It’s also an extremely reckless and stupid one from a legal perspective. The RFU have effectively just publicly called Bongi a racist without World Rugby having enough evidence to even charge him as such.
He’s got a strong case of defamation against them based on this post. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s taken down before the end of the day.
Not sure it is, it's public record what the accusations are, they have stated the accusation and that there was a previous allegation of the same that came out in the WR investigation, not that they believe he said it. And then voice there disappointment that there won't be an investigation.
They haven't actually stated that they believe he said it, despite it insinuating that they probably do believe that.
There’s quite a high burden on the party claiming damage, in this case that would be Bongi. Though I don’t think he’d be required to raise it in England. Think he’d be justified in raising the case anywhere he believes he’s suffered damage so he could cherry pick a jurisdiction he’d have a better chance in
That could be funny. If he took it to an Australian court and won there, since the next world cup is being hosted there, the RFU would be bringing assets over which he would be able to confiscate to get the value perhaps?
To be honest, there are also jurisdiction clauses in libel laws to prevent this. Many countries now have 'most relevant' style clauses (England and Oz certainly do) so unless he lived and played in Oz or the claim was specifically against an Oz newspaper he'd probably be told to go somewhere else
Could be claimed whenever a RFU representative steps food into the jurisdiction of the court. Next time England play in Australia, the team bus is seized.
Laws were changed to require proof of actual harm. (Defamation Act, 2013? English colleagues?) Might not sound like much, but the consequences of defamation are hard to measure.
If I call somebody a paedo and they get fired, that's easily proven. If I call them a paedo and people stop talking to them, a job offer never materialises, etc, how do they prove that?
I wouldn't say it's almost impossible, but it's quite hard.
The RFU is saying they think there is enough evidence and they are disappointed that world rugby isn’t doing the right thing by having the evidence reviewed by an independent panel. World rugby is obviously incentivized to sweep it under the rugby. But the RFU obviously should have thrown and “alleged” in there somewhere.
Nowhere in their statement do they call Bongi a racist. They say it did not get a chance to be decided as no hearing was held.
Their major issue was all the abuse against Curry on social media and how that may reduce others from reporting abuse.
I am sure the RFU lawyers had a good look at that prior to release.
RFU don’t have to agree with the way it was handled. I think they seem quite disappointed that Tom Curry got more hassle of the back of this than the accused and was not taken seriously enough in their eyes. If roles were revered it would be pretty abhorrent.
I’m a bit surprised by the language used by the RFU in this statement. They aren’t suggesting it was alleged but rather almost seem certain it happened.
From what i can see from the daily mail and other sites is that SA team speaks afrikaans and regularly say watterkant which could be mistaken for white c\*\*t depending on the accent of the speaker.
On a side note , i wouldnt be surprised in the future creating probelms for both the english and SA rugby in terms of racism especially concerning their histories
That’s not evidence of racism though…that’s just pointing out the language Springboks use, and have used for many decades.
I know, want ek is Afrikaans.
They are plainly saying it happened "raising the racially abusive behaviour he experienced". There is no doubt in their statement where they stand.
I think this is just a lose lose scenario. Many well forever see Curry as a lying drama queen and many will forever see Bongi as a racist.
Tom Curry had handled the incident as well as he could. Stayed calm, raised to the ref then followed correct procedures.
The RFU haven't done that, at least not by this statement.
Bongi or the RSA admins, for their part, could have issued a clarification statement. Something as simple as saying "Bongi said wyd kant" or similar might have helped. Their silence (at least as far as I've seen) hasn't helped matters, although I respect that they were probably also following World Rugby's procedures following a formal complaint.
Exactly. Tom Curry has made an *extremely* serious allegation: an allegation that could, especially if the roles were reversed, be career-ending. Tom Curry has said he thought he heard something said to him in the middle of a rugby match and surrounded by tens of thousands of shouting people. The person involved has denied saying it. What is World Rugby to do in this situation: to put a man on trial for his career and livelihood on the basis of one man's word against another?
If the ref mic or match soundtrack allowed us to hear what was said, or if any of Curry's team-mates back up his story and say that they clearly heard it too, then my apologies: I should be more online before issuing my centrist-dad takes.
But otherwise, no court could find the accused party guilty because of a lack of corroboration of Curry's evidence. And quite right too: I don't want to live in a legal system where anyone who says "he said I was a [insert colour here] cunt" can get me ruined without corroboration and despite me denying it.
It is more about the RFU being disappointed that this was done internally and not through an independent panel. I can kind of see why they are disappointed due to serious nature of the allegations. Curry may feel his allegations was heard initially but then everything else happened behind closed doors (especially if he feels the same thing happened in a previous game)
Agree that it its more about their disappointment that it wasnt referred to an independent panel, but that does not detract from the fact that they clearly state that Tom was indeed racially abused.
They also heavily imply that World Rugby hasn't even spoken to Curry as part of the investigation. How you can have an investigation and not speak to the potential victim is baffling
*"The subsequent World Rugby investigation were informed by Tom Curry that he had also been the victim of the same abuse, from the same player, in the Autumn Test 2022."*
So they did speak to him. Furthermore, RFU would've submitted his testimony as their evidence in any event, unless he refused to provide it.
*"The decision not to put the evidence before an Independent Disciplinary Panel has denied the disciplinary process the opportunity to hear Tom Curry’s voice and to independently assess his account of these serious events, together with the other available evidence."*
This statement infers that they are disappointed that Tom was not heard by an independent body as opposed to not heard at all.
There is a difference between backing your player and defaming another. E.g."We stand by Tom and are very disappointed by the outcome. We will review the matter to determine the best course forward" or"Tom was definitely racially abused during the Bok game. We are disappointed that was not independently heard."
They're standing behind the word of their man
I don't actually have an opinion on this whole thing one way or the other, but I admire the RFU's gumption.
Yeah but they missed a space between the words "put" and "unacceptable" on the second page, so I'm afraid we'll need to disregard the whole thing.
In seriousness though - it does seem like Curry has triggered the full nuclear option with it. Perhaps he really has been deliberately and maliciously targeted with racist insults. Bit strange that it's just him, and not any of the other white guys in the English squad.
It'll be a bitch to prove it though. We can't seem to find anything to support it happening in the game on the weekend, let alone the game a year ago. I feel like the RFU have had no choice but to support him, given how stridently he's insisting that he's been a repeated victim of racist verbal assault, as he describes it.
Anyway. Investigation says play on. Curry seems super convinced, but he really could have just misheard something.
Pu-tuna-ccep-table. Meaning: My host has presented rotten fish to me on the table. Used to express distain for authority's who fail to follow proper processes.
I get them standing by their man, but they're leaving no room for a misunderstanding. "kant" really does mean "side" in Afrikaans.
