Quote from Admin on March 3, 2024, 4:53 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8FuYMdi6OE

335 views Sep 7, 2016

NZ Rugby CEO Steve Tew is disappointed Chiefs players hired a stripper for their end of season function - but says their investigation found everything that happened was consensual.

Transcript

0:00

new zealand rugby boss Steve Chu says

0:01

he's disappointed chief rug Chiefs rugby

0:03

players harder stripper to perform at an

0:05

indices in function but says all the

0:07

activity that occurred was consensual

0:09

the findings of an investigation de

0:12

claims Chiefs players abuse the stripper

0:14

at the mutter mutter hotel bar when made

0:16

public this afternoon by NZ rugby and

0:18

the Chiefs their investigation found the

0:20

strippers claims of sexual abuse

0:21

including being touched without

0:22

permission were unsubstantiated by nine

0:25

quote independent witnesses in quote

0:28

spoken to buy a new zealand rugby's

0:29

legal counsel the whole Chiefs team's

0:32

been given a warning for hiring the

0:33

performer and new zealand baby's chief

0:35

executive says it was inappropriate but

0:37

Steve chooses no witnesses back the

0:39

allegations that were made so what does

0:41

that mean does that mean the alleged

0:43

events didn't happen or that they did

0:45

happen but they were consented to well

0:49

we're not disputing anything as such

0:51

Joel always done and I had a very senior

0:53

member of the legal fraternity who

0:56

happens to be our general counsel was

0:57

got a lot of employment or background

1:00

his column spoken to nine independent

1:02

witnesses and a reasonable cost each of

1:05

the players by those who were entirety

1:07

by than those who was sober and playing

1:09

minder because that's the way they

1:11

conduct themselves these days and they

1:14

just he simply cannot get any evidence

1:16

to substantiate the claims that were

1:18

made what we saw there were claims so if

1:20

you can't substantiate them what claims

1:22

are you rejecting was Scarlett for

1:25

example licked and touched well I'm

1:29

frankly not particularly enthusiastic

1:32

about going through the individual

1:33

delegations because I'm not sure that

1:35

anyone benefits met but none of the

1:37

allegations that were made on television

1:39

by scarlet Astaire chatter by any of the

1:42

independent witnesses all the players

1:43

that we've spoken to so what we have

1:45

chosen to do is to take a collective

1:47

action against the players those that

1:49

were there and those that weren't now

1:52

all have a formal caution on their

1:54

record and it's largely about the

1:55

decision to have a function with this

1:58

sort of entertainment in it because it

1:59

was a poor decision and we need to learn

2:01

submissions from exit I want to know

2:03

what happened was she looked untouched

2:05

and if so are you disputing her version

2:09

of events because you're saying it was

2:11

consensual or are you saying they

2:13

didn't happen at all now I'm well I'm

2:16

saying John is that we cannot get anyone

2:19

to substantiate the claim that she made

2:22

their actions on a non-consensual type

2:24

we were taken by the place I'm not going

2:27

to get into the intimate details on who

2:29

routine I think you better talk to her

2:30

about that but in the end we can also

2:34

Stan show any of the claims that she

2:36

made against our players on an

2:38

individual basis or as a group for that

2:41

matter but we are deeply disappointed

2:44

the decision was made to have this sort

2:47

of entertainment at a function that

2:48

clearly can be seen as a Chiefs function

2:51

in a camp and it can't happen again for

2:54

even supposed to be involved in it

2:55

that's what the caution means can we

2:57

talk about the nine independent

2:58

witnesses who were they not in terms of

3:01

names but where were they from how were

3:03

they independent or only people because

3:05

they weren't part of the test group they

3:07

were people who happen to be on the

3:08

premises because they work there for

3:10

example ought to be a so I'm not

3:13

entirely sure John because if they work

3:15

there this is a pub that the Chiefs had

3:17

visited before no no stop no definitely

3:20

not all of the work you I'm not sure so

3:22

some of them are some even work there

3:23

because would that mean they were

3:25

independent if they were being paid for

3:27

example that day to look after the

3:29

Chiefs to serve drinks to the Chiefs

3:31

that wouldn't be independent with us

3:33

well let me let me just give you some

3:35

context we have attempted to find out

3:38

exactly what happened because we wanted

3:40

to know so our legal counsel has gone to

