Advertisement
If you have a new account but can't post, please email Niamh on [email protected] for help to verify your email address. Thanks :)
New AMA with a US police officer (he's back!). You can ask your questions here

Munster's Gerbrandt Grobler signing - right or wrong?

«13456713

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 19,224 ✭✭✭✭ Venjur


    Has anyone asked Reggie what he thinks?


  • Registered Users Posts: 12,308 ✭✭✭✭ prawnsambo


    Venjur wrote: »
    Has anyone asked Reggie what he thinks?
    Yeah. Reggie is the best guy to ask players what they've left in the dressing room. ;)


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,585 irishfan9


    IRFU should have never allowed it, much like the poaching of 18 year olds from SA.


  • Subscribers Posts: 36,215 ✭✭✭✭ sydthebeat



    What example does it set for developing Irish players?

    ive a bit of an issue with this question....

    why does the fact the munster signed him impact the "example set for developing irish players" ?

    his example is:
    caught doping, serves two year ban, continues a professional career

    wouldnt the "example set" be the very same if he had have served his two year ban and signed for edinburgh / grenoble / waratahs or whoever?

    whats the difference between his situation and chiliboy? isnt the chiliboy example the very same?

    The example is set by world rugby in having only a 2 year ban and allowing the player return. why should this example pertain more to developing irish players than other developing players in other countries? to my eyes if doesnt.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 Former Former


    I'm conflicted about it.

    On the one hand, I don't think a guy who makes a mistake (or who gets caught...) as a 21 year old should be made to pay for it for the rest of his life. On the other, I don't particularly want him at an Irish province. There wouldn't be any shortage of other teams taking him on so I'd rather he had not been signed.

    I think this "why is the media only talking about it now" is particular bizarre, as though it's any way relevant. It's trying to deflect attention and when you're trying to deflect attention, it's generally because something has gone wrong that you don't want people to look at too closely.

    What's completely pointless is putting Munster or Ireland players on the spot and asking them what they think - what else are they going to say except that they're OK with it. Pretty much any former player who's been asked is against it, so I think we can infer that the current players aren't delighted with it either.

    At least he'll be gone in a few months, but signing him was a mistake.

    Edit: just to add, it's not just Munster who are at fault here. Presumably Rassie was pushing for it, but IRFU have not been shy about vetoing signings in the past, this should have been another.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,248 kingofthekong


    Ye this is where I would hope the likes of Nucifora would step in, maybe he did but was overruled,
    At the end of the day Johan Van gran is running a business , he needs it to be as high performing as possible and doesnt have time to bed in younger talent, he wants proven players he know can deliver
    Whilst i disagree with the approach its understandable, Leinster seem to have the highest churn of talent by some distance in the academy, this needs to be utilised by the other provinces more,
    It has been utilised better recently, however there should be no need for a guy like Tadhg Beirne to have gone to the scarlets, Munster should have snapped him up as soon as Leinster decided they werent keeping him, granted hes coming to Munster now but it should have been Instantly,
    Academy talent needs to be more fluid between the provinces, and moves like Loughman to Munster on loan are moves in the right direction,


  • Registered Users Posts: 11,705 ✭✭✭✭ Interested Observer


    sydthebeat wrote: »
    ive a bit of an issue with this question....

    why does the fact the munster signed him impact the "example set for developing irish players" ?

    his example is:
    caught doping, serves two year ban, continues a professional career

    wouldnt the "example set" be the very same if he had have served his two year ban and signed for edinburgh / grenoble / waratahs or whoever?

    whats the difference between his situation and chiliboy? isnt the chiliboy example the very same?

    The example is set by world rugby in having only a 2 year ban and allowing the player return. why should this example pertain more to developing irish players than other developing players in other countries? to my eyes if doesnt.

    Because it's highly unlikely a promising young lock from Munster is going to play for the Waratahs. It's equally unlikely that Chiliboy is every going to play for an Irish province.

    The IRFU can't control anything that happens outside of Ireland. They can set the standