Rory Steyn the, then bodyguard of Nelson Mandela, wrote in his memoirs that the New Zealand team was poisoned by a waitress named Suzie, to enable South Africa to win the world cup. Check this from The Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/4750515/Mandela-book-stirs-rugby-poison-riddle.html
or this:
http://www.iol.co.za/index.php?set_id=6&click_id=581&art_id=qw961136822629B262
Not such a great feat after all.
plus the All Blacks have been pinching players from three other nations - Tonga, Samoa and Fiji since the year dot.
---
It's not "sci-fi", it's SF!
LOL...most of these players lived their ENTIRE LIVES in New Zealand.
Are you the same moron who claimed the All Blacks 'stole' Jonah Lomu from Tonga? Helpful hint: Lomu was born in Auckland
Obviously some people are not aware of the high proportion of kiwis who are of Pacific island origin. LOL. Its multicultural out here, you know.
share
Rugby and kiwis, tis but a small step ...
_____________________
Collection
http://www.imdb.com/list/4zXrE3AAzT4/
plus the All Blacks have been pinching players from three other nations - Tonga, Samoa and Fiji since the year dot.You obviously don't have a clue what you're talking about.
[deleted]
Who cares? It gets dull if the All Blacks win everything, and besides, the South African victory was a positive thing in political terms, whereas another All Black victory would be... yawn...
---
It's not "sci-fi", it's SF!
You make me laugh. You sit there and write it's completely acceptable for a team to be handicapped by food poisoning as long as it's the All Blacks because they've committed the crime of usually being the best.
Thank you for showing yourself up as a complete lunatic.
Who cares? Whats the point of sport in general if thats your stance?
I mean come on, South Africa were lucky to beat France in the Semi Finals. Benazzi scores a perfectly good try to win the game and it isn't given. No mention of that in the film. The biting against Samoa - again no mention of that in the film. There is no doubt that New Zealand were sick, even the most ardent Springbok fans can't deny that - how they got sick is a mystery - suprisingly once again no mention of that.
I would have loved to have seen Luyt's little speech at the end of the movie - offering Bevan (semi final ref) to come up on stage to accept a gold watch and all the other *beep* he spouted which caused a mass walk out.
So poisoning someone to win a game is all good because it was a uplifting thing for SA? Seriously? It's sickening how people justify wrong doings.
shareColin Meads doesn't put any stock in the Suzie theory, and believes it was a problem with the milk.
http://tinyurl.com/4shph3e
http://tinyurl.com/4vx2wv8
As a Kiwi, it would have been nice if there was some mention of it in the movie. But then I suppose, why would you advertise that there's a possibility you only won by 3 points because 27 members of the 35 strong squad are sick?
I'm the best at what I do, but what I do isn't very nice.share
I actually think it was insinuated in the scene when Freeman/Mandela is in the car with his assistant and Sports minister talking about the All Blacks and asks "how can we beat them?". The answer to this question is never really made known to the audience later in the film, so it could've been a reference to food poisoning.
shareJust some quick shots of the AB's throwing up on the field, as they actually did during the game, would have been a nice touch. Don't mention why or what's going on, it'll be all the subtle nod the film needed.
Um missing the point of the movie much? It.is.not.about.you.
Get over yourselves NZ.
It doesn't have to be about NZ to be a very important fact about the game.
Get over yourself.
i bought the DVD expecting an alternative ending in the special features - depicting what would've happened if the All Blacks weren't poisoned.Jonah Lomu scoring 5 tries, Andrew Mehrtens nailing all his dropkicks e.t.c.
shareWishful thinking! please note that Jonah Lomu never ever scored a try against the Springboks in all the tests he played against them.
Jaws is the greatest film of all time.
John 14:6
I can't believe all the crying on here. Everyone has to make excuses why their team lost. Just face facts, your team lost, move on. Does anyone think that the author was just trying to sell books?
share[deleted]
It has been announced that Bryce Lawrence who must be to the rest of the world outside New Zealand the world's worst international rugby referee has been nominated for the best referee of the year in his home country New Zealand. Why am I not surprised. For me it adds more fuel to the conspiracy that the 2011 Rugby World Cup was probably rigged in favour of the All Blacks to win it. By hook and crook...yep they won it! Enjoy the hollow victory guys.
Jaws is the greatest film of all time.
John 14:6
Are you implying that NZ wasn't capable of winning the World Cup of their own merit?
