Whether lending his voice to important causes or simply taking time to think about the impact he can make with his profile, it's patently obvious that Dave is different. And while the ideas that he supports are debatable, there can be no doubt he has the courage to swim against the tide. In a world where separating yourself from the herd is often scorned, we must celebrate individuals who refuse to mindlessly toe the line. Especially 26-year-olds thrust into the public eye by virtue of winning the genetic lottery. Dave did not choose to have 70,000 Twitter followers, but he does choose how to communicate with them. While many athletes use their profiles to peddle merchandise to their fans, it's encouraging that others are realising the potential they have to drive positive change. Henry Speight recently raised more than $30,000 for the Walk On Walk Strong foundation that supports Fijian children with cancer. And the Reds' Ben Daley launched his "Be Great, Do Good" campaign last week. Other players assist charities and get involved with communities and causes they are passionate about. This is an encouraging trend and most teams do a good job promoting these feel-good stories. But that's not the entire picture. There are times when an athlete's moral imperative collides with the financial interests of their employer. I experienced this upon my return to the Brumbies in 2013. The annual McDonald's McHappy Day involves sponsored teams and athletes across the nation promoting junk-food to children. As players we were required to tweet about the event during the promotional activity that involved working at the drive-through, greeting customers and signing merchandise. During the day I began tweeting about the farcical situation I found myself in. A short selection of these tweets can be viewed below:

It didn't take long for the machine of corporate power to flex its muscles. A number of Brumbies administrators and staff called and demanded that I delete the tweets immediately. After refusing to take the tweets down I entered into correspondence with an administrator, a section of which can be viewed here: "Rath – we need to talk in the morning. I'm extremely disappointed and alarmed by what I have been informed about re: your actions today (regarding your refusal to delete comments on social media which criticise a current sponsor of the organisation). It breaches our code but above and beyond that will likely lead to their non-renewal which will lead directly to cuts to program funding which hurts everyone. If you felt so strongly against the day you should had requested that you don't participate. If I have this wrong you can take me through it tomorrow. If you haven't done so already, I again formally require that you comply with my direction to delete all relevant references that may harm our relationship with our sponsor. I will call you late morning. Cheers" I responded with the following: "Happy to chat in the morning. I'm keen to understand specifically which code I've breached and what the implications are.

"As I see it I've done little more than light-heartedly poke fun at the clearly ridiculous idea of athletes actively promoting junk food. I've not slandered McDonald's or made statements that any reasonable person could identify as unethical or immoral. I don't believe any organisation should remain immune to criticism and I'd be surprised if any code directly compromised my freedom of speech (but then I've been surprised before). "The reason I participated in the day was because I thought I was contractually obligated to. I did not think I was contractually obligated to pretend that promoting junk food to children is conscionable, I don't believe it is. The Brumbies mean a lot to me and I don't want to damage a sponsorship opportunity for the organisation. With that said as a person with a (limited) profile in the community I do have a moral imperative to live in accordance with my values. "I'd hope that McDonald's recognises that sports teams are a segment of society, and as such are represented by individuals with different and often conflicting views on various issues. I just happen to think that peddling garbage to children is a bad idea made worse when it's their role models doing the selling. "Happy to chat in the morning. "Best, Rath".

Ultimately, after being informed that funding for development programs was in danger of being lost, I deleted the tweets. That was a mistake. I should have chained myself to those tweets in the same way David Pocock chained himself to the Maules Creek mine site. Perhaps that is the point. That individuals who hold themselves accountable to their beliefs also hold a mirror up to us all. They force us to ask uncomfortable questions about our deepest convictions, and thereby lead us closer to truth. So while we're celebrating the good health of David Pocock's knee, let's not forget to raise a glass to the eternal pursuit of much higher ideals.