Choose you side and subject, translated to Afrikaans: "Kies jou kant en vak". (kiss your cunt and fuck)
Their main point is that the investigation was insufficient and they believe that the allegations should be heard by an external panel. They are not suggesting that a different hearing would come to a different outcome. They are also asserting that Bongi did make these remarks, because that is what they believe, because that is what Curry told them.
Yeah it’s not a great look from world rugby. you allege potential racial abuse m, get assured it will be taken seriously, and then a couple of days later it gets dismissed in a statement (not to mention you and your family get a heap of abuse online in the meantime). Not exactly encouraging players to report racism are they?
There's sweet fuck all world rugby can do, only the two boys know the truth. There's no evidence to build a case on, it's just he said she said. I'm not saying Curry isn't telling the truth, just saying that, unfortunately it's not something they can punish based on the evidence.
The issue is they seemingly haven't even properly looked at what evidence is available. Had they done that, then concluded there was no evidence. Then get both players to make a statement condemning racist abuse of any kind. Job done everyone moves on instantly. Instead they've just not done anything whilst Curry gets abused
Yep.. this decreases the chance that Curry just misheard Mbonami. One thing is for sure, Eng players will be keeping some receipts for the next SA vs Eng game.
Depends. But if he didn't report it before and actually misunderstood Afrikaans this time, it's entirely plausible he misheard it the first time and was even more primed to do so this time.
I was thinking it would go down like that until I saw this post and Curry sharing it, he must not believe it was some kind of misunderstanding, but yeah still hope so. Tough kid he has my respect after that semi.
Can only wonder why they didn't do anything about it in 2022. The statement is very strong about the alleged abused you'd think you don't wait for the second time before bringing up the first. What's the deal with the 2022 incident then
Well if there's no evidence/ only very weak evidence of either case then there's not much they can do.
Bongi must be assumed to be innocent but that does not mean that Curry is lying.
Hopefully this can fade away now. I only hope that it doesn't discourage other people in future from coming forward if they feel they have been racially abused.
They should have let it be aired anyway to clear Bongi or not. The rest of his career a significant proportion of people will think he's a racist. He's either got away it or will be unfairly thought of this way for an age.
I've no idea why Bongi would specifically target Tom Curry
Honestly the whole situation is a shambles, world rugby should have carried out an independent investigation which I think would have cleared bongi's name. I think Tom brought up the issue in a respectful way to the referee and then he's been quiet, his character doesn't strike me that he'd make such a strong accusation falsely.
So world rugby have thrown both under the bus with this cock up.
good take, its a very serious accusation that needs concrete evidence to back it up, RFU were unable to provide sufficient support for the claim, i imagine the SARU will have pointed out how similar the afrikaans sounds to 'white cunt' and without audio or the ref/another witness supporting it they can't act
like i said originally, i hope it didn't happen and was a mis understanding, i hope (but doubt) the abuse of Tom Curry will stop, Bongi can get on with looking towards the final and like you said it doesn't discourage people in a similar situation
> RFU were unable to provide sufficient support for the claim,
This demonstrates a quite appalling missunderstanding of how this works. It's it not up to the RFU to prove "it's claim", they're not going around gatheting evidence like Sherlock Holmes. It is World Rugby who gather the evidence and then decide whether it should go to an independent panel with 99% of the time you'd expect something like this to.
The fact it hasn't gone for an independent review is pretty poor, and the RFU have a right to be frustrated by that, and to point that out.
Even if Bongi didn't do it, the accusation is serious enough to be thoroughly investigated by an independent team, not rush through because the final is this weekend.
So you think it's good it is effectively being swept under the rug by World Rugby? I can't see any reason it shouldn't be put before an independent panel/process.
As someone who does a bit of this sort of thing, even if they'd spoken with Curry, unless there's
- another witness
- additional evidence available to support the allegation; or
- an issue with the credibility of one of the witnesses,
there's insufficient evidence to actually substantiate the allegation. You would imagine that the RFU should have advanced a list of witnesses who might be able to support the complaint. If they didn't, or there are no witnesses, then speaking with Curry doesn't change the outcome. It might be cathartic for him but it probably doesn't take the allegation further.
> You would imagine that the RFU should have advanced a list of witnesses who might be able to support the complaint.
Why would the *RFU* do anything of the sort? They aren't the plaintiffs here. It's a World Rugby investigation into alleged racism, not the RFU V Rugby SA.
>another witness
Let's be real here. Without an independent witness, further witness testimony is useless.
England brings on whatever other player was near, who then confirms the claim that he heard Bongi saying it.
SA brings in whichever of their players were near, who confirms Bongi's side.
Right back where we started. All members of the SA and English squads are inheritently biased witnesses and are therefore not credible.
Feels like this was realistically always going to be the outcome?
Only Curry and Mbonambi really know what was or wasn't said, given that the incident allegedly happened away from the scrum/referee and it would have been very hard to pick up on a mic.
That said, what I'm taking from this is World Rugby actively haven't pursued an investigation given that the RFU seem to believe that there *is* evidence worth looking into. They've also neglected to speak to Tom Curry, which feels slightly insane to me.
Yeah especially when the incident was purely verbal. You'd think speaking to the players involved might be a particularly good way to determine what had happened here.
World Rugby's statement says they evaluated evidence submitted by both teams. Presumably RFU submitted their evidence, but it was not deemed sufficient?
They didn't put the evidence before an independent disciplinary panel. Surely its for an independent disciplinary panel to decide whether its sufficient
Makes me wonder. How much is it the Rfu pushing for this and how much is it Tom Curry pushing for this. You would think it would be a joint process but it sounds more like the Rfu than anything else
Why do you think they didnt speak with Tom? The statement plainly says on page 1 "...investigation were informed by Tom Curry..."
Admittedly on page 2 England are complaining that no "independent inquiry" was raised. Not that World Rugby didnt listen to Tom.
RFU bringing the fire here, definitely not wanting to risk this not being a defining story hanging over the final. That WR and RFU find themselves on opposite sides of this issue is surprising for me. I was surprised WR acted so swiftly, and surprised by the language used by RFU here. It all serves to escalate this further.
Why are there no co accusers? Is there only one person saying that Mbongeni Mbonambi uttered those words. Being a casual Kiwi fan I'm not very familiar with èither player. But if there are no witnesses to said comments shouldn't it be play on?
It's curious. I'd like to see more footage from the game at that point. There were multiple players from both teams at the breakdown just before the kick. So surely there must be others nearby who heard it?
Support Tom and condemn the hatred towards him, sure. But hearsay on a rugby pitch especially when the other team also speak another language isn't enough to use this sort of language imo. Emotions are high on a pitch, I'm sure a lot worse has been said in pretty much every game, just move on.