3:43

the witnesses that were there and I

3:45

don't know whether any of them were

3:47

staff or not but certainly a different

3:51

number than we're not they were members

3:52

of the public so they are independent

3:54

and today we and did they witness the

3:57

entire performance for wonderful be the

4:00

description the witnesses apparently

4:02

some were invited in and put the

4:04

invitation up and watch the entire

4:06

performance okay all of this is so at

4:11

odds with what Scarlett is saying about

4:14

what happened that it is bewildering to

4:17

me how people who are in the same place

4:20

at the same time see things so

4:22

differently yep bewildering to me too

4:27

John was bewildering to me that that

4:29

those claims were made on live

4:33

television without anyone checking that

4:35

anybody else might they had the same

4:36

view of them as well but that's what

4:38

occurred or we can deal with effects in

4:40

front of us and that is having

4:42

interviewed as I say a number of players

4:44

who were sober in minders number flies

4:46

overhead admittedly been drinking and

4:47

also reasonable cross-section of or not

4:51

cross its with a reasonable number of

4:52

independent witnesses definitely some of

4:54

whom did not work in the establishment

4:55

and there is nothing to sustain the

4:58

allegations that were made that means

5:00

like we can take any action against our

5:02

place nothing to say nothing to sustain

5:04

that sorry are you saying so are you

5:06

saying this stuff didn't happen let's

5:08

let's begin at what we know heaven did

5:09

the performance happen John what as far

5:13

as we know the team made a decision the

5:16

group of the team that was here we only

5:18

had 24 of the 40 or applies mccourt

5:20

actually on this trip they made a

5:22

decision to hire an entertainer a woman

5:25

to come and rip and she did strip right

5:27

that's not a dispute she performed her

5:30

routine which I have to say is more than

5:34

a striptease and as far as I'll go

5:36

because I don't think it's helpful for

5:38

us to be so it's more than a striptease

5:40

so that would suggest that the Scarlets

5:44

claims that people were touching her did

5:47

in fact happen so when you say it can't

5:50

be substantiated or corroborated

5:51

actually this is a discussion around

5:53

consent isn't it you're saying the

5:55

inside are you was saying she consented

5:57

to that she's saying no I didn't the

6:01

independent witnesses and the players we

6:04

interviewed all agree whatever took

6:07

place was consensual that the other

6:09

allegations that were made around but

6:12

other behavior boisterous behavior did

6:14

not occur and from that point of view we

6:18

can't go any further what's she on a

6:19

hiding to nothing here what's this

6:21

investigation ever going to find

6:23

anything other than this what if you

6:25

question the integrity of the effort we

6:26

put into this then I will challenge you

6:28

because I find it unfortunate we have I

6:31

put into this piece of work an enormous

6:33

amount of energy and personal effort

6:35

from our general counsel it was a very

6:37

senior legal practitioner he has

6:40

interviewed people in comfort

6:41

who have shared with them exactly what

6:43

they believe to take place and that's

6:45

what's brought us to the conclusions

6:47

that we have made I come back to it I

6:48

don't think there's a winner or loser

6:50

and this everybody and this miss is an

6:53

unfortunate participant but in the end

6:56

this performance was consensual it is

7:01

apparently legal because you can ring a

7:05

agency and get some of the color on and

7:07

do these things and that's what happened

7:10

in the steam in the NZRU statement it

7:12

says and I quote the players also wish

7:14

to apologize to the women what what

7:16

women the woman involved because they

7:20

see now that she has got herself in a

7:22

very awkward situation and they feel for

7:24

her and in regret the fact that they

7:26

high during the first place so they are

7:28

regret the fact that their hide her in

7:30

the first place but nothing about their

7:32

behavior when she was there no as I say

7:35

the players completely reject the

7:38

allegations that were made and you

7:40

accept that and your ends at are you

7:43

counsel who conducted this investigation

7:45

accepts that I accept the findings that

7:48

a deal counselors made having

7:50

cross-reference what the pride have told

7:52

us with nine witnesses who were not pile

7:55

of a team some of them with general

7:57

beamers of the general public Steve to I

8:00

spoke to him what time about roughly

8:03

four o'clock this afternoon