Select Edition

Northern Northern
Southern Southern
Global Global
NZ NZ

Accused Crusaders at the centre of the McDonald's encounter named

By Online Editors
Crusaders winger George Bridge. (Photo by Anthony Au-Yeung/Getty Images)

The man at the centre of the altercation with Crusaders’ players is refusing to stay silent, threatening to release the video footage of the incident, whilst outing the accused on his social media account asking for an apology directly.

Although three players were allegedly involved, Crusaders coach Scott Robertson claims only one player, George Bridge, was involved in what was a “selfie gone wrong”.

“George who I’ve talked a lot about, he engaged with him … he’s really upset around everything that’s come out, he’s extremely, authentically genuine that there was nothing ever said,” Robertson said.

“George said ‘mate I just want to have a photo with you’ … there was no interaction with anyone else. That’s where the misinterpretation came. A selfie gone wrong really.

“He just can’t understand how it’s got to this platform.”

Robertson reiterated that “no homophobic words or gestures were used”.

ADVERTISEMENT

Crusaders’ pair George Bridge and David Havili were directly messaged by the accuser via his Instagram story in a taunting fashion.

To David Havili he wrote “remember us from the McDonald’s last night?? haha we found you… you and your teammates are going down.”

After George Bridge failed to respond to the accusser’s question he sent a second message saying “silence speaks volumes sweaty.. we’ll just move this conversation to higher powers since you’re clearly incapable x”

ADVERTISEMENT

Alexandros Paterimos took to social media to share details of the altercation yesterday and video of a man, believed to be the security advisor, has been circulated.

“We were attacked by members of the New Zealand rugby team in the McDonald’s on Long/kloof st last night. As we entered, we were met with jeering and sniggers from them. They then proceeded to record as a joke (also, upon looking on his phone screen, it was recording for either insta/snapchat),” Paterimos wrote on Instagram.

“We were met with homophobic slurs, limp wrists and high pitched voices which were clearly in jest.

The Crusaders strongly denied the incident in a statement issued yesterday, advising that the team will undertake an investigation once the player’s return.

“Allegations have been made via social media that there was a verbal altercation between members of the public and some Crusaders players who were out getting food after the match against the Stormers in Cape Town. The original post claimed players exhibited homophobic behaviour.

“The three players, team management and the South African-based security advisor with them, strongly refute the socialised account of what happened. They are devastated by the allegation and the implication of homophobic behaviour.”

ADVERTISEMENT

Join free

Fresh Starts | Episode 1 | Will Skelton

ABBIE WARD: A BUMP IN THE ROAD

Aotearoa Rugby Podcast | Episode 8

James Cook | The Big Jim Show | Full Episode

New Zealand victorious in TENSE final | Cathay/HSBC Sevens Day Three Men's Highlights

New Zealand crowned BACK-TO-BACK champions | Cathay/HSBC Sevens Day Three Women's Highlights

Japan Rugby League One | Steelers v Sungoliath | Full Match Replay

Rugby Europe Women's Championship | Netherlands v Spain

Trending on RugbyPass

Comments

Join free and tell us what you really think!

Sign up for free
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest Features

Comments on RugbyPass

S
Senzo Cicero 12 hours ago
'If the South Africans are in, they need to be all in'

1. True, if that “free” ticket means access to all but the prized exhibit - EVIP only. SA cannot host semis, even if they’ve earned it (see Sharks vs ASM Clermont Auvergne at… Twickenham Stoop). 2. Why no selective outrage over Lyon doing the exact same thing a week earlier? Out of all the countries France send the most “B teams”, why nobody talking about “disrespect” and “prioritising domestic leagues” and “kicking them out”? 3. Why no mention of the Sharks fielding all of their Springboks for the second rate Challenge cup QF? No commitment? 4. Why no mention of all the SA teams qualifying for respective euro knock out comps in the two seasons they’ve been in it? How many euro teams have qualified for KO’s in their history? Can’t compete? 5. Why no mention of SA teams beating French and English giants La Rochelle and Saracens? How many euro teams have done that in their history? Add no quality? The fact is that SA teams are only in their second season in europe, with no status and a fraction of the resources. Since joining the URC, SA has seen a repatriation of a number of players, and this will only grow once SA start sharing in the profits of competing in these comps, meaning bigger squads with greater depth and quality, meaning they don’t have to prioritise comps as they have to now - they don’t have imports from Pacifica and South America and everywhere else in between like “European” teams have - also less “Saffas” in Prem and T14, that’s what we want right? 'If the South Africans are in, they need to be all in' True, and we have to ensure we give them the same status and resources as we give everyone else to do just that. A small compromise on scheduling will go a long way in avoiding these situations, but guess what, France and England wont compromise on scheduling because they ironically… prioritise their domestic comps, go figure!

19 Go to comments
FEATURE
FEATURE How are Australian sides faring in Super Rugby Pacific? How are Australian sides faring in Super Rugby Pacific?
Search