rugbys nonsense it may be, personally I see great sense in switching to international bans relating just to that etc but currently it's not, teams should play to the agreed rules and negotiate change.

Why should they continue in tournaments whose rules they disagree with and ignore. again just dishonest, have the courage of their convictions and pull out surely.

Suarezs ban was earned in an international tournament, as above I don't thin that should be passed to clubs; which way do you support?

You're asking the wrong question. The correct question to ask is 'is it morally right to expect French businesses to sign a contract in which there are clauses they know they cannot honour, if challenged?'.

Bans should be for the tournament in which the offence was committed.

As we saw with the O'Connell nonsense earlier in this thread, moving to that solution would be much neater.

No that may be your question, mine isn't. We are in agreement that it would be better for suspension rules to only affect the competitions they occur in, though this doesn't even fully happen in football. Until that does change the clubs should obey the rules of the competitions they enter though.

French clubs are currently being dishonest in the way they are challenging this, behaving like spoilt children in cases.

No 7&1/2 wrote:
French clubs are currently being dishonest in the way they are challenging this, behaving like spoilt children in cases.

Oh come on.

7 1/2 your urinating in the wind with this one, he thinks hes always right and doesn't know how to back down. If I were you I'd walk away because he's claiming that its impossible for French clubs to honour the bans in spite of the fact that they are honouring bans from the EPCR, 6Ns and RWC

It's strange as we both do believe it would be better to change the rules. I'm just very much for that change to happen through negotiation rather than feet stamping and dishonesty!

A bit like the fuss kicked up with the wage cap in the AViva, some clubs didn't like the fact it was set at a lower level than they would have preferred. The way round that should be to get agreement to raise it but not to just ignore it.

marty2086 wrote:7 1/2 your urinating in the wind with this one, he thinks hes always right and doesn't know how to back down. If I were you I'd walk away because he's claiming that its impossible for French clubs to honour the bans in spite of the fact that they are honouring bans from the EPCR, 6Ns and RWC

It's not impossible. It's impossible when challenged.

Maybe the subtle difference is too much for you.

So it is possible for them to play to the rules that tehy agreed to then. Thanks.

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:7 1/2 your urinating in the wind with this one, he thinks hes always right and doesn't know how to back down. If I were you I'd walk away because he's claiming that its impossible for French clubs to honour the bans in spite of the fact that they are honouring bans from the EPCR, 6Ns and RWC

It's not impossible. It's impossible when challenged.

Maybe the subtle difference is too much for you.

That's not what you said

1. They CANNOT honour the clause of abiding by the disciplinary procedure, as has been noted countless times, as it would be impossible for them to do so.

And its not what you meant

The French may well be hoist by their own petard this season as the Top 14 final is in Spain so by their own rulings any bans from the SFs etc could be ignored

marty2086 wrote:
And its not what you meant

Bloody hell, this is painful.

They cannot honour the clause as it would be illegal. They can abide by it, until somebody (let's say the player) complains.

You know, the player who would lose out on his match fee, win bonus and potentially affect the value of his next contract by not playing.

Does everything have to be written in Janet and John speak for it to register with you?

marty2086 wrote:The French may well be hoist by their own petard this season as the Top 14 final is in Spain so by their own rulings any bans from the SFs etc could be ignored

FFS, how dull.

The French clubs could choose to adhere to the disciplinary process that they agreed to. It is only when they choose to challenge it that French Law comes into play. So it is dishonest of the French clubs to sign an agreement which they could choose to adhere to but choose to challenge it.
As stated in my previous post even if the player challenges it the club still doesnt have to pick him.

So they can honour it. And presumably they intended to when they signed up to it to say they would honour it. So are you saying it's the players who are playing this loophole? Is that why we see isolated incidents from the money grabbers (and eye gougers)?

Phil your backtracking at some rate there, they agreed to something that everyone knew couldn't be honoured but the French clubs adhere to it until a player challenges it but it was Stade who challenged the decision in this case so emmm yeah

Even though the whole thing wasn't challenged on the validity of the clause in French law but the burden of proof that was presented which is the first time its been used

No 7&1/2 wrote:So they can honour it. And presumably they intended to when they signed up to it to say they would honour it. So are you saying it's the players who are playing this loophole? Is that why we see isolated incidents from the money grabbers (and eye gougers)?

Pass, I don't know Sempere.

I do know that very few club supporters, and no international followers, can take a moral high ground on gouging etc.

broadlandboy wrote:The French clubs could choose to adhere to the disciplinary process that they agreed to. It is only when they choose to challenge it that French Law comes into play. So it is dishonest of the French clubs to sign an agreement which they could choose to adhere to but choose to challenge it.
As stated in my previous post even if the player challenges it the club still doesnt have to pick him.

