Denny Solomona in trouble again

[Sixways Cheryl]

https://www.rugbypass.com/news/breaking-theres-homophobic-slur-allegation-aviva-premiership

Allegations that he repeated a homophobic slur multiple times towards Jamie Shillcock during our match vs Sale yesterday. Innocent until proven guilty & all that, but it's no coincidence that he keeps on making the news for the wrong reasons. He needs to have a long look in the mirror because this constant negative press is going to stop him from ever fulfilling his potential.

If guilty, the RFU need to come down on hard on him. The bans given to Bastareaud & Marler are the reference point. When is he going to learn?

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Innocent until proven guilty and all that,
If true and proven he deserves a long ban, though. I thought Basta's 3 weeks was very lenient.

That said I didn't hear anything live, and there's nothing on the replay. He made the comment to Shilcock so some are theorising he's suggested he sucks the latter part of his surname, after Shilcock took him out off the ball. If that's the case then that's crass but not homophobic.

it's no coincidence that he keeps on making the news for the wrong reasons

Like what?

 

[Sixways Cheryl]

Innocent until proven guilty and all that,
If true and proven he deserves a long ban, though. I thought Basta's 3 weeks was very lenient.

That said I didn't hear anything live, and there's nothing on the replay. He made the comment to Shilcock so some are theorising he's suggested he sucks the latter part of his surname, after Shilcock took him out off the ball. If that's the case then that's crass but not homophobic.


Like what?

After getting sent home from the England training camp you would've thought it would go without saying that he needs to keep his nose clean this season. He's a talented, X-Factor player who I would like to be around the England squad, incidents like this (if guilty) are going to make it difficult for him to get back there in the near future.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Bit of a reach to link that to "no coincidence" he's in the press/he's not going to fulfil his potential, considering he already has a premiership record for consecutive tries in appearances, and is current second in the leading tryscorers (despite injuries) and got third place last season despite joining part way through.

 

[Chief Pete]

I'd say he is fulfilling his potential and the fact that May, Daly and Nowell are ahead of him is more a reflection on them and not him, just my opinion...

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Yup, in the international picture but too inconsistent to really pressure any of the starters is about where he should be

 

[Scotty]

Solomona banned till 8th may.

 

[RedruthRFC]

I'm surprised that this hasn't received more discussion. If everything that Steve Diamond said in his interview about this on Friday is correct, this decision strikes me as pretty outrageous and setting a dangerous precedent. According to Diamond, he has been convicted on the basis of no evidence! Does anyone know if he has a right to appeal?

 

[Which Tyler]

Steve Diamond is outright wrong then.

Shilcock's testimony is evidence.
Ref's report of what Shilcock's told him at the time is evidence.
Video of Shilcock's being upset is evidence.
Potentially, video evidence of Shilcock being upset as a direct response to Solomona saying something, is evidence, even if it's not evidencewhat words were used.
Any testimonials from any other player is evidence.

Not caught on camera/microphone =/= no evidence. Never has, never will.

ETA, of course he has the right to appeal. Trying it though and he risks an increase in the sentence. What I haven't seen yet is any mitigation to count towards his 2 week reduction for mitigation.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Shilcock's testimony is evidence.
Ref's report of what Shilcock's told him at the time is evidence.
Video of Shilcock's being upset is evidence.

So if you're a good actor you can get people banned for a month if you want?

I believe Denny did say it, tbh, but if what Dimes is saying is true then it does set a very bad precedent.



Also, when I brought up Aled Brew using racial slurs towards Johnny Leota I got shouted down because there was no evidence other than Leota saying it happened...

 

[Which Tyler]

Bare in mind, I never said that Denny was innocent, just that there IS evidence.

As for Brew v Leota, wasn't that because the allegation was made well after the event, at the disciplinary hearing, when Brew had the no right to reply, and was then considered so serious that the RFU didn't even investigate Brew?
My recollection of most people's reaction was that Brew absolutely should have been investigated (mine certainly was).


There's also a difference between "no evidence" and "only the accuser's testimony" and "only the accuser's testimony, given a week later to the disciplinary board".
I have no opinion of the guilt of otherwise of either Denny or Aled.