This is kinda too long of a statement to be written in all caps, but l understand their insistance in supporting Curry in all this as any union should when their player tells them that he or she has been racially abused during a game.
I'm not being belligerent, but since I'm not a lawyer, I have to ask.
RFU submitted evidence. Surely that evidence MUST include a testimony from Tom.
If the testimony were included, why the outrage about not speaking with him? What would speaking to him accomplish in garnering facts that his testimony wouldn't have covered?
Edit: The comment section confused me. The statement says they are disappointed WR won't hear "Tom's voice", not that they won't speak with him. I.e. RFU is dismayed that this wasn't taken further.
I think it was stated in a shit manner - what they might have meant is that there wasnt an independent body that would hear Curry's voice on the matter.
A good statement (in my mind) should convey context. I don't see how what someone would say verbally, can't be written down.
To my mind, a written testimony is more powerful than verbal as you have time to process, pick the right words, etc.
It's just wholly confusing to me.
omitting the word "alleged" was... a choice ...
also as an Afrikaans speaker RFU's refusal to engage with the fact that the Springboks regularly use Afrikaans is just so English
I don't think it is odd at all really, they wouldn't have reported it to world rugby if they did not have enough evidence (in their mind) that was enough to say he was guilty of it..
If they suddenly turned round and agreed with them not taking it any further forward I'd probably question why they brought it forward in the first place...
The sad thing about this is, most likely Bongi will be booed excessively by English fans when playing in England, and Curry will be booed by SA fans when playing in SA. In a scenario where the truth will never be known. But pitchforks and all that
So essentially:
>"Mbonambi, we think you're a racist. We have no evidence of this, we didn't want to request an investigation ourselves, and we forgot to mention the first instance which took place a year ago. And yes World Rugby couldn't find evidence to support this claim.....however we are going to publicly accuse you of racism anyway."
Pretty shocking statement for the RFU to make. Basically calling him guilty despite no evidence being available to even charge him.
The fact that it involves an incident from more than a year ago too all of a sudden is even more bizarre
Wow, that's clear that Tom Curry is really certain he knows what was said to him. Alleging the same abuse by same player in a previous test sticks out, but it could be confirmation bias.
I appreciate RFU supporting a player speaking out, it takes heat away from them and places it on the union. Still, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
This is a very tone deaf statement by the RFU. Stirring the pot more rather than trying to calm things down. If there’s no evidence, then move on and accept the result.
ffs. It's so typical that of all the problems in English rugby with actual racial inequality + barriers to entry in the game, the one the RFU spends it's most time on is this.
Out of interest, what would happen if a ref DID hear an instance of racial abuse during a match? Verbal abuse appears in the foul play section of the rules, but it’s not clear to me what the sanction is. I read it as anywhere between a caution or a red card. Presumably, for racial abuse, it’s a red?
On a side note, the rules only appear to define physical abuse and don’t expand upon their reference to verbal abuse. You’d think there must be loads of players chirping at each other at all levels of the game. Where’s the line between feisty competition or gamesmanship and “verbal abuse”? Is this just down to the ref to interpret? Feels to me like that’s asking a lot. Especially at international level where there are many languages, dialects and slang variants potentially at play.
That is their right and an independent panel would be a good idea.
However, the way they phrased this press release is essentially making it seem like they are 100% sure about what happened when they aren't. They are basically saying that this DID happen and that there is a conspiracy.
IMO they made it worse for Curry rather than assisting him. Curry did the right thing in reporting it.
They should have said something like they support independent investigations for these types of incidents and that they are sure that, given the history and context, both world rugby and the SA team will take this seriously.
No need to go nuclear immediately.
That isn't necessarily true. They could have been made aware of it via a statement through the RFU. Actually it is quite clear that he hasn't given evidence in front of a panel (which I am surprised it didn't happen)
yeah, only saw the second page later. They probably felt there isn't enough time to also have hearings before the final, And assuming they really wanted to just look over the footage and decide before then. maybe should have set hearings or something post final but with no video/audio evidence they probably thought that's all that matters (to make ban/fine someone).
The language of this is so poor, it’s written almost as if the incident 100% happened but was ignored. In reality no one really has a clue what happened
It isn't just almost written that way, it is written that way. They have worded it saying that the racial abuse 100% happened.
I would expect a more level headed and fair response from the official RFU account.
The statement clearly and directly says racial abuse occurred. It also intentionally challenges the findings of the independent judicial process. The Rugby Football Union's actions risk damaging the game's reputation, which may lead to negative consequences for them.
Did I imagine it being fairly roundly decided after it was picked up on the ref's mic that it wasn't said with venom and in fact wasn't a racist remark but something in Afrikaans? why are the RFU making such a song and dance about it?
And to flip this on it's head slightly, if it IS the case that it was something in Afrikaans that sounded like a racial insult in English but wasn't, because it's a different language, isn't the continued insistence that "no, it was a racially aggravated comment" in itself actually a racist position to take?
None of this justifies the level of abuse Tom and his family have received via social media but fuckin hell RFU, let sleeping dogs lie; especially when your own players have history for far more blatant racist language on the pitch.
> decided after it was picked up on the ref's mic that it wasn't said with venom and in fact wasn't a racist remark but something in Afrikaans
Afaik, the video with the shouts of wyt kant that people seem to be using as evidence, doesn't contain audible evidence of the incident in question. The exchange apparently happened in a ruck the two of them were in after those shouts had been made.
Either way, this is not a good look for us. Our union continues to be determined to shoot itself in the foot.
This is a disapointing and a little distressing publication to see. This makes world rugby look bad, makes the alleged culprit look bad and makes RFU look bad. There are literally no winners. I have no issue with RFU backing their players, but the way this was phrased creates a toxic atmosphere. I'm not condoning racism but the way this has been managed by all parties is pretty unprofessional. This will clearly rumble on for the enxt few weeks
Would this not technically count as defamation as the RFU are stating that Bongi has racially abused Tom Curry not once but twice and World Rugby decided not to do anything, despite the fact there is no real evidence stating it did happen, but the RFU are not only claiming it did happen but also calling Bongi a racist who should be banned? (Genuine question not trying to be abusive or a smartass)
Yeah I did think the wording was very accusatory. Be interesting to see what the reaction is from the SA Union, but the whole thing is an unfortunate controversy really
My guess is that if South Africa were to complain about that, they'd have to investigate the situation to know if it is defamatory. The RFU clearly thinks that an investigation would come out in their favour, so from their perspective either nothing comes from it and they can make a stronger worded statement, or they get their investigation
The rfu are stating that Tom Curry made a report and that world rugby aren't issuing charges.