The player can challenge it, not only the club.

If the club doesn't pick him because of a ban that is not justified under his terms of employment, that would well lead the club into hot water.

marty2086 wrote:Phil your backtracking at some rate there, they agreed to something that everyone knew couldn't be honoured but the French clubs adhere to it until a player challenges it but it was Stade who challenged the decision in this case so emmm yeah

Even though the whole thing wasn't challenged on the validity of the clause in French law but the burden of proof that was presented which is the first time its been used

Aha, when the enlightenment reaches you, we get claims of backtracking.

Sempere?

Now you don't know if they can honour it Phil? Because earlier you said they couldn't, then that they could? Eye gouging is awful, the players here playing the system and going against their clubs wishes (as you seem to be pointing to now, but that seems to have changed from before) is awful isn't it?

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Phil your backtracking at some rate there, they agreed to something that everyone knew couldn't be honoured but the French clubs adhere to it until a player challenges it but it was Stade who challenged the decision in this case so emmm yeah

Even though the whole thing wasn't challenged on the validity of the clause in French law but the burden of proof that was presented which is the first time its been used

Aha, when the enlightenment reaches you, we get claims of backtracking.

Claims?

From this

1. They CANNOT honour the clause of abiding by the disciplinary procedure, as has been noted countless times, as it would be impossible for them to do so.

To this

It's not impossible. It's impossible when challenged.

That's a back track

As for enlightment, you keep talking about employment law which is irrelevant to everything because unless you have a French law degree I doubt your placed to speak on it especially as the Tincu case was never tested on employment law, merely jurisdiction

PhilBB wrote:

Munchkin wrote:
So the EPCR are the Blazers now.... It's Animal Farm.

Even if it was French law that let him off the hook, French law can be overturned by European law, just as certain figures in PRL/LNR were threatening to go to European court if they didn't get their way, during the battle over the HEC, although that sort of misses the real point. The real point being that the ERCC is a European competition run under European law. Not a French competition run under French law. Whatever way you look at it, the actions of the French have turned the competition into farce, and the weak French Blazers had their part to play in that.

Of course EPCR are blazers. The World Rugby bs on only having Unions run/own competitions forced the 50/50 split - remember? Still, it's a 50% progression in the right direction from the amateur shambles that was ERC.

You are awfully confused on this. EPRC isn't part of European law, Champ. It's just a business based in Switzerland. It isn't covered 'by European law', it's just a business. It doesn't trump French law.

There is the source of your confusion. Do some reading on it to alleviate your confusion.

Your froth is hilarious. Are you unable to post without froth? You frothed a lot about the refereeing of the Connacht game, posted a clip of an incident that you claimed was identical, and got it completely wrong. Your froth isn't very convincing.

Not everyone would agree with you that EPCR is run by Blazers:

Gone are the days of the union-led European Rugby Cup (ERC); replaced, again to the satisfaction of English and French clubs, with the team-run European Professional Club Rugby (EPCR). A board of directors will manage the three tournaments, along with an all-powerful, and commercially focussed, executive committee, composed of an as-yet unnamed independent chairman, a director-general and voting representatives from the Top 14, Premiership Rugby and the Pro 12. Commercial power has been handed to the clubs, while administrative control remains with the unions: another resounding tick on the Anglo-French wishlist.

Blazers?

No pleasing some folk though, eh?

On European law, and how it relates to EPCR? I do actually read up on things, and checked out LawinSport, but being limited to 3 articles, and having used my quota for today already, I will have to wait until tomorrow. You do avoid the main point though. The point being that EPCR is not under the dictate of French law, that the French signed up to an agreement which will have included the disciplinary process, that EPCR could take this matter to the European court. They won't but, like you, that misses the point.

am surprised this thread is still going on. not going to add much to this so called legal battle because there is none really. the FFR/LNR made-up commission just chose to overrule a EPCR ban on the basis of many factors but all in all did they have the right to do so? yes and no. yes because they rule the top14 and the disciplinary process that goes with it and no well because clubs should in theory still abide to the EPCR decisions. so it remains a grey area and rightly so because the EPCR governance is not clear as opposed to what we have in football for instance where the FFF is part of the UEFA etc so will always follow UEFA decisions whereby the FFF is not part of the EPCR. the EPCR is , from my limited understanding, some organisation that clubs are part of so the difference is quite telling and therefore the FFR is entitled to go their "own way".