ETA, I've found the thread discussing the Leotard / Brew incident, and literally no-one shouted you down, or claimed a lack of evidence.
https://www.therugbyforum.com/threads/aviva-premiership-round-16-17-round-6.38260/page-3
I disagreed with you for mis-representing* things, nothing to do with presence or absence of evidence.

* And that's being very generous to you

 

[Which Tyler]

Judgement in full is out - though I won't have a chance to actually read the thing until this evening:
http://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Docu...SolomonaSaleSharksJudgmentApril18_English.pdf

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

A month ban for a homophobic slur in the heat of the moment against a presumably straight man that is not corroborated by any source other than the player making the complaint.

But no action against Israel Folau for publicly stating with premeditation that every gay person will have to endure eternal suffering and torment in the depths of hell, given the divine and just judgement of his god.

It's a funny old world!

 

[Pieter Steph du Teague]

A month ban for a homophobic slur in the heat of the moment against a presumably straight man that is not corroborated by any source other than the player making the complaint.

But no action against Israel Folau for publicly stating with premeditation that every gay person will have to endure eternal suffering and torment in the depths of hell, given the divine and just judgement of his god.

It's a funny old world!

The Folau subject is a hard one. Obviously what he said is bad but he was asked what God's plan for gay people is and he gave the answer that the Bible gives. He didn't say whether or not he believes that that should be the case; he just correctly answered the question according to what his religion teaches. I'm not religious and I don't at all agree with that particular teaching but it is his belief (again want to specify, his belief, not what he thinks should be the case) and personally I find it hard to condemn him for his belief simply for not being the same as mine.

 

[TRF_Olyy]

Having read it, the whole thing seems dodgy

"d. The video footage was entirely supportive of Mr Shillcock's account and, although the words used cannot be heard, on close analysis the words Mr Shillcock alleges were used can be made out;"
So can they be heard or can't they? It says the assistant didn't hear anything, no microphone heard anything, and Hammond, who stood right next to them, didn't hear it.
(This was dismissed by the RFU so there's literally zero evidence in their findings)


"g. In walking over to the referee when he had not been called, Mr Solomona demonstrates he was aware he had done something wrong;"
Well yeah, he was having push and shove handbags with Shilcock and then the referee blew for a penalty - he walked over thinking the penalty was because of the scuffle but it was actually because of the tackle beforehand.


"h. Mr Solomona's account of what happened in the changing room did not stack up. Mr Shillcock was consistent in his account that Mr Solomona had apologised to him and his account was to be preferred."
They both said they apologised to each other for the scuffle, neither of them mentioned any use of any slurs in their statements when talking about the apology.



The whole thing boils down to:
Denny says he called him a f**kwit
Shilcock says he called him a f**got

 

[Bruce_ma gooshvili]

Judgement in full is out - though I won't have a chance to actually read the thing until this evening:
http://www.englandrugby.com/mm/Docu...SolomonaSaleSharksJudgmentApril18_English.pdf

I love the bit where they describe "f@ckwit" as a term used in New Zealand that is equivalent to "knob head". As it nobody in the U.K. is aware of the term.

 

[Vieux Talonneur]

Homophobia's bad.

It would be one thing if Shilcock was gay and Solomona called him a f*ggot in full knowledge. But I've seen nothing to suggest that was the case and Shilcock doesn't seem to have reacted like the greviously personally insulted.

Solomona says he didn't say it at all and the evidence to ban him for a few weeks for a stigma offence seems pretty flimsy. If he did say it chances are it meant nothing more to him than calling him a w*nker or a cnut. Some education needed maybe, but wouldn't a public reprimand have been better?

"There were allegations made, but inconclusive proof and the player and his club have been reminded of their responsibilities. Meanwhile Mr Shilcock has been reminded that he wouldn't have been called a "f*ckanything" had he not dragged Mr Solomona by his collar. We do not expect to have to write in this vein again" kind of thing.

Not taking this lightly, but there doesn't seem to be a great deal of common sense around. Solomona seems to have been penalised for standing his ground, but if he believes he didn't say it then he's right to.

 

[curtbob7]

https://www.stuff.co.nz/sport/rugby...association-says-good-on-him-for-speaking-out

Wonder what Sonny Bills opinion on the matter would be..

 

[RedruthRFC]

Interesting to see a different take on a claim of verbal abuse:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/footbal...bc_sport&ns_source=facebook&ns_linkname=sport