RugbyRebels

From today's Cape Times: Wonder who this was . . .

A former Springbok rugby player has been accused of attempting to murder a man who used to work for him, and who continues to live on his wine farm in the Western Cape.

Police confirmed on Sunday that a case of attempted murder has been opened against the former Springbok.

Johannes Bitterbos, who worked on the farm until three years ago when he was fired, claims he was knocked over by a quadbike driven by the former Springbok on Saturday afternoon.

Bitterbos said he fell to the ground after he was knocked down.

He claimed he would have been driven over again but managed to roll out of the way.

Bitterbos said he has bruises all over his body.

Witnesses then phoned the police, who called an ambulance.

A group of about 20 farmworkers went to the police station to help Bitterbos lodge a complaint.

On Sunday, a group of about 30 farmworkers picketed outside the farm, demanding the former Springbok hand himself over to the police.

A representative of the farmworkers, Alvina Abrahams, said it was sad that he had not yet been arrested.

“We want justice for our people. If the victim had been a white person, he would have been locked up a long time ago,” she said, adding that the farmworkers want the station commander of Wellington police station investigated.

“We say enough is enough,” said Abrahams.

Police spokesperson Frederick van Wyk said an attempted murder case was opened for investigation.

He said there had been no arrest as yet and the investigation is continuing.

The Cape Times tried repeatedly to get comment from the former Springbok, but he was not available at the time of publishing.

Why don't they name him?

I guess he hasn't been formally charged yet. Don't think they can name him in the press until he's actually been charged with something, can they?

Bob wrote:Why don't they name him?

Just to keep you happy lets call him Dave for the time being.

Bob wrote:Why don't they name him?

I tried to be all Columbo and googled "former springbok wine farm", only to find out that pretty much every ex-springbok goes into the wine farm business.

However I was expecting a bit more damage for an attempted murder rap, than this!
http://www.iol.co.za/capetimes/ex-bok-a ... er-1994162

I've seen carpet burns worse than that.

Yeh, not sure trying to hit somebody with a quadbike constitutes attempted murder. Assault with a 'deadly weapon' at worst.

1. "Wine farm"? It's called a vineyard.

2. "Attempted" murder is about 1 over par for South African ex-rugby players http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... venge.html
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/m ... rugbyunion
http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/bees-rou ... 99047.html
http://www.irishtimes.com/sport/springb ... er-1.71950

Shocking stuff. It would make a good subject for a book, actually. The Rudi Visagie incident is a tragedy of Shakespearean proportions, but I'm not sure how much sympathy I have for the ex-Bok himself, given he just shot blindly into the car. Auto-theft may be epidemic in SA these days, but it's not that serious a crime you just go all out to kill the guy. I was quite astonished to read that Henry Tromp got to represent the Boks again AFTER being convicted of manslaughter - especially as it seems it should probably have been a first degree murder charge.

The Tromp selection was rather astonishing at the time, especially coming so soon after Mandela had done so much reduce rugby's image as a tangible remaining symbol of apartheid. It's not as if Tromp was undroppably good either.

That decision would have to rank somewhere near the top of the list of most wrongheaded sporting selections ever.

And it didn't really lighten the mood when the national coach who made that selection was later recorded referring to black administrators as "f***ing k****rs."

Puts some historical context around the ongoing fracas over transformation and quotas, doesn't it?

Yes, there were plenty of other incidents of racism within South African rugby circles in the supposedly 'post-Apartheid' era too.

I too, am utterly shocked and surprised that racism wasn't eradicated overnight in a country that had white supremacy as an official government policy for about 50 years, and only just ended it within our lifetimes.

White rule may have ended a quarter of a century ago, but it did so in name only. Foreign interests retained control of the mines, banks and monopoly industries, and no economic democracy has followed. Whites have by and large been permitted to hang onto the wealth they accrued during the Apartheid era, while no compensation has ever been paid to the countless non-whites who continue to suffer from the effects of white rule to this day. The ANC has been in bed with the Europeans and Americans all along, engaging in a policy of self-enrichment rather than investing the nation's vast wealth in the majority of the population. Even Mandela was little more than a puppet leader, sadly. It is known that he was called into meetings with Apartheid leaders and foreign investors before his release from prison.

Remind us why South Africa should host all the world cups from now on forever, again?

They should host the next World Cup because their stadiums and facilities are second to none, they have the second biggest rugby community in the world, the tournament needs to rotate around the continents rather than returning to Western Europe every second time, and by 2023 it will have been almost 30 years since SA first hosted the tournament - and a memorable event it was, too. Meanwhile, all the other former champions have been involved in hosting at least twice, as have France and the Celtic nations.

The World Cup will be an event for South Africa, not just the rugby fraternity, which is why the SARFU's bid has the full backing of the government. Indeed, it would be entirely unjust and ironic to punish the non-white majority by depriving them of this spectacular and potentially lucrative event. The political situation is an internal issue, not World Rugby's concern. & in case you weren't aware, Australia and NZ have similar issues.

What similar issues does NZ have? We haven't got great hordes of former players stomping all around the joint slaughtering innocent bystanders by the score like you jokers.

As for saying "the political situation is an internal issue and not World Rugby's concern" you could be quoting directly from the IRFB (and, indeed the NZRFU) circa 1985. What next? Meeting transformation quotas by declaring white players to be "honorary blacks"?

