• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Kurtley Beale

Not open for further replies.

Quick Hands

David Wilson (68)
What, you mean like standing up in a plane full of co-workers and the public and verbally abusing the same person? Would that then be repeated?

Interestingly the ARU decided not to pursue any action at the tribunal for what happened on the plane. As I wasn't on the plane I don't really know who abused who, or who was responsible for the exchange. Obviously you do?


Dick Tooth (41)
There come a time when you just have to draw a line in the sand and call a dead beat a dead beat. Beale must be beyond this point with his wrap sheet but nope, he survives another day. His levels of self entitlement must be through the bloody roof.

Seemed like a pretty decent bloke the few times I met him. It's good to see the brave few like you standing up online to call him what he really is though. Well done champ.

Brumby Runner

Tim Horan (67)
I take the point about terms of reference etc. However I cannot fathom on what basis contents of the phone could be withheld. There would have been a chain of evidence or whatever so that Beale's team could not tamper or exclude anything. Remember he had to demonstrate that he did not send the text. Presumably he would have to have shown 100%.

While lawyers can argue that some things are not admissible I would have thought that while you might delete from the evidence unrelated personal messages it might not be possible to delete other offensive material.

Even so, the phone may be the property of the Waratahs or the ARU and they may have a legal right to the whole transcript.

Even then if I was Pulver I would be sure as hell asking for the transcript before I gave him another contract. Mind you if you believe the drivel Wilson writes Pulver does not seem to be always able to get hold of phones and transcripts.

I was wondering about this as well, but not so much in relation to Beale's phone but those of both Link and Patston. If they are ARU property, it would be interesting for the ARU to retrieve them and have them forensically examined. Might actually find out if Link had received the texts in question, and exactly who sent the second one, and indeed the other four if there were 6 texts in all as has been reported in some quarters.


My very point Gagger.

The other side of the story has been presented by the ARU initially and then all has gone very silent. It has been admirable with no public evidence available how voluminous the commentary of the "other side" has been able to build a case for Beale's guilt and just how well managed the Wallabies have been.

While it is always possible that players, agents, journalists and ARU employees spend their spare time posting on here the vast majority of us will still listen to the press who happen to have a lot more access to the characters in this drama. The really unusual part is that there is not a lot of press coming the other way. GGR has decided that there is little legal risk in letting the "other side" run for all its worth, so why not the papers?

If Beale or another player sent the second text to Patston then you would think that could be cleared up by a forensic analysis of that phone too. Wilson's article says as much. You think it is just drivel. What makes sense? KB says here is my phone, let some detective run its software over it to look at every single thing I have used it for. BTW do not worry about checking the other phone which you are relying upon in evidence.

Almost implausible in a legal matter where the other side was pressing for his termination. Or is that more Wilson drivel? That is the position of a lot of posters is that is what the ARU should have been doing so I do not think it is unreasonable to accept it was the case.

The really interesting thing is how confident KB must have been that there was not more shit on his phone sent or received by him which would not actually provide more evidence of Code of Conduct breaches.

Mate, you need to accept Beale's guilt and stop talking absolute nonsense about everything else.. HE ACCEPTED IT and is paying $45,000. Do you deny he is guilty? He participated in group bullying. He kicked the victim first in the stomach. We're not sure who then kicked the victim in the head.


Nick Farr-Jones (63)
Staff member
Thank you Bill Pulver.

But can I ask you something? Really? It's the press's handling you're disappointed in? My god mate, were you born yesterday? The press handled this the way they handle EVERY scandal. It's therefore the job of administrators to handle the fall-out so that the press don't have much to write about. How can be disappointed in the press and not the ARU and Wallabies management? That's about as logical as blaming sharks for eating surfers and deciding they need mass culling for just doing what they're supposed to do.

Fark, don't get me started on the long list of what to be disappointed about with Australian rugby administration. My reply above wasn't meant to be one.

I don't subscribe to - "the press are arseholes, but what can you do?" defeatism. For a start there are quite a few journos out there who have handled this pretty well - take Iain Payten and Fitzsimmons for two examples.

As for some other notables from both the SMH and News, waving through rumour reporting is one thing I wouldn't do, then crediting it as truth either because there's a lot of it or because 'no-ones denied it' is even worse.