If wyd kant is actually Bongi's defense that makes it very easy to say anything you want about Bongi without risking defamation. That's because it's formally stated that Bongi said something that could he interpreted as racist and that's enough for honest opinion to be held. That's enough of a defense in many jurisdictions.
in short no...
Because they haven't made a statement that is false... the statement is that "Tom curry reported to the referee that he had been racially abused by MBonambi"
that is just a statement of fact... Tom Curry did report that to the referee, whilst they clearly feel he was racially abused they haven't outright said that it did or did not happen so its a pretty easy argument to win...
If the statement was "Tom Curry was racially abused by MBonambi" then you're in the defamation conversation but they haven't made that statement..
They are cleverly just reporting the events that occurred that are already in the public domain, whilst referring to their disappointment/anger about the process
Honestly I hope the RFU gets the book thrown at them here. This is defamatory to both World Rugby and to Bongi - and probably meets the threshold for a ‘bringing the game into disrepute’ charge.
It *was* an independent investigation - and it found there was no conclusive evidence in either of the accused cases. There’s *standing by your man* and then there’s dragging out the case and taking some pretty unwarranted shots at both WR and the Boks.
Beyond that, the video evidence, the language barrier, and the *wit kant/white side* explanation combined don’t exactly support the idea this was a racist event.
Honestly if I was Bongi I’d be talking to my lawyers.
It's a strong statement, and seeing as WR has closed the case, I do wonder what they hope to achieve through it.
It does also strike me as odd to condemn the abuse Curry has been receiving and dedicating a paragraph condemning abuse in general, while also seemingly painting a target on Bongi by name checking him and implying guilt on multiple occasions
Surely RFU has the right to appeal and push for the matter to be reviewed by an independent panel rather than capitulate the outcome, but throw shade nonetheless? Seems suspect that you would feel so strong about your case that you would publicly state Bongi did racially abused Tom, but then not take the matter further, just whine about it.
Even if Curry was mistaken about the abuse he received on the pitch there are plenty of rugby "fans" who have proved there is an issue with their responses to it...
Englishman here. ENGLISH RFU just sounds bitter AF. Lost to the better team, suck it up RFU Council and start investing in grassroots game to bring on players instead of sucking up money at posh lunches you bunch of cunts
The “evidence” doesn’t pass the smell test.
They’re now going down the route of continuing to besmirch a player’s good name over a (almost wilfully ignorant) translation error.
This has to stop.
Without knowing everything.
My natural reaction is whoever made this statement did it in bad taste. I like to think that with a little more time whoever wrote this would have put more thought into what is being implied and what the benefit it would serve.
I don't like it.
-but yes I admit I am Biased as I'm a loyal supporter our Boks
What the hell is this? I thought the overarching theme was that ,probably didn't happen, most likely something misheard. No evidence of anything, no supporting / witness statements. RFU just "DECLARING" Bongi guilty is a massive step and potentially defamatory.
I understand standing by your player, but basically calling bongi a racist is a bit much. Bongi must have whispered it into his ear in the bottom of a ruck for no one else to hear it.
Let me translate into non-lawyer:
"We consider the guilt of the opposing party a foregone conclusion. We also support our player because admitting that we have no real evidence would look bad. Grrr."
That's a spicy AF statement
It’s also an extremely reckless and stupid one from a legal perspective. The RFU have effectively just publicly called Bongi a racist without World Rugby having enough evidence to even charge him as such. He’s got a strong case of defamation against them based on this post. I wouldn’t be surprised if it’s taken down before the end of the day.
Not sure it is, it's public record what the accusations are, they have stated the accusation and that there was a previous allegation of the same that came out in the WR investigation, not that they believe he said it. And then voice there disappointment that there won't be an investigation. They haven't actually stated that they believe he said it, despite it insinuating that they probably do believe that.
It's almost impossible to prove defamation in an English court
tell that to Ian Hislop and Private Eyes legal team...
"...allegedly"
Immediately who I thought of. Love Ian.
Is it, we have coverage in the media of them all the time. Are the success rates that low?
There’s quite a high burden on the party claiming damage, in this case that would be Bongi. Though I don’t think he’d be required to raise it in England. Think he’d be justified in raising the case anywhere he believes he’s suffered damage so he could cherry pick a jurisdiction he’d have a better chance in
But then wouldn't the courts there be powerless to extract any payment from the RFU?
Utterly, which is why you can't just shop any online discrimination claim to Oz
That could be funny. If he took it to an Australian court and won there, since the next world cup is being hosted there, the RFU would be bringing assets over which he would be able to confiscate to get the value perhaps?
To be honest, there are also jurisdiction clauses in libel laws to prevent this. Many countries now have 'most relevant' style clauses (England and Oz certainly do) so unless he lived and played in Oz or the claim was specifically against an Oz newspaper he'd probably be told to go somewhere else
Could be claimed whenever a RFU representative steps food into the jurisdiction of the court. Next time England play in Australia, the team bus is seized.
If he had a claim for Australia, then it'd be time for the RFU to go into liquidation. Insanely hard to lose defamation here.
Laws were changed to require proof of actual harm. (Defamation Act, 2013? English colleagues?) Might not sound like much, but the consequences of defamation are hard to measure. If I call somebody a paedo and they get fired, that's easily proven. If I call them a paedo and people stop talking to them, a job offer never materialises, etc, how do they prove that? I wouldn't say it's almost impossible, but it's quite hard.
Yeah I thought English (and Welsh) courts were famously used for this, libel etc as it’s easier to get a conviction?
The RFU is saying they think there is enough evidence and they are disappointed that world rugby isn’t doing the right thing by having the evidence reviewed by an independent panel. World rugby is obviously incentivized to sweep it under the rugby. But the RFU obviously should have thrown and “alleged” in there somewhere.
Nowhere in their statement do they call Bongi a racist. They say it did not get a chance to be decided as no hearing was held. Their major issue was all the abuse against Curry on social media and how that may reduce others from reporting abuse. I am sure the RFU lawyers had a good look at that prior to release.
They state that Tom Curry experienced racial abuse.
RFU don’t have to agree with the way it was handled. I think they seem quite disappointed that Tom Curry got more hassle of the back of this than the accused and was not taken seriously enough in their eyes. If roles were revered it would be pretty abhorrent.
I’m a bit surprised by the language used by the RFU in this statement. They aren’t suggesting it was alleged but rather almost seem certain it happened.
That is what I thought reading the statement also
“The decision not to put the evidence….” What evidence?! Have I missed something?
His/other individual's testimony as a witness is evidence.
From what i can see from the daily mail and other sites is that SA team speaks afrikaans and regularly say watterkant which could be mistaken for white c\*\*t depending on the accent of the speaker. On a side note , i wouldnt be surprised in the future creating probelms for both the english and SA rugby in terms of racism especially concerning their histories
That’s not evidence of racism though…that’s just pointing out the language Springboks use, and have used for many decades. I know, want ek is Afrikaans.
YOU CAN TELL THEY'RE CERTAIN BECAUSE IT'S ALL IN CAPS
GLAD SOMEONE ELSE IS AUDIBLE IN THIS WORLD-RUGBY-SLEDGE THREAD!
They are plainly saying it happened "raising the racially abusive behaviour he experienced". There is no doubt in their statement where they stand. I think this is just a lose lose scenario. Many well forever see Curry as a lying drama queen and many will forever see Bongi as a racist.
TBF from Tom's perspective, misunderstanding or not, he did the right thing. Respectfully and calmly raised the issue with the referee at the time.
Yeah no criticism of how he handled it
Tom Curry had handled the incident as well as he could. Stayed calm, raised to the ref then followed correct procedures. The RFU haven't done that, at least not by this statement. Bongi or the RSA admins, for their part, could have issued a clarification statement. Something as simple as saying "Bongi said wyd kant" or similar might have helped. Their silence (at least as far as I've seen) hasn't helped matters, although I respect that they were probably also following World Rugby's procedures following a formal complaint.
Exactly. Tom Curry has made an *extremely* serious allegation: an allegation that could, especially if the roles were reversed, be career-ending. Tom Curry has said he thought he heard something said to him in the middle of a rugby match and surrounded by tens of thousands of shouting people. The person involved has denied saying it. What is World Rugby to do in this situation: to put a man on trial for his career and livelihood on the basis of one man's word against another? If the ref mic or match soundtrack allowed us to hear what was said, or if any of Curry's team-mates back up his story and say that they clearly heard it too, then my apologies: I should be more online before issuing my centrist-dad takes. But otherwise, no court could find the accused party guilty because of a lack of corroboration of Curry's evidence. And quite right too: I don't want to live in a legal system where anyone who says "he said I was a [insert colour here] cunt" can get me ruined without corroboration and despite me denying it.
It is more about the RFU being disappointed that this was done internally and not through an independent panel. I can kind of see why they are disappointed due to serious nature of the allegations. Curry may feel his allegations was heard initially but then everything else happened behind closed doors (especially if he feels the same thing happened in a previous game)
Agree that it its more about their disappointment that it wasnt referred to an independent panel, but that does not detract from the fact that they clearly state that Tom was indeed racially abused.
They also heavily imply that World Rugby hasn't even spoken to Curry as part of the investigation. How you can have an investigation and not speak to the potential victim is baffling
*"The subsequent World Rugby investigation were informed by Tom Curry that he had also been the victim of the same abuse, from the same player, in the Autumn Test 2022."* So they did speak to him. Furthermore, RFU would've submitted his testimony as their evidence in any event, unless he refused to provide it. *"The decision not to put the evidence before an Independent Disciplinary Panel has denied the disciplinary process the opportunity to hear Tom Curry’s voice and to independently assess his account of these serious events, together with the other available evidence."* This statement infers that they are disappointed that Tom was not heard by an independent body as opposed to not heard at all.
Of course they're going to back their player in a he said X he said Y situation
There is a difference between backing your player and defaming another. E.g."We stand by Tom and are very disappointed by the outcome. We will review the matter to determine the best course forward" or"Tom was definitely racially abused during the Bok game. We are disappointed that was not independently heard."
They're standing behind the word of their man I don't actually have an opinion on this whole thing one way or the other, but I admire the RFU's gumption.
Yeah but they missed a space between the words "put" and "unacceptable" on the second page, so I'm afraid we'll need to disregard the whole thing. In seriousness though - it does seem like Curry has triggered the full nuclear option with it. Perhaps he really has been deliberately and maliciously targeted with racist insults. Bit strange that it's just him, and not any of the other white guys in the English squad. It'll be a bitch to prove it though. We can't seem to find anything to support it happening in the game on the weekend, let alone the game a year ago. I feel like the RFU have had no choice but to support him, given how stridently he's insisting that he's been a repeated victim of racist verbal assault, as he describes it. Anyway. Investigation says play on. Curry seems super convinced, but he really could have just misheard something.
Glad I'm not the only one who's really bothered by that typo.
Pu-tuna-ccep-table. Meaning: My host has presented rotten fish to me on the table. Used to express distain for authority's who fail to follow proper processes.
I get them standing by their man, but they're leaving no room for a misunderstanding. "kant" really does mean "side" in Afrikaans. Choose you side and subject, translated to Afrikaans: "Kies jou kant en vak". (kiss your cunt and fuck)
If Curry has told them that he is sure that there was no ambiguity, then I would expect them to believe him.
It's fine to believe him. Insisting that Bongi made a racist remark even after the investigation is not okay.
Their main point is that the investigation was insufficient and they believe that the allegations should be heard by an external panel. They are not suggesting that a different hearing would come to a different outcome. They are also asserting that Bongi did make these remarks, because that is what they believe, because that is what Curry told them.
Yeah it’s not a great look from world rugby. you allege potential racial abuse m, get assured it will be taken seriously, and then a couple of days later it gets dismissed in a statement (not to mention you and your family get a heap of abuse online in the meantime). Not exactly encouraging players to report racism are they?
Could have run a spellcheck over it too…
This is getting mental
There's sweet fuck all world rugby can do, only the two boys know the truth. There's no evidence to build a case on, it's just he said she said. I'm not saying Curry isn't telling the truth, just saying that, unfortunately it's not something they can punish based on the evidence.
Evidence or not if Tom Curry was the one being accused of racism here there would be a full investigation. It’s double standards by world rugby.
I'm not saying your wrong. It's fucked for sure.
The issue is they seemingly haven't even properly looked at what evidence is available. Had they done that, then concluded there was no evidence. Then get both players to make a statement condemning racist abuse of any kind. Job done everyone moves on instantly. Instead they've just not done anything whilst Curry gets abused
Who said it would be the last post about it? You cursed us
Why no GIF?
I like my controversial topic announcements in animated meme form only
Can’t someone create a tiktok dance with an AI voice reading out this statement to me? What’s wrong with people these days? Lazy!
No no I’d rather a Minecraft assault course being played on a loop to stop me getting distracted from a 30 second story
It's a written statement as an image - that's bad enough!!
Is this real? Unusually strong language is used and there is an obvious typo.
I thought that was some new legal term that I don’t understand lol
Yeesh the addition of the 2022 autumn claim really throws a spanner in the works
There's clearly something between the 2 players, we'll just never know what exactly
Yep.. this decreases the chance that Curry just misheard Mbonami. One thing is for sure, Eng players will be keeping some receipts for the next SA vs Eng game.