Face it, while they may not have directly cheated, the Boks benefited off some shady maneuvers. Inspirational movie? Sure. Leaving important facts out? Absolutely.
Shady manoevres? Important facts left out? You New Zealanders carry on like the whole world owes you the rugby world cup on a silver platter every time it is played. You now have another trophy after luckily beating a poorly coached French side in the final. Would you win it on merit? No one will ever know but I was not convinced by the All Blacks' performances in their easy group stage victories in a once again easy group. There is no conclusive proof of any rigging or match fixing but things look mightily suspicious. Just imagine if the All Blacks failed to win the World Cup after 24 years on home soil. It would have been a national disaster. To win the World Cup at the outset they would probably have to beat the Boks in the semis and then probably Australia in the final. Not impossible but a tall order and chances could not be taken. Solution? Put Bryce Lawrence in as ref for the Australia/Ireland game and Ireland win under some biased and dubious refereeing in favour of them. Result? Australia would now probably face the Boks in the quarterfinals and at least one foe that could thwart All Black glory on home soil is eliminated. By the time the Bok/Wallaby game was approaching and based on group stage performances the Boks were probably looking like the more dangerous semi final opponents. Solution? Once again bring in Lawrence and instruct him to make sure the Boks lost and they did in a shocking display of refereeing blatantly against the Boks. But the mission was accomplished and the old enemy was out of the World Cup. For me the only time the All Blacks looked like on merit World Cup winners was in their game against the Wallabies but the Wallabies were poor showing that they did not deserve to be there and with proper refereeing according to the rules they were rendered ineffectual opponents. As I said none of this can be proved but there sure is some smoke and that means fire too. Perhaps the All Blacks would have won on merit without 'interferance' in games but they never allowed the tournament to run its natural course. With tri nation losses to rivals South Africa and Australia I am of the opinion that the All Blacks did not start the World Cup as confident all conquering world beaters. Doubt had crept in and intervention was needed.
Jaws is the greatest film of all time.
John 14:6
You get upset when kiwi's make excuses to why they lost in South Africa and then you go ahead and make all these ridiculous accusations and excuses to why things happened the way they did in 2011.
It is a hard fact that the All Blacks had food poisoning whether from foul play or not is really besides the point now. They may or may not have won otherwise but they were definitely hindered by being so sick they had to run off the sideline for a few minutes to throw up and then run straight back on the field. And it's not said to take away from the South Africa victory it's just a pure and simple fact.
Even the 2007 world cup, a forward pass was blatantly missed. There is proof of it. Who knows what would have happened if he had the ref had been capable enough to spot it. Most likely they would not have scored that try. But that's besides the point anyway because the All Blacks are a far better side than the french and should still have been able to take the victory even with an incompetent ref. So all in all I guess the french deserved to win.
What your saying is a ridiculous conspiracy theory that has no grounds at all. It's like saying elvis is still alive or something.
The All Blacks played fine in their pool matches in 2011 (which I wouldn't exactly call easy when it had the other team that made it to the final in it) except for maybe against Tonga. But then again France lost to Tonga so maybe Tonga just had a lot of game. The Argentina game started off badly but they picked themselves up and became the All Blacks we all know them to be. We played well against Australia and definitely deserved that win... even the Aussies at the game said so. Ok the final was abysmal. There was a lot of pressure on the All Blacks. But they won. There was no cheating except for some eye gouging by the french but that made no difference. Both teams were kicking atrociously and there was a very easy kick that would have put the french ahead that they missed.
It makes no difference if the All Blacks had to play Aussie or the French in the finals, they are the best team in the world and can beat either one of them. There was just as much pressure on them in the Aussie game and the beat them easily.
Don't be jealous, and don't try to take away from peoples victories.
Whether the Springboks were responsible or not, The All Blacks still had food poisoning going into the final. Just watch the actual footage and you can see players spewing their guts out on the sidelines. As for the 2011 RWC, South Africa cheated against Wales and Samoa and lost to an average Australian team(on two other occasions earlier in the year too), so I find it very difficult to believe they would've beaten the All Blacks. They are good but not as good as they like to think they are. The All Blacks have the best record of any international team.
shareWhat does the 2011 World Cup have to do with the 1995 World Cup in the sense you compare the Bok '95 team with the 2011 team? No *beep* logic!