That's simply not true. The ARU presented precisely Link and Patston's version, and exclusively that version from the get go.

The ARU's defence finished when Patston resigned early in the case. As you piointed yourself their defence then and since has been shambolic.

The tribunal has now cast doubt over that, and questions remain as to why the Beale camp's suggestion of a forensic analysis of both phones was rebuffed (particularly given how much more transparency it would have added)

Interesting that your whole line of questioning relies on what Rebecca Wilson (the journo who only this morning ran a PR shoot for Kurtley Beale) has written.

Across fairfax and news ltd a consistent picture has emerged, and it's frankly one of a stupid young footballer whose abuse of a senior staff member at the Wallabies was both poorly handled and symptomatic of deeper problems within the management team. It's a little more nuanced than the ARU version, but just because you don't like it doesn't mean it's wrong.

Because they said it, it must be true. Re-read my original post, it clearly applies to you too.


Alfred Walker (16)
Paradox said:
Mate, you need to accept Beale's guilt and stop talking absolute nonsense about everything else.. HE ACCEPTED IT and is paying $45,000. Do you deny he is guilty? He participated in group bullying. He kicked the victim first in the stomach. We're not sure who then kicked the victim in the head.


I have pointed out he is guilty and he accepts it. You should read all of my posts in these threads (I feel like a cheat getting to 12 based largely on contribution to less than 10 threads). Then please point out where I have protested his innocence. Happy to accept it if I have but I do not remember.

Your post starts to talk about group bullying and using such emotive comparisons as kicking people in the head and the stomach.

To put it in the terms of your comment; Mate, you need to stop labelling things as nonsense when you do not understand what is being talked about. To try and put it in terms you understand, I think it is terribly important for the reputation of Australian rugby and justice for everyone involved to establish where the second text came from.

It may even show there was group bullying but that would be speculation which is apparently acceptable here if it accords with the Mediators' views on life.


Bill Watson (15)
Judge's credibility on the line? You really have no idea how these things work. The Judge and the panel will examine the evidence and produce a finding and penalty in keeping with the Organisational rules (Code of Conduct) that the proceedings are taking place under and (this a key point) the Terms of Reference as set by the Body (ARU) commencing the investigation. Just like a Royal Commission - if evidence is discovered that is not under the Terms of Reference the Panel cannot hear it, though they may refer it on (to the ARU in this instance) who can choose to investigate or not. The only way the Judge could lose credibility is if he chose not to abide by the Terms of Reference mandated for the investigation.

Now this explains why the second text wasn't investigated by the panel. It doesn't explain why the ARU has no interest in knowing who sent it. The rest of your post is non nonsensical.

Was it that obvious? I was alluding to merely accepting the job, in view of what had played out, would be enough to seriously consider if it would be worth the trouble professionally. But obviously, you've expanded on that and highlighted a question echoed by other posters. Fair enough.

Seems ARU does not want to see how far the rabbit hole goes, given they've just realised there's a rabbit on the loose.


Frank Row (1)
Of the litany of accusations and smears against DP and EM, how many have been proven?

And interestingly, none of these allegations were worthy of anyone commenting on, reporting or even sending malicious emails about - until Kurtley Beale's conduct and career came in to question. Coincidence?

Perhaps not coincidence. Perhaps catalyst.


Cyril Towers (30)
Interesting that your whole line of questioning relies on what Rebecca Wilson (the journo who only this morning ran a PR shoot for Kurtley Beale) has written.

Wilson made some fairly substantial claims in her piece - some of which could land her in hot water if she's lying. Are you suggesting she's lying?

As for "defeatism" around news - it's not defeatism, it's a recognition of the reality of the industry. Through 140 pages of people hating on the press here, not one single comment is going to alter the simple fact that if there's a hint of controversy and conflict in a high-profile arena, then journos are gonna go after it, and some will go harder than others. If you think that's defeatism do me a favour and never go to the US or the UK, because we have nothing on them in those stakes.

Because they said it, it must be true. Re-read my original post, it clearly applies to you too.