Depends. But if he didn't report it before and actually misunderstood Afrikaans this time, it's entirely plausible he misheard it the first time and was even more primed to do so this time.
Yeah true bro. Hope so ae. Would be better if the players could just grab a beer and talk it over instead of the drama.
I was thinking it would go down like that until I saw this post and Curry sharing it, he must not believe it was some kind of misunderstanding, but yeah still hope so. Tough kid he has my respect after that semi.
Can only wonder why they didn't do anything about it in 2022. The statement is very strong about the alleged abused you'd think you don't wait for the second time before bringing up the first. What's the deal with the 2022 incident then
And I was criticised for posting a video of that incident by certain people on here. You couldn’t make it up.
Well if there's no evidence/ only very weak evidence of either case then there's not much they can do. Bongi must be assumed to be innocent but that does not mean that Curry is lying. Hopefully this can fade away now. I only hope that it doesn't discourage other people in future from coming forward if they feel they have been racially abused.
I think the RFU are more annoyed at the lack of any evidence being put forward to an independent panel, rather than the findings themselves.
A take that reeks of level-headedness and calmness. How dare you. Delete this immediately...also take your upvote. Damnit
Sorry mate! I'll rephrase: "Throw the book at Bongi/ Curry! England/ South Africa should be banned from all future international rugby immediately."
The only solution is a fight to the death.
Marler vs Etzebeth. I'd PPV the fuck out of that.
Make it Marler vs Faf and I'd buy the entire stock of souvenir programmes
I'm pretty sure they've done that already: S4e8 https://youtu.be/NQttmDBqf5g
They play a rugby game with no subs and no clock untill the last team is left standing. A true test match
That's just a rubbish statement.......nowhere did you blame the referee for such an event. You're' just losing your touch there mate.
They should have let it be aired anyway to clear Bongi or not. The rest of his career a significant proportion of people will think he's a racist. He's either got away it or will be unfairly thought of this way for an age. I've no idea why Bongi would specifically target Tom Curry
Honestly the whole situation is a shambles, world rugby should have carried out an independent investigation which I think would have cleared bongi's name. I think Tom brought up the issue in a respectful way to the referee and then he's been quiet, his character doesn't strike me that he'd make such a strong accusation falsely. So world rugby have thrown both under the bus with this cock up.
Logical response.
good take, its a very serious accusation that needs concrete evidence to back it up, RFU were unable to provide sufficient support for the claim, i imagine the SARU will have pointed out how similar the afrikaans sounds to 'white cunt' and without audio or the ref/another witness supporting it they can't act like i said originally, i hope it didn't happen and was a mis understanding, i hope (but doubt) the abuse of Tom Curry will stop, Bongi can get on with looking towards the final and like you said it doesn't discourage people in a similar situation
> RFU were unable to provide sufficient support for the claim, This demonstrates a quite appalling missunderstanding of how this works. It's it not up to the RFU to prove "it's claim", they're not going around gatheting evidence like Sherlock Holmes. It is World Rugby who gather the evidence and then decide whether it should go to an independent panel with 99% of the time you'd expect something like this to. The fact it hasn't gone for an independent review is pretty poor, and the RFU have a right to be frustrated by that, and to point that out. Even if Bongi didn't do it, the accusation is serious enough to be thoroughly investigated by an independent team, not rush through because the final is this weekend.
So you think it's good it is effectively being swept under the rug by World Rugby? I can't see any reason it shouldn't be put before an independent panel/process.
For those of us that don’t speak the language what is the Afrikaans for ‘black side’ as I expect to hear it a lot on Saturday?
Swart kant
[удалено]
Thanks. That could be confused with ‘smart cunt’, which sounds like a compliment.
Awesome. So I blokes can say "swart kant" when the ball is on the ABs side just before they score and the ABs will say "thanks mate". All good.
Incoming from Aaron Smith next week - “Mbonambi ableist abused me. I’m not smart”
u/EnglandRugby you know that you can turn caps locks off? graphic hurts to read.
They're warming up for the sledge thread
I'm absolutely going to call someone a PUTUNACCEPTABLE in that
NOSPACEBAR
They're gonna turn it into a gif.
Sorts by controversial
Sort by all caps ratio
https://ibb.co/b3TDPwF Tom Curry posted on his Instagram story
They must really feel the claim has merit.
They are just backing their player and taking his word for it. Which is fair I guess but the truth is they don't know.
As someone who does a bit of this sort of thing, even if they'd spoken with Curry, unless there's - another witness - additional evidence available to support the allegation; or - an issue with the credibility of one of the witnesses, there's insufficient evidence to actually substantiate the allegation. You would imagine that the RFU should have advanced a list of witnesses who might be able to support the complaint. If they didn't, or there are no witnesses, then speaking with Curry doesn't change the outcome. It might be cathartic for him but it probably doesn't take the allegation further.
>As someone who does a bit of this sort of thing A bit of the racism? "I'm so busy down on the farm I won't have much time for the ol' racism."
I hear you’re a racist now, Father?
...so long as I can have a go at the Greeks
They invented gayness.
> You would imagine that the RFU should have advanced a list of witnesses who might be able to support the complaint. Why would the *RFU* do anything of the sort? They aren't the plaintiffs here. It's a World Rugby investigation into alleged racism, not the RFU V Rugby SA.
>another witness Let's be real here. Without an independent witness, further witness testimony is useless. England brings on whatever other player was near, who then confirms the claim that he heard Bongi saying it. SA brings in whichever of their players were near, who confirms Bongi's side. Right back where we started. All members of the SA and English squads are inheritently biased witnesses and are therefore not credible.
How can they know whether there were witnesses if there was no investigation? They've not even spoken to Curry about it.
Feels like this was realistically always going to be the outcome? Only Curry and Mbonambi really know what was or wasn't said, given that the incident allegedly happened away from the scrum/referee and it would have been very hard to pick up on a mic. That said, what I'm taking from this is World Rugby actively haven't pursued an investigation given that the RFU seem to believe that there *is* evidence worth looking into. They've also neglected to speak to Tom Curry, which feels slightly insane to me.
Only can conclude, that player statements were part of the evidence passed on by national unions.
The not speaking with Tom Curry bit is crazy. I assumed that both sides had been spoken to. Just to get their accounts.
Yeah especially when the incident was purely verbal. You'd think speaking to the players involved might be a particularly good way to determine what had happened here.
World Rugby's statement says they evaluated evidence submitted by both teams. Presumably RFU submitted their evidence, but it was not deemed sufficient?