Where, when and how did the Boks cheat against Wales and Samoa? Wales scored a try from a blatant forward pass. Samoa was physical illegally agaainst the Boks; this was ignored by the ref and the linesman. The Boks were robbed by some unfair and dubious refereeing from whiney nasal voiced New Zealand ref Bryce Lawrence who has since admitted he made a lot of mistakes and was given a leave of absence from refereeing.
I have the dvd of the 1995 final. No visual evidence of All Blacks puking. They played their hearts out but were beaten by a better side on the day, a side that was able to neutralise Jonah Lomu.
If anybody cheated in the 2011 World Cup it was the New Zealand Rugby Union who rigged the whole tournament so that the All Blacks could have easy path to the final. The fact that they nearly botched it against a 3rd rate French side virtually without a coach, in the final, just shows how mediocre the All Black side was. Enjoy your hollow victory.
Did your mother have any children that lived?
There is no evidence to support this claim. Not least because the All Black's team seldom ate either the same meal or all together.
Had there been such an incident, does anyone wonder why not one of the All Black's would have failed to report to a doctor that they were feeling unwell.
Another urban myth.
There is no evidence to support this claim.Um actually there is a WEALTH of evidence unless you can't accept testimony (i.e. are calling people liars).
Not least because the All Black's team seldom ate either the same meal or all together.Yes they did. They were staying in a hotel.
Had there been such an incident, does anyone wonder why not one of the All Black's would have failed to report to a doctor that they were feeling unwell.Because they thought it would blow-over by the game and didn't want to reveal any weaknesses to the opposition.
1. Having see and re-seen the official footage of the match there is no evidence of the AB's vomiting on the field. [DVD 037899004487] Lace Digital Media Sales
2. Interesting as well that none of the commentators referred to any illness or lacklustre performance during the game
3. There would have been no point in SA trying to cheat in this, or any other way. They had already surpassed expectations. To avhe been involved in cheating would have been calamitous for them.
4. AB's although the outstandingly consistent, highest ranking RFU team have only one the WET once, and that was in New Zealand. Just because they are #1 does not mean that, if they are defeated, there has been foul play.
5. There is no doubt however that some of the team had been ill in the days before. Some of the players not affected said that one or two of their team mates probably should not have been on the field that day. This is a long way from saying that this was a deliberate act.
and finally
Had the game have had to be cancelled - for any reason - there was a chance that the game would have been awarded to the AB's due to their better disciplinary record during the tournament. South Africa knew this. It would not make sense for them to try a stunt like that.
1. Nobody has officially claimed that the All blacks vomited on the field, although the lack of any recorded footage doesn't mean it didn't happen.
2. Why would the commentators be aware of any food poisoning? and why would they notice any lacklustre performance let alone comment on it?
3. Nobody has ever claimed any agency of South Africa (SARFU or whoever) was in any way responsible. Of those people claiming it was deliberate, they've blamed international gambling syndicates.
4. The word is WON, not "one. I don't even know what your second sentence is trying to say...
5. Now you're conceding that some players were in fact food poisoned? can't you even keep a cogent argument?
Finally:
I've already pointed out that nobody is blaming South Africa, and few people would deny that their 1995 team was very good and played well on the day. But that doesn't change the fact that the NZ team was hit by food poisoning prior to the match and that it had a detrimental effect on their performance in the final.
The All Blacks clearly wanted to win the game and would never want it cancelled either.
Watch this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D5iQBLgndTU
Now do you accept they were food poisoned? Or do you think these men are lying?
Any clip on You Tube can be edited. I would only consider as evidence, original material on official releases.
Interestingly, when, after the match, the manager of the AB's was interviewed he made absolutely no reference to anything relating to players health as being any sort of cause.
The time has long passed to accept that everyone whose opinion matters on this, does not question that it was a fair victory by the Springboks.
We shall agree to differ.
Any clip on You Tube can be edited. I would only consider as evidence, original material on official releases.
Interestingly, when, after the match, the manager of the AB's was interviewed he made absolutely no reference to anything relating to players health as being any sort of cause.That's becuse they tried to keep it a secret. They didn't want to whinge.
The time has long passed to accept that everyone whose opinion matters on this, does not question that it was a fair victory by the Springboks.Well I suppose if the AB's took the field sick then it makes the win fair.
We shall agree to differ.