I assumed Cashead was responding to my previous post which had referred to the ongoing economic oppression of non-whites in South Africa; something which has barely improved at all since/despite the end of Apartheid. This in itself is not a reason for World Rugby to reject South Africa's bid for the 2023 RWC. Indeed, it would be a case of collective punishment, and very ironic as well. In both Australia & New Zealand the non-white community is similarly rooted to the bottom of the socio-economic scale, and various social issues, including high rates of imprisonment, reflect this. That's the comparison. Furthermore, there is a similar situation continuing in British-ruled Northern Ireland with the segregation of Protestants and Catholics and preferencial treatment of the former. Btw, I'm not South African. I grew up in New Zealand, played most of my rugby there, and have both Maori and Pacific Island relatives.

rowan wrote:I assumed Cashead was responding to my previous post which had referred to the ongoing economic oppression of non-whites in South Africa; something which has barely improved at all since/despite the end of Apartheid. This in itself is not a reason for World Rugby to reject South Africa's bid for the 2023 RWC. Indeed, it would be a case of collective punishment, and very ironic as well. In both Australia & New Zealand the non-white community is similarly rooted to the bottom of the socio-economic scale, and various social issues, including high rates of imprisonment, reflect this. That's the comparison. Furthermore, there is a similar situation continuing in British-ruled Northern Ireland with the segregation of Protestants and Catholics and preferencial treatment of the former. Btw, I'm not South African. I grew up in New Zealand, played most of my rugby there, and have both Maori and Pacific Island relatives.

More importantly which teams do you support?

Super and international?

The very same government that you've basically just accused of corruption, backing an organisation that is bidding for hosting rights headed by A) a man who is deeply resented by the people that work for him with constant allegations of racially motivated meddling and B) a man who is currently facing charges of corruption and embezzlement. Yep, they sure should host the world cup!

But again, Cashead, this is not World Rugby's concern. This will all have changed by 2023 in any case. Zuma's not going to be there much longer. & if you want to talk about corrupt leadership, don't stop there. Last year's World Cup was held in a nation led by a war criminal. & the allegations of racially motivated meddling are, in fact, quite hypocritical, because it is the ongoing issue of racism against non-whites which has made the quotas necessary. Meanwhile, this year's Olympics will be held in Brazil, and look what's going on there right now. Of course, the FIFA World Cup was staged in that nation just two years ago. Your perception that it is the responsibility of sports organizations to judge a nation on its politicis is woefully midguided. Quite frankly, there wouldn't be too many countries in the world that would be able to hold major sports events if that were the primary criteria.

More importantly which teams do you support?

Super and international?


Jaguares and Argentina

I was a Canes fan till last year's final

You don't think World Rugby should be concerned about potentially giving money to an organisation to set up a World Cup, where the influential people near the top of the food chain are currently revolting to oust the chairman in favour of the CEO - the very same CEO that is now facing corruption and embezzlement charges?

Really?

rowan wrote:White rule may have ended a quarter of a century ago, but it did so in name only. Foreign interests retained control of the mines, banks and monopoly industries, and no economic democracy has followed. Whites have by and large been permitted to hang onto the wealth they accrued during the Apartheid era, while no compensation has ever been paid to the countless non-whites who continue to suffer from the effects of white rule to this day. The ANC has been in bed with the Europeans and Americans all along, engaging in a policy of self-enrichment rather than investing the nation's vast wealth in the majority of the population. Even Mandela was little more than a puppet leader, sadly. It is known that he was called into meetings with Apartheid leaders and foreign investors before his release from prison.

I like your style. But I don't know how far you're going to get with your interlocuters here.

Yes. The main reason Mandela met with the failing regime and foreigners was so they could try to convince the inevitable post-revolution leader that, first, a violent revolution was not needed, and secondly that being an unreconstructed Marxist was economic lunacy. Fortunately, they succeeded. Unfortunately, they forgot to also suggest that a succession plan not involving corrupt and weak successors might also be a good idea.

You don't think World Rugby should be concerned about potentially giving money to an organisation to set up a World Cup, where the influential people near the top of the food chain are currently revolting to oust the chairman in favour of the CEO - the very same CEO that is now facing corruption and embezzlement charges?

No, that's a separate issue. We may have had our wires crossed here, but, apart from my comments about the quotas, I've been referring mostly to the politicial scene in South Africa. Obviously the SARFU needs to sort itself out before the bidding process gets underway in earnest. I believe that will begin in June, the deadline for confirmed bids, with the final announement to be made in May next year.

rowan wrote:You don't think World Rugby should be concerned about potentially giving money to an organisation to set up a World Cup, where the influential people near the top of the food chain are currently revolting to oust the chairman in favour of the CEO - the very same CEO that is now facing corruption and embezzlement charges?

No, that's a separate issue. We may have had our wires crossed here, but, apart from my comments about the quotas, I've been referring mostly to the politicial scene in South Africa. Obviously the SARFU needs to sort itself out before the bidding process gets underway in earnest. I believe that will begin in June, the deadline for confirmed bids, with the final announement to be made in May next year.

Except that earlier, you explicitly said that it shouldn't be World Rugby's concern. So which is it? You can't have it both ways.

I've already answered that. The SARFU needs to sort it out before June when the bidding process starts in earnest. If they do so, no problem. If they don't, it could effect their chances, as you suggest.