Paley said:
The fact that the IRB and the national unions actively discriminated against Rugby League for a century on the basis that it wasn't another sport but just professional rugby is rather dishonourable don't you think? To then claim that professional rugby only came into existence in 1995 is rather dishonourable don't you think?
"Dishonourable"? Who cares? Does "honour" have any role in today's sporting world? Is there a "Court of Honour"?
Sorry, Paley, not even close.....definitely no cigar.
If the IRB wished to claim "rugby" for itself it should have though twice about the way it acted towards RL and its players for a century.
Given that IRB means International Rugby Board, and the name seems to have been widely accepted in common usage, it looks as though the wish has become the fact.
The above proves beyond any doubt that rugby league is rugby just as rugby union is rugby and any governing body claiming sole right over the word is merely being stupid and ignorant - although in the case of the IRB and the national unions their history over the use of the word also adds dishonourable behaviour into the mix.
Paley, have you ever heard of a logical syllogism? You know, "all fish can swim, I can swim, therefore I am a fish"?
You have proved nothing, other than that you have an unhealthy and unproductive obsession with the name of rugby. Have a look at the legal doctrine
res ipsa loquitur.
Why don't you put your efforts into something productive for your code, like the establishment of an impartial, well-funded, and authoritative international body. Ooops. Wait a minute. What on earth would you call it?