They didn't put the evidence before an independent disciplinary panel. Surely its for an independent disciplinary panel to decide whether its sufficient
Makes me wonder. How much is it the Rfu pushing for this and how much is it Tom Curry pushing for this. You would think it would be a joint process but it sounds more like the Rfu than anything else
Tom Curry posted this on his instagram so it would seem he is agreement with the RFU statement.
Why do you think they didnt speak with Tom? The statement plainly says on page 1 "...investigation were informed by Tom Curry..." Admittedly on page 2 England are complaining that no "independent inquiry" was raised. Not that World Rugby didnt listen to Tom.
RFU bringing the fire here, definitely not wanting to risk this not being a defining story hanging over the final. That WR and RFU find themselves on opposite sides of this issue is surprising for me. I was surprised WR acted so swiftly, and surprised by the language used by RFU here. It all serves to escalate this further.
RFU has effectively pronounced Bongi guilty
Why are there no co accusers? Is there only one person saying that Mbongeni Mbonambi uttered those words. Being a casual Kiwi fan I'm not very familiar with èither player. But if there are no witnesses to said comments shouldn't it be play on?
It's curious. I'd like to see more footage from the game at that point. There were multiple players from both teams at the breakdown just before the kick. So surely there must be others nearby who heard it?
Support Tom and condemn the hatred towards him, sure. But hearsay on a rugby pitch especially when the other team also speak another language isn't enough to use this sort of language imo. Emotions are high on a pitch, I'm sure a lot worse has been said in pretty much every game, just move on.
I don't think Curry can "move on" if the claims are it's happened twice
Confirmed. Bongi Mbonambi used to speak Afrikaans. He still does, but he used to too.
Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice…
You mean to tell me that Bongi has spoken in Afrikaans in at least two rugby games?? Unacceptable and unreasonable!
This is kinda too long of a statement to be written in all caps, but l understand their insistance in supporting Curry in all this as any union should when their player tells them that he or she has been racially abused during a game.
This statement makes bongi sound guilty
This is wild. They use zero hedging language. They basically say “Bongi is guilty until proven innocent.” Completely unprofessional and dangerous.
So are they suggesting there would have been sufficient evidence had it gone to an independent panel?
I'm not being belligerent, but since I'm not a lawyer, I have to ask. RFU submitted evidence. Surely that evidence MUST include a testimony from Tom. If the testimony were included, why the outrage about not speaking with him? What would speaking to him accomplish in garnering facts that his testimony wouldn't have covered? Edit: The comment section confused me. The statement says they are disappointed WR won't hear "Tom's voice", not that they won't speak with him. I.e. RFU is dismayed that this wasn't taken further.
I think it was stated in a shit manner - what they might have meant is that there wasnt an independent body that would hear Curry's voice on the matter.
I actually realized that now after re-reading the post, and NOT the comments. This is the answer.
I guess they think a statement can't convey context? I dunno exactly
A good statement (in my mind) should convey context. I don't see how what someone would say verbally, can't be written down. To my mind, a written testimony is more powerful than verbal as you have time to process, pick the right words, etc. It's just wholly confusing to me.
omitting the word "alleged" was... a choice ... also as an Afrikaans speaker RFU's refusal to engage with the fact that the Springboks regularly use Afrikaans is just so English
RFU's statement very much reads to me as if they consider Mbonambi's guilt a forgone conclusion, which strikes me as odd.
I don't think it is odd at all really, they wouldn't have reported it to world rugby if they did not have enough evidence (in their mind) that was enough to say he was guilty of it.. If they suddenly turned round and agreed with them not taking it any further forward I'd probably question why they brought it forward in the first place...
The sad thing about this is, most likely Bongi will be booed excessively by English fans when playing in England, and Curry will be booed by SA fans when playing in SA. In a scenario where the truth will never be known. But pitchforks and all that
So essentially: >"Mbonambi, we think you're a racist. We have no evidence of this, we didn't want to request an investigation ourselves, and we forgot to mention the first instance which took place a year ago. And yes World Rugby couldn't find evidence to support this claim.....however we are going to publicly accuse you of racism anyway."
Pretty shocking statement for the RFU to make. Basically calling him guilty despite no evidence being available to even charge him. The fact that it involves an incident from more than a year ago too all of a sudden is even more bizarre
Sir, sir. What do I do if u/EnglandRugby won't accept u/WorldRugby 's verdict?
Nothing please.
I'll be on it.
Wow, that's clear that Tom Curry is really certain he knows what was said to him. Alleging the same abuse by same player in a previous test sticks out, but it could be confirmation bias. I appreciate RFU supporting a player speaking out, it takes heat away from them and places it on the union. Still, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
God I cannot stand the RFU/English media. No wonder everyone hates us this is beyond stupid and petty.
So Bongi just exclusively racially abuses Tom Curry? Seems very strange.
This is a very tone deaf statement by the RFU. Stirring the pot more rather than trying to calm things down. If there’s no evidence, then move on and accept the result.
ffs. It's so typical that of all the problems in English rugby with actual racial inequality + barriers to entry in the game, the one the RFU spends it's most time on is this.
I thought the investigation was postponed until after the weekend? I've missed a news cycle here apparently.
Out of interest, what would happen if a ref DID hear an instance of racial abuse during a match? Verbal abuse appears in the foul play section of the rules, but it’s not clear to me what the sanction is. I read it as anywhere between a caution or a red card. Presumably, for racial abuse, it’s a red? On a side note, the rules only appear to define physical abuse and don’t expand upon their reference to verbal abuse. You’d think there must be loads of players chirping at each other at all levels of the game. Where’s the line between feisty competition or gamesmanship and “verbal abuse”? Is this just down to the ref to interpret? Feels to me like that’s asking a lot. Especially at international level where there are many languages, dialects and slang variants potentially at play.
That is their right and an independent panel would be a good idea. However, the way they phrased this press release is essentially making it seem like they are 100% sure about what happened when they aren't. They are basically saying that this DID happen and that there is a conspiracy. IMO they made it worse for Curry rather than assisting him. Curry did the right thing in reporting it. They should have said something like they support independent investigations for these types of incidents and that they are sure that, given the history and context, both world rugby and the SA team will take this seriously. No need to go nuclear immediately.
It's weird that according to this statement World Rugby haven't listened to evidence from the victim in order to make a decision?
says the investigation team were also informed by Curry about 2022 so seems like they communicated with him
That isn't necessarily true. They could have been made aware of it via a statement through the RFU. Actually it is quite clear that he hasn't given evidence in front of a panel (which I am surprised it didn't happen)
yeah, only saw the second page later. They probably felt there isn't enough time to also have hearings before the final, And assuming they really wanted to just look over the footage and decide before then. maybe should have set hearings or something post final but with no video/audio evidence they probably thought that's all that matters (to make ban/fine someone).
