What Sandy actually said was
Gail is too honest and honourable to have to "leak" comments - she merely says what she thinks is right and tells it as it is.

So, Boss Hogg and all other interested parties, let's tell it as it is!  Look away now if you don't like the truth!

As far as I was concerned there was never any question of ‘leaking’ the Conduct Panels letter.  After establishing with my lawyer that there was no restriction in place that explicitly detailed that I couldn’t, and I’ll explain what I mean by this later, I gave the Conduct Panels letter to Bob Cowan.

In order to understand where we are at the moment you have to have a fairly reasonable understanding of the RCCC Ethics Manual and the processes described therein.  To say that we are guinea pigs would be an understatement.  At every stage of every process we have been through the Ethics Manual has been tested to its limits and that is basically what is happening here!

The processes within the Ethics Manual fall under certain headings, and one process cannot seem to take place without the preceding one having been tested fully!

STATEMENT OF ETHICS
(Very basically the Etiquette section of the Rules)

POLICY & PROCEEDURES FOR DEALING WITH THE CONDUCT OF PARTICIPANTS
Introduction
Application
Complaint
Screening
Investigation
Hearing
Sanctions
Automatic Sanction
Delegation
Appeals Procedure

THE RCCC APPEALS POLICY
Scope of the Appeal
Grounds for the Appeal
Screening of the appeal
Appeal on the record
Panel
The Record
Procedures for the hearing
Appeal Decision
Timelines
Jurisdiction

Etc, etc

Having followed each procedure to the letter, over the last 14 months, it was with great disappointment that I received the Conduct Panels decision not to pursue to a Formal Hearing the complaint that I had made against the National Coach. (I think I can safely say this as Derek Brown made it clear that he did not wish to appeal this decision, he only wished to appeal/challenge the Conduct Panels right to have an opinion!)

Now this is the crux of the situation; you will notice that Sanctions comes after Hearing and paragraph 28.  (No publication of a decision or sanction shall take place until the time for appeal has expired or an appeal has been decided.) falls under the heading Sanction!!  It was my understanding, and my lawyers, that because the Conduct Panel had not proceeded to a formal hearing as required of it under the heading Hearing, Paragraphs 19 -21, that we were not required to instigate Paragraph 28 and therefore, there could be no embargo on the decision of the Conduct Panel.

Derek Brown’s lawyer decided that the Conduct Panels opinions were severely damaging to Mr Browns professional reputation and decided to appeal.  He then argues that by making the opinions of the Conduct Panel public before he had had the opportunity to appeal them that we/I were in breach of the Ethics Manual for failing to comply with the terms of it! (Par 28) 

Bring on Complaint #2 from Derek against Gail & Lyndsay and the threat of legal action against the Conduct Panel for having the opinion, the Carrick Gazette, Bob Cowan and whoever disclosed it to them for making it public.

Despite the RCCC not following their own procedures with regard to complaint #2 we have filed our response, similar to the points made above etc, etc and await the Responsible Officers decision firstly on screening, (Par 9) and then we will take it from there!

So it would seem that I have kept my mouth shut for 14 months just to trip up on a technicality at the final hurdle!  Common sense will hopefully prevail.

As for the Scottish Mail on Sunday, as I said to their reporter when she called on Friday with a story she had 'picked up' from the Edinburgh News Desk (whatever that is) ‘No comment’  Knowing that they were running the story I did purchase a copy and can confirm that it was in the 'Scottish Edition'.  I also did a search on line but could find nothing. 

It would appear that if you are logged in and go to the actual post through the thread, as oposed to just the recent posts, then you can see the .jpeg attachment of the article.  Click on it to enlarge it or email me for a 1mb .pdf alternative!

Yes, Bob, you are definitely a stirrer! And Gail is definitely refusing to lie down and stink, as any good dog would. And I will support you both, because what happened post Vernon is certainly not curling. That will no doubt make me a stirrer too.....

gmcurl,

You seem to be under some misapprehension that the law has something to do with justice.

However, as Sandy said, you clearly have a propensity to tell it as it is based on what you think is right.

I’m sure it is of little consolation but having read your summation of recent events I’m persuaded by your argument and can better appreciate your frustration with the process.

Thanks for taking the time to put it.

That is the bottom line, the heart of the matter. A governing body should govern, or they will lose the job. Oh, just wait till I get going on the "new" plans for the NCA.....

I thought you said the story hadn't been picked up!! 

Headlines on Page 1 of The Scottish Daily Mail, Monday 1st June (see attachment)

THE VULTURES CIRCLE BROWN

A little caution here, please. The RCCC did its best as a governing body and the Vernon Report was to me at least quite clear about the causes of the mess. Unfortunately the RCCC is at the receiving end of what is now essentially a direct confrontation between coach and player(s). If the law, or legal advice, prohibits the RCCC from saying or doing anything, there is very little the RCCC can do about it.

This does not excuse the fact that this matter could have been cleared up on the day in Vernon, and should have been!

Yes, it's the same guy. The last line of my post says:

This does not excuse the fact that this matter could have been cleared up on the day in Vernon, and should have been!

What I am trying to point out is that the RCCC can well feel satisfied that they have done everything they could and can to deal with this matter, and it was not easy. Now, after the report has been issued, there is a new development beyond their jurisdiction, which is a matter between coach and player(s).

Where the RCCC has failed and is failing, is that it did not and does not yet have the mechanisms in place to deal with matters such as these swiftly and fairly. This reflects the changing world of curling and the new elite structure, over which the RCCC has little control, yet. Blame them for their shortcomings, but not for a legal argument between coach and player(s).

Agree with a lot of JJK post, big mistakes were made by a number of parties.  Some more big questions to be asked and could be some serious answers. 

If/when the case comes to court and if GM wins then what will this mean for the National coach in future? what will it mean for players in the future?  Will it change the whole way teams are supported or picked?