• Current Donation Goals

cc1173

Jose Mourinho Sacked For The Second Time by Chelsea. Joins Manchester United. And now sacked by them too!

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Bob Singleton said:

I'm on Eva's side from the purely medical point of view; something which seems to have been forgotten by many of the recent posters. Irrespective of who her employer is, as a medical professional she has a certain duty of care which she must perform which transcends all of that.

What would have happened if Hazard had been more seriously injured than he was, Eva had refused to treat him because Mourinho had told her not to go on the pitch to treat him, etc., etc.? I'm sorry, but as a medical professional she did the right thing, and to suggest otherwise is idiocy, as Droy would say.
 

I think that there needs to be some context here as her working environment is very different to other medical professionals.

Should the club doctor have run onto the pitch during the Champions League final when Pepe was rolling around in 'agony', twice?

I think this is what Jose was referring to when he said '...if you are a medical doctor or secretary on the bench, you have to understand the game'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DaviesCFC said:

I think that there needs to be some context here as her working environment is very different to other medical professionals.

Should the club doctor have run onto the pitch during the Champions League final when Pepe was rolling around in 'agony', twice?

I think this is what Jose was referring to when he said '...if you are a medical doctor or secretary on the bench, you have to understand the game'.

At the time of the incident she was working in the UK and therefore under the terms and conditions of the GMC. In many respects those terms are based on the old Hippocratic Oath, only brought up to date for the modern world. I'm not sure "context" is relevant. The primary duty of care is to the patient and no-one else. The following is an article written by a medical ethicist and barrister:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/football/teams/chelsea/11807677/The-case-of-Chelseas-Eva-Carneiro-shows-how-hard-it-is-to-be-a-sport-doctor.html
 

As Dr Sokol says, "Like the manager, the players, and the fans, the doctor usually wants the team to do well. The difficulties arise when a doctor’s loyalties to the manager, the team, and the fans conflict with the medical commitment to the patient."

Regarding José's quote, unfortunately for him, whatever he may think or say regarding "understanding the game", he needs to understand that, unlike the secretary, the doctor has a certain professional, legal and medical responsibility that means he or she cannot just pick and choose as to whether they act or not.

If you really want to bring "context" into it, how often do you see Hazard rolling around feigning an injury like Pepe? He gets hacked down several times during a game, and while sometimes requiring medical treatment of some sort, often gets up and just gets on with things. He is not the sort of player who constantly acts up. In that "context", once the ref had 'waved on' the medical staff, she had no option but attend to Hazard, as refusing to do so could see her suspended by the GMC.


 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
cam4blue   

I wonder what some think the point of a tribunal is. 

I always thought it was a method of conflict resolution when all other avenues have failed. 

It seems many, including Eva and her team, think it's a prosecutorial trial; about settling scores in as public a way as possible. 

Chelsea will be trying to show that they attempted to reconcile the situation amicably, took every reasonable step to avoid a tribunal and her actions were what ultimately made her position untenable. Eva will clearly be slinging mud in every direction. I don't know if that will play in the tribunal, but it will play in the media, and that seems to be the whole point (as well as coming away from this without an NDA). 

I worry about the "regular sexually explicit comments from colleagues", but Eva's team seem to have slung that in as a secondary or tertiary point purely for weight of evidence. They are much more bothered about proving whether Jose said "filha" or "filho"; and I bet the club are absolutely delighted by that. They will be trying to show she committed a breach of trust, had no intention of resolving any dispute and that this is a vindictive claim. It seems like she will do a good part of that for them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The context I was referring to is that without doubt, footballers do feign injury (to varying degrees) which a medical professional in a different industry would not encounter (on such a regular basis), I don't think anyone can dispute that and this is what Jose was referring to why talking about understanding the game. I didn't think I needed to explicitly state that I didn't think Hazard was comparable to Pepe and he was used merely as an example of a footballer who was not actually hurt, but seems like I need to for your benefit - noted for next time.

I accept that she has a duty of care but I don't think you can consider this whole issue purely from a medical point of view.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blue Rod   

We can question the reaction of Eva after the incident, as much as we are entitled to ask what the hell Jose Mourinho thought he was doing. Anyone who questions whether Eva did the right thing in running into the pitch to attend to Hazard is not even worth debating with.

If Jose Mourinho continues to defend his sanctimonious self over this saga, let's hope he does the same at Manchester United. My bet is, he won't, because they are a proper large club, whereas we are just Chelsea. Not bad from one of ours. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paulw66   
12 minutes ago, cam4blue said:

That's that then.

 CkWvIjEXIAAhNde.jpg:large

Surely paragraphs 2 and 3 (amended) could have been released in the days after the incident and this whole thing blows over?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paulw66   
8 minutes ago, Blue Rod said:

We can question the reaction of Eva after the incident, as much as we are entitled to ask what the hell Jose Mourinho thought he was doing. Anyone who questions whether Eva did the right thing in running into the pitch to attend to Hazard is not even worth debating with.

If Jose Mourinho continues to defend his sanctimonious self over this saga, let's hope he does the same at Manchester United. My bet is, he won't, because they are a proper large club, whereas we are just Chelsea. Not bad from one of ours. 

 

 

Your persistent effort at pretending to be a Chelsea fan is to be commended

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, StebzAno said:

A lot of obvious conjecture in that article and eva comes across as very naive and greedy. Gone a bridge too far I think and needs to cash out.  This story doesnt reveal anything shocking to me, once you see through the hollywood dramatisation that is.

It's now concluded (rather quicker than expected), and Eva got her public apology by the looks of things which (iirc) is what she asked for originally.

http://www.chelseafc.com/news/latest-news/2016/06/Chelsea-Football-Club-announcement.html?

It was on confidential terms so I suspect we won't hear anything more than what we've heard already.  Makes you wonder just how much a storm in a tea cup this was, and at the cost of women's chances / inspiration for a future career in a senior mens football club which has (regretfully) got to have taken some damage.

The storm in a tea cup is a somewhat interesting analogy, as it looks like Croydon got absolutely battered with thunder and lightning this afternoon at the same time.  I wonder what effect that had on the mood today.

Just glad it's all over now.  We can watch the Euro coverage, pre-season and go into next season with at least that black cloud removed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Blue Rod   
3 minutes ago, paulw66 said:

Surely paragraphs 2 and 3 (amended) could have been released in the days after the incident and this whole thing blows over?

Exactly. That's what some of us have been saying all along. There was no chance whatsoever that she was going to lose. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now