Jackson and Olding face bigger trial among public

“I am not convinced that their rugby careers being ended would be justice”

What happens next to Paddy Jackson and Stuart Olding is less about them being cleared of rape in a law court than how the court of public opinion judges them. In many ways the weight of public opinion is the most powerful court of all, in that it is capable of seeing public figures frog-marched from positions of power irrespective of whether they are prime ministers or football managers.

What is most at issue with Jackson and Olding is the degrading and derogatory social media messaging between them and other players about their sexual activity with the young woman who made the allegation.

Women’s rights groups in Ulster and the Irish Republic made their stance clear on what has been dubbed “toxic masculinity”. They demanded that the Ulster and Ireland contracts of the two players be revoked, with 300 campaigners protesting outside Ulster’s Kingspan Stadium before the Ospreys match last Friday.

Irish rugby’s chief sponsor, the Bank of Ireland, pitched itself into the court of public opinion by informing Ulster and the IRFU that they needed to take action or put the commercial partnership in jeopardy.

Banks attempting to take the moral high ground might jar with many, but in this instance it was not difficult to see their dilemma.

The Irish and Ulster rugby administrations responded to the growing public furore last week by sacking Jackson and Olding, despite a jury of eight men and three women unanimously finding them not guilty of rape after taking three hours and 45 minutes to deliver that verdict.

The rugby administrators did so in the knowledge that a petition signed by almost 18,000 Ulster fans had asked for their immediate reinstatement.

The signatories included the talisman of Ulster, Irish and Lions rugby, Willie John McBride. Former Ulster and Ireland fly-half Paddy Wallace also called on Ulster Rugby to explain why their contracts had been terminated. Wallace suggested the lack of transparency could result in fans walking away: “Supporters are up in arms. They’re thinking, ‘do I renew my season ticket, do I come to the game?’”

However, unless Olding, 25, and Jackson, 26, challenge the right of the Ulster and Irish unions to end their employment on a charge of “bringing the game into disrepute”, they will have to pursue their rugby careers elsewhere.

The difficulty with this is that the same issues with sponsors and women’s rights groups could follow them to England, France, or any other rugby country, blocking their employment. At present there is speculation that Jackson could move to France, with Clermont Auvergne and Montpellier as potential destinations.

So far neither Top 14 club have made their interest public, while English champions Exeter – who had been linked to Jackson – made a clear statement that they would not be signing him.

If clubs in England, France, and further afield, were to follow suit, the professional rugby careers of Jackson and Olding would effectively come to an end.

The social messaging they were involved in fully justified the term “reprehensible” given to it in court, but I am not convinced that their rugby careers being ended by it would be justice – or that the majority in the court of public opinion would deem it to be.

Given that this case involved two Ulster players being guilty of demeaning behaviour within their own community my belief is also that Ulster is, first and foremost, where it should be resolved.

The best course of action would have been for Ulster Rugby to have given Jackson and Olding a year disrepute ban, including a community service clause. This could either have been a year ban preventing them from playing anywhere, or an initial nine-month ban, with an option to play outside Ireland for the remaining three months if they could find employment.

Having served that punishment they ought to be allowed to play again in Ulster, the rest of Ireland, or elsewhere.