I don't subscribe to the "I don't like it and because no one has stuck their career on the line by giving a direct quote it must be lies" line of thinking. Frankly, the narrative across two competing news companies has been fairly consistent, but because the sources feeding them with information apparently care about their jobs and have learnt from Quade about the pitfalls of putting your name to criticisms of your work, you happily seem to dismiss all of it.

Again mate, I'm not arguing Beale should get off here, just that this head in the sand bullshit of "well the source isn't willing to lose their job for this so I won't believe it" is just ridiculous.

All it leaves you with is an odd suggestion that it's all being made up, which then opens up the obvious question of "WHY"?!


Cyril Towers (30)
Wow fuck. I go away for the weekend and this is STILL red hot when I get back.

Drunk bloke gets in a taxi: "Driver, take me round and round in circles for the next hour, but step on it, I'm in a hurry!"

That about sums it all up actually.


Mark Ella (57)
Its funny how many people can come out after an incident and say "he's such a nice bloke..... etc etc"

In their experience it is so. That is fine. Such simple statements though deny the truth of what has happened.

Just like when the family of a murderer comes out and says "he is a nice bloke, he wouldn't hurt a fly...."

Now each incident in Beale's history has been relatively minor (excepting the allegations of assault) and have no bearing on his ability as a player, but certainly have a bearing on his standing as a citizen and leader of the game as all Wallabies are. For mine he should have been terminated and deal with the consequences from his legal team.

Now Beale is not entirely at fault, I hold the ARU at fault for his behaviour as well, because of the permissive attitude over a significant period with a number of players breaking protocols and standards of behaviour and only the expendable getting really punished. This just makes a mockery of the disciplinary system and how will the gifted ones (and others) respect it when they know that there are few lasting effects to misbehaviour, and it is not condemned by your mates. If there was a clear and strong procedure and policy over the last few years I doubt that this rubbish would have happened and if it did it would not have blown up as it did. This was the first failure.

The second failure was in my opinion the lack of definition in the roles of management people and how they were employed. The "facts" that have been reported, which is still open to total conjecture, would have gained no traction if there was a robust employment policy and vetting procedure.

The third failure is the lack of effective response from the CEO, Chairman and the board. The damage it has done to the game is immense. With the game financially on its knees and struggling for an audience away from its rusted on devotees they needed to act quickly and with authority in areas where the systems had failed. Have they done so? Not that we can see.

The fourth and final failure IMO is the investigation itself, it was a prosecution of Beale only, seeking a quick and shallow resolution with a scalp to appease the "public" and "media" and perhaps Patston, and did not seek to actually resolve the issue in its entirety or improve the systems to prevent these failures from recurring. A complete investigation would not have left all the questions unanswered and pervasive opinion that "we will never know the truth".


Nick Farr-Jones (63)
Staff member
All it leaves you with is an odd suggestion that it's all being made up, which then opens up the obvious question of "WHY"?!

Why did Wilson and News Ltd give Beale several hundred thousand dollars worth of free front page PR today?

Here's another picture.

You're a journo or media outlet who earns their living by getting access to big name players and coaches - Waratahs mostly.

The plane incident occurs. Do you take the information fed to you by those players, KB and his manager all of whom are invested in KB and his playing future, thereby representing their side of the story?

Or do you take the story of a mid-low level administrative staffer, whom if they disappeared from the game, would have absolutely no effect on you? In fact, maybe you'll just ignore a few phone calls from that staffer, trying to give her side.

Strangely, all the information you're being fed seems to be quite damning on that staffer. And suddenly there's an email doing the rounds 'backing' that info up (even though it appears to have originated from very close to Moore Park).

How possible does that sound?

As for Wilson, she doesn't even hide that all of her information is coming from Beale and his manager.

For someone who had a go at me about being naive over the media, it seems you need it spelled out.

There's an old saying about not believing everything you read in the papers. I wonder why

Teh Other Dave

Alan Cameron (40)


Cyril Towers (30)
How possible does that sound?

For someone who is awfully up tight about sources and names, that's a bit of a fucking speculative long bow mate. You've basically just invented a scenario to suit your bias of the media being pro-NSW pricks out to get Patston and McKenzie.

Possible? Sure. But it's equally possible that the Wallabies management just fucked up. Ever heard the saying that if you're given a choice between a conspiracy and a fuck-up? What do you go with? The fuck up.
Not open for further replies.