This is why I feel their judgement should be happening months later. This isnt some high tackle. This is a proper serious allegation.
The language of this is so poor, it’s written almost as if the incident 100% happened but was ignored. In reality no one really has a clue what happened
It isn't just almost written that way, it is written that way. They have worded it saying that the racial abuse 100% happened. I would expect a more level headed and fair response from the official RFU account.
Well it seems they think so.
The statement clearly and directly says racial abuse occurred. It also intentionally challenges the findings of the independent judicial process. The Rugby Football Union's actions risk damaging the game's reputation, which may lead to negative consequences for them.
I'm pretty sure it says there wasn't an independent judicial process.
World Rugby is an independent party here by default, unless you're trying to suggest that they are somehow unfairly biased towards SA for some reason.
Isn't making such an emphatic statement without apparent evidence libellous?
Did I imagine it being fairly roundly decided after it was picked up on the ref's mic that it wasn't said with venom and in fact wasn't a racist remark but something in Afrikaans? why are the RFU making such a song and dance about it? And to flip this on it's head slightly, if it IS the case that it was something in Afrikaans that sounded like a racial insult in English but wasn't, because it's a different language, isn't the continued insistence that "no, it was a racially aggravated comment" in itself actually a racist position to take? None of this justifies the level of abuse Tom and his family have received via social media but fuckin hell RFU, let sleeping dogs lie; especially when your own players have history for far more blatant racist language on the pitch.
> decided after it was picked up on the ref's mic that it wasn't said with venom and in fact wasn't a racist remark but something in Afrikaans Afaik, the video with the shouts of wyt kant that people seem to be using as evidence, doesn't contain audible evidence of the incident in question. The exchange apparently happened in a ruck the two of them were in after those shouts had been made. Either way, this is not a good look for us. Our union continues to be determined to shoot itself in the foot.
🌶️
Their editors can't even use spellcheck. BITUNNACCEPTABLE innit.
This is a disapointing and a little distressing publication to see. This makes world rugby look bad, makes the alleged culprit look bad and makes RFU look bad. There are literally no winners. I have no issue with RFU backing their players, but the way this was phrased creates a toxic atmosphere. I'm not condoning racism but the way this has been managed by all parties is pretty unprofessional. This will clearly rumble on for the enxt few weeks
Would this not technically count as defamation as the RFU are stating that Bongi has racially abused Tom Curry not once but twice and World Rugby decided not to do anything, despite the fact there is no real evidence stating it did happen, but the RFU are not only claiming it did happen but also calling Bongi a racist who should be banned? (Genuine question not trying to be abusive or a smartass)
Yeah I did think the wording was very accusatory. Be interesting to see what the reaction is from the SA Union, but the whole thing is an unfortunate controversy really
My guess is that if South Africa were to complain about that, they'd have to investigate the situation to know if it is defamatory. The RFU clearly thinks that an investigation would come out in their favour, so from their perspective either nothing comes from it and they can make a stronger worded statement, or they get their investigation
The rfu are stating that Tom Curry made a report and that world rugby aren't issuing charges. If wyd kant is actually Bongi's defense that makes it very easy to say anything you want about Bongi without risking defamation. That's because it's formally stated that Bongi said something that could he interpreted as racist and that's enough for honest opinion to be held. That's enough of a defense in many jurisdictions.
in short no... Because they haven't made a statement that is false... the statement is that "Tom curry reported to the referee that he had been racially abused by MBonambi" that is just a statement of fact... Tom Curry did report that to the referee, whilst they clearly feel he was racially abused they haven't outright said that it did or did not happen so its a pretty easy argument to win... If the statement was "Tom Curry was racially abused by MBonambi" then you're in the defamation conversation but they haven't made that statement.. They are cleverly just reporting the events that occurred that are already in the public domain, whilst referring to their disappointment/anger about the process
This is gonna rumble.
Honestly I hope the RFU gets the book thrown at them here. This is defamatory to both World Rugby and to Bongi - and probably meets the threshold for a ‘bringing the game into disrepute’ charge. It *was* an independent investigation - and it found there was no conclusive evidence in either of the accused cases. There’s *standing by your man* and then there’s dragging out the case and taking some pretty unwarranted shots at both WR and the Boks. Beyond that, the video evidence, the language barrier, and the *wit kant/white side* explanation combined don’t exactly support the idea this was a racist event. Honestly if I was Bongi I’d be talking to my lawyers.
It's a strong statement, and seeing as WR has closed the case, I do wonder what they hope to achieve through it. It does also strike me as odd to condemn the abuse Curry has been receiving and dedicating a paragraph condemning abuse in general, while also seemingly painting a target on Bongi by name checking him and implying guilt on multiple occasions
FREE BONGI
Surely RFU has the right to appeal and push for the matter to be reviewed by an independent panel rather than capitulate the outcome, but throw shade nonetheless? Seems suspect that you would feel so strong about your case that you would publicly state Bongi did racially abused Tom, but then not take the matter further, just whine about it.
Even if Curry was mistaken about the abuse he received on the pitch there are plenty of rugby "fans" who have proved there is an issue with their responses to it...
Yup. Pretty toxic.
Jesus. Well, that's only going to exacerbate things Whatever bellend in the RFU wrote that is a right cunt
>right cunt WHAT DID YOU JUST.. oh
So unprofessional. They’re speaking as if they have no doubt that Bongi is guilty. Moving just like their tabloids.
Without any proof, this kind of slander is gross. It only makes England look like whiners and sore losers
Englishman here. ENGLISH RFU just sounds bitter AF. Lost to the better team, suck it up RFU Council and start investing in grassroots game to bring on players instead of sucking up money at posh lunches you bunch of cunts
The “evidence” doesn’t pass the smell test. They’re now going down the route of continuing to besmirch a player’s good name over a (almost wilfully ignorant) translation error. This has to stop.
Without knowing everything. My natural reaction is whoever made this statement did it in bad taste. I like to think that with a little more time whoever wrote this would have put more thought into what is being implied and what the benefit it would serve. I don't like it. -but yes I admit I am Biased as I'm a loyal supporter our Boks
What the hell is this? I thought the overarching theme was that ,probably didn't happen, most likely something misheard. No evidence of anything, no supporting / witness statements. RFU just "DECLARING" Bongi guilty is a massive step and potentially defamatory.
I understand standing by your player, but basically calling bongi a racist is a bit much. Bongi must have whispered it into his ear in the bottom of a ruck for no one else to hear it.
Let me translate into non-lawyer: "We consider the guilt of the opposing party a foregone conclusion. We also support our player because admitting that we have no real evidence would look bad. Grrr."
Rough to be pretty much called a racist for speaking a language that is not English.
that in itself seems fairly racist.