(03-21-2016, 10:13 PM)ItsOurTime link Wrote:Not sure what you're arguing. That McKay actively took ownership of the risk that Thomas would never recover and now that it looks like he won't, he shouldn't be held accountable for taking the risk? And all that is fine because he's a vet and vets are better than doctors at assessing medical reports in humans?
Definitely sounds like good governance yo me.
Posters are calling for McKay's removal based on the assertions / hearsay that our club was told at the time Daisy could never recover from his ankle problems, and that McKay now has ultimate responsibility for Daisy's recruitment. I'm calling those assertions bullcrap!
Rather than offer evidence to support the hearsay posters try to defend their claims by loading derision on McKay's abilities, based on indirect assertions his training "As a Vet" has no value in assisting him to contribute to a decision based on expert medical reports.
These are old claims, that McKay's veterinary training means nothing, that we were told Daisy could not recover and that it's McKay's fault.
But all three assertions are bogus;
- There is no evidence other than hearsay that we were told Daisy could not recover.
(Are Daisy's current problems related to his ankle?)
- McKay's training does mean he has significant skills to assess a players medical reports.
(Assuming player / doctor confidentiality has allowed him to actually see them, they must be explicitly released by the player.)
- McKay is not a loan gun in making such decisions.
(Who else got a vote in this process and did McKay vote Yah or Nay?)
"Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck ....... Ruck, ruck, ruck, ruck"