Have to agree with WW1981 - for £15K answers and blame should have been given - imvho.

EVk7po  <a href="http://ugrdvubdteap.com/">ugrdvubdteap</a>, mmvtgchqpnwt, [link=http://qwrqdafmuvfn.com/]qwrqdafmuvfn[/link], http://kntnodjguvzn.com/

to Quote the RCCC Statement
The actions outlined below are intended to guard against any similar future incident although ultimately this depends on the conduct of players, coaches and support staff selected to represent our country.

Should we read into this that there will no longer be a qualifying process for determining the teams who will represent Scotland or is it just another RCCC blunder?

Hello Lottie, welcome back from under your stone. It's quite intriguing to try and work out where you are coming from. At what stage did any of the players behave childishly? I didn't see any mention of that in the 102 pages. In my opinion, and it seems Curling Today's opinion, neither of the girls refused to play for their country. The National Coach decided to play with three players. He had plenty of opportunity to correct that and chose not to. Neither of them were asked to return to the ice. How does that have any bearing on whether the players are prepared to play for their country or not. You've obviously made your mind up and have totally disregarded the plain facts.

Ok, here is my take on it. In my opinion there seems to be one person who is mostly to blame for this debacle and that is or national coach, or soon to be known as our National embarrassment. On the face of it, it would appear that Derek Brown struggles with managing to tie his shoe laces, never mind managing our national teams. How many times does he say that he made the decision to pull rank. His job is not to pull rank but to manage the team and have them running as a well oiled coherent unit.As a manager he should have been using his people skills to keep things on track. Speaking to Rhona and Gail in private, discussing options and strategies for the team to achieving better results and to find the best way forward. No that all seems a little to much for our National coach to manage. There are many other factors that come in to this situation as well, i am not blind to this fact, but i put it to you that if Mike Hay had still been the National coach and the same five players had gone this situation would never have arose.
So to all you people who still think the Royal club should be dancing to the Olympic association tune, let this be a warning. With people like Derek Brown at the Helm there will be a lot more of this type of nonsense to come.

I do recall Mike Hay dropping Hammy at the Olympics in 2002. The big difference there was that Hammy dropped down to vice skip and still played in the team.......nothing as rash as Mr Brown's efforts.

I was surprised to find that neither the National coach or in fact any of the coaches present appeared to be aware of the fact that you could play with three players until they checked the rules.
Of the National Coach I would be interested to know if indeed any of his three employers were aware of the fact that they had appointed ( in his opinion) a person with sole responsibility for who played in a competition of which he did not understand the rules.
Perhaps it also reflects on the overall management of the sport that they could actually justify the cost of sending these coaches to Vancouver without them having the comfort and knowledge that at least their full time paid employee, never mind the rest, understood the rules of the competition he had by his own claim full authority over.
It is an unbelievable situation to find none of the employed coaches kept minutes or at least a written record of events and meetings during this period.
From an employer’s point of view how do they measure their employee’s performance during these events, as there appears to be no formal processes are in place to record any actions taken from which to assess if indeed the coaches did contribute to the team’s performance?
Perhaps of course the management in attendance may have view these events as a jolly good jolly and therefore the coaches may feel they are entitled to the same behaviour.
Finally Rhona attended Vancouver as a volunteer coach and not an employee and from the support she appears to have received from the paid coaches, in future anyone else considering in doing the same should check out, before accepting, the washing line they are likely to be hung on should anything go wrong.