coming back to the specifics of the Sempere case , again please correct me if am wrong (as I cant find the official report) but this is how media has reported it here (following a interview of Sempere on a tv rugby show):
- On the gouging incident : it was not clear which player was guilty of theattack to Ayerza eyes. all happened at a moment where lots of forwards were fighting for the ball in a ruck or maul.
- Sempere was therefore found guilty a bit by default after "eliminating" other players who could have been guilty. but it remains that there is no real evidence that it was him. In fact it is said that the judges even asked him to " snitch" on a teammate.
- eventually Sempere decided to plead non guilty so he got a higher ban than the lock who did plead guilty and got 8 weeks. also mentioned that he could not even have a lawyer doing the talk on his behalf given the language barrier does not makes things easy and fair.
maybe the above is exaggerated or simply BS but if not it does sound to me like a fair trial (at least not by my standards but then I do not bow to any queen ) and this is what ultimately lead to this ban reversal.

whocares wrote:
coming back to the specifics of the Sempere case , again please correct me if am wrong (as I cant find the official report) but this is how media has reported it here (following a interview of Sempere on a tv rugby show):
- On the gouging incident : it was not clear which player was guilty of theattack to Ayerza eyes. all happened at a moment where lots of forwards were fighting for the ball in a ruck or maul.
- Sempere was therefore found guilty a bit by default after "eliminating" other players who could have been guilty. but it remains that there is no real evidence that it was him. In fact it is said that the judges even asked him to " snitch" on a teammate.
- eventually Sempere decided to plead non guilty so he got a higher ban than the lock who did plead guilty and got 8 weeks. also mentioned that he could not even have a lawyer doing the talk on his behalf given the language barrier does not makes things easy and fair.
maybe the above is exaggerated or simply BS but if not it does sound to me like a fair trial (at least not by my standards but then I do not bow to any queen ) and this is what ultimately lead to this ban reversal.  

whocares, he wasn't asked to snitch he was basically shown the incident and asked to tell them who it was if it wasn't his. The incident can be clearly seen but not who carries it out but what the citing commissioner was able to do through photos and video is account for every arm and hand except one, which was Semperes right, incidentally it was a right hand that raked the eyes.

It may not meet the standards of a French criminal court but the hearing the LNR/FFR held was not held in a court so they were not placed to say that, also their hearing did not amount to a fair trial as they did not have anyone presenting evidence for the EPCR.

I may be wrong and you may be able to tell me better but the statement from the French tribunal says that it is the first time they have used the French legal standard in a hearing?

marty2086 wrote:
I may be wrong and you may be able to tell me better but the statement from the French tribunal says that it is the first time they have used the French legal standard in a hearing?

are you referring to the FFR/LNR commission? nothing to do with a French court, those guys are not judges and not even sure they are all lawyers. don't think there was a proper hearing as well, all done behind closed doors with a representative from stade français and various ones from FFR and LNR. French law was only mentioned later on to justify the decision basically.

whocares wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
I may be wrong and you may be able to tell me better but the statement from the French tribunal says that it is the first time they have used the French legal standard in a hearing?

are you referring to the FFR/LNR commission? nothing to do with a French court, those guys are not judges and not even sure they are all lawyers. don't think there was a proper hearing as well, all done behind closed doors with a representative from stade français and various ones from FFR and LNR. French law was only mentioned later on to justify the decision basically.

That's why I asked about the statement because they seem to acknowledge they were making it up as they went

marty2086 wrote:

whocares wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
I may be wrong and you may be able to tell me better but the statement from the French tribunal says that it is the first time they have used the French legal standard in a hearing?

are you referring to the FFR/LNR commission? nothing to do with a French court, those guys are not judges and not even sure they are all lawyers. don't think there was a proper hearing as well, all done behind closed doors with a representative from stade français and various ones from FFR and LNR. French law was only mentioned later on to justify the decision basically.

That's why I asked about the statement because they seem to acknowledge they were making it up as they went

I don't agree on that although French law do require strong evidences and the main principle is that your are not guilty unless proven otherwise - but would be surprised if that wasn't the case elsewhere...

whocares wrote:

marty2086 wrote:

whocares wrote:

marty2086 wrote:
I may be wrong and you may be able to tell me better but the statement from the French tribunal says that it is the first time they have used the French legal standard in a hearing?

are you referring to the FFR/LNR commission? nothing to do with a French court, those guys are not judges and not even sure they are all lawyers. don't think there was a proper hearing as well, all done behind closed doors with a representative from stade français and various ones from FFR and LNR. French law was only mentioned later on to justify the decision basically.

That's why I asked about the statement because they seem to acknowledge they were making it up as they went

I don't agree on that although French law do require strong evidences and the main principle is that your are not guilty unless proven otherwise - but would be surprised if that wasn't the case elsewhere...