Poisoned my backside, they took a bribe end of and so much for their stupid child like dance rubbish before each match, wonder what there warrior gods though of them after that.
shareWow, your an idiot. Tell me how the Haka is childish. I think you would have *beep* your pants if you ever had to face that in war. And yeah, they were food poisoned, one of the members who didn't said the only reason he wasn't sick was because he had McD's instead. The South African team didn't make them sick, but they were poisoned, how else did so many get so sick in such a short time frame. At least New Zealanders stand true to their cultural heritage and not just forget it or act like nothing happened.
shareI'm a new Zealander and I can tell you how the Haka is childish; It is nothing more than cheap self-reassuring, manifesting in attention-seeking and machismo. Joke's on us as it looks so silly and primitive. Frankly it's long become boring and I'm embarrassed by it and wish we'd leave it to the All Blacks (who shouldn't take it so seriously and make it such a ritual).
And I do NOT consider it my culture. Nor do I see how anyone armed with firearms would be in the least bit bothered if they saw anyone doing it in a war.
And yes we should stop with the food poisoning stuff even if it's not true. The All Blacks management chose to still play the game instead of getting it postponed.
Well, seeming its my culture I stand by the haka. I DO consider my culture. The thing is they didn't sat and up and do the haka before every fight. If they had, I think the English would have whitewashed us in the war between the two. However, they were masterminds when it came to trench warfare and managed to catch a lot of poms unaware on the whole front of that war. If you were to face (without a gun) a group of Maori with all their weapons and they performed the haka, I think you would surely *beep* your pants.
If all the other countries are going top bring up all the things that the all blacks have apparently done wrong and all the reasons why they have lost certain world cups, why can't we.
I'm a new Zealander and I can tell you how the Haka is childish
And I do NOT consider it my culture.
No, he wouldn't. He would have just shot the entire enemy platoon for being idiotic enough to actually stand up and do the Haka and lighting themselves up as targets.
share@eamonn7
People may be a little more inclined to take the slightest notice of your own childish nonsense if your spelling and grammar were not so abominable. It actually requires two or three readings to even understand what you are saying in your single sentence (which is lacking in any suitable punctuation and should at least have been split into two sentences, as there are two separate subjects). Given that there are spelling and grammar checks built in to most computers so you don't even have to rely purely on your own proof reading, you really have to work at sounding so, well....dim!
How about you quit your ignorant insults of a culture about which you clearly know nothing; and the rest of us won't insult your culture. Oh, that's right - no one else on the thread HAS stooped to such insults when they couldn't otherwise make a decent argument for their position - only you.
There has never been any real evidence of bribery - who are the 'they' you speak of? The whole AB team? As that's what it would take. There has however been evidence - plenty of it - that the AB team were ill, apparently from food poisoning; but there is no evidence as to whether that was deliberate or an unfortunate accident, so all the discussion around that point is purely speculative, and a waste of time as nothing could be proven at the time, never mind so many years later.
I watched the coverage at the time (live telecast - getting up at some ungodly hour in NZ to do so), and there WAS mention at the time of the ABs being ill (although I can't honestly remember who said it). The recorded versions that are still available to watch are obtained from different sources, depending which countries filmed the footage from which these versions were obtained (as there were a variety of different cameras, filming from all angles). They are also not necessarily the complete original footage broadcast (in whichever country), regardless of source - they are all edited to some degree or another. So to watch one and say there was no evidence of illness among the ABs based on just that is frankly naive.
There are comments here about only believing 'official' footage - anything released (such as on DVD etc) is even more likely to be edited, to make a good product, so is unreliable as your only source of 'evidence'. An editor is hardly likely to leave in footage of players vomiting on the sidelines, rather than footage of what was happening on the field at the time! And again - from what source do you consider the 'official' footage should come? It is clearly impossible to know exactly what happened based only on film publicly available 20 years after the event.
Maybe the ABs would have won if members of the team were not ill; maybe they wouldn't. As it is, the Springboks played well, and the victory had meaning for them beyond just a rugby game, so surely that's not a bad thing?
Get over yourself eamonn7, and do try and grow up a bit before you come back to play with the big kids!
As a Kiwi, I can safely say that we were destined to lose this game. Some things are just fate - food poisoning or no.
share(Kiwi here,) If you're gonna lose...
Yes, we were quite ill that day, but we've won a lot since then, and now that we've created a new level in the game it's no surprise that it is (only) South Africa that has risen to the occasion (so far, going into 2014).
And "Free... Nelson Mandela"
-------Now she's the marmalade on 10,000 pieces of toast-------
And it seems that the French did score the winning try in the semi after all...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AmSK-IkzK0