'On a plaidé l’absence de preuve, d’image, explique le directeur général du Stade Français Pierre Arnald. Dans le droit français, il faut des preuves pour condamner. On a plaidé le fait que dans le droit français, la décision n’aurait pas été valable. C’est une première pour une commission d’extension. Laurent peut jouer dès ce week-end'

Sorry the quote is from Stade not the LNR/FFR but Arnald their CEO is saying the commission haven't done this before?

yes that's correct Marty.
am worried it might give ideas to the Mourads of this world

whocares wrote:yes that's correct Marty.
am worried it might give ideas to the Mourads of this world

He usually doesn't need help coming up with mad ideas

marty2086 wrote:

PhilBB wrote:

marty2086 wrote:Phil your backtracking at some rate there, they agreed to something that everyone knew couldn't be honoured but the French clubs adhere to it until a player challenges it but it was Stade who challenged the decision in this case so emmm yeah

Even though the whole thing wasn't challenged on the validity of the clause in French law but the burden of proof that was presented which is the first time its been used

Aha, when the enlightenment reaches you, we get claims of backtracking.

Claims?

From this

1. They CANNOT honour the clause of abiding by the disciplinary procedure, as has been noted countless times, as it would be impossible for them to do so.

To this

It's not impossible. It's impossible when challenged.

That's a back track

As for enlightment, you keep talking about employment law which is irrelevant to everything because unless you have a French law degree I doubt your placed to speak on it especially as the Tincu case was never tested on employment law, merely jurisdiction

Oh dear. It's not a backtrack, it's a further explanation of a previous point but made in Key Stage 2 terms so that the dumbest can understand.

http://www.cafebabel.co.uk/article/french-romanian-rugby-player-marius-tincu-scrums-down-with-eu-law.html

What was the case Tincu took to CNOSF?

Munchkin wrote:
Your froth is hilarious. Are you unable to post without froth? You frothed a lot about the refereeing of the Connacht game, posted a clip of an incident that you claimed was identical, and got it completely wrong. Your froth isn't very convincing.

Not everyone would agree with you that EPCR is run by Blazers:

Gone are the days of the union-led European Rugby Cup (ERC); replaced, again to the satisfaction of English and French clubs, with the team-run European Professional Club Rugby (EPCR). A board of directors will manage the three tournaments, along with an all-powerful, and commercially focussed, executive committee, composed of an as-yet unnamed independent chairman, a director-general and voting representatives from the Top 14, Premiership Rugby and the Pro 12. Commercial power has been handed to the clubs, while administrative control remains with the unions: another resounding tick on the Anglo-French wishlist.

Blazers?

No pleasing some folk though, eh?

On European law, and how it relates to EPCR? I do actually read up on things, and checked out LawinSport, but being limited to 3 articles, and having used my quota for today already, I will have to wait until tomorrow. You do avoid the main point though. The point being that EPCR is not under the dictate of French law, that the French signed up to an agreement which will have included the disciplinary process, that EPCR could take this matter to the European court. They won't but, like you, that misses the point.

I didn't claim the clip was identical. I claimed it was worse.

50/50 ownership model and using Union employees for Disciplinary matters is the point I was referring to on blazers. Your puppy like excitement at scoring a point seems to have led you to play a different game, thus missing your target.

When you logged back in the next day, did you read up on CNOSF? Did you read up on Tincu?

PhilBB wrote:Oh dear. It's not a backtrack, it's a further explanation of a previous point but made in Key Stage 2 terms so that the dumbest can understand.

http://www.cafebabel.co.uk/article/french-romanian-rugby-player-marius-tincu-scrums-down-with-eu-law.html

What was the case Tincu took to CNOSF?

Yet if someone else does that you claim backtrack? baffling

Lets take this to Key Stage 3 for you since you're so much smarter

'The 30-year-old is refusing to adhere to the rules, which could contravene European employment law. International authorities are investigating'

'Contesting the validity of the initial decision, Perpignan requested an advisory opinion from France’s national olympic and sports committee (CNOSF)'

So they did not rule is was illegal but gave their opinion it wasn't? A French sports body advising on EU Employment Law

So no legally binding ruling was handed down? So Tincu is irrelevant to this whole argument?

Not to mention

'In other words, the regulations of the ERC, a private legal enterprise and not a sporting federation, seem to contravene European law insofar as they impede free entry to the European labour market'

This is an oversimplification of the status as that private legal entity was run by Federations, not to mention LNR isn't a Federation so that would invalidate all Top 14 and ProD2 suspensions.

Free entry into the labour market also isn't restricted as he was already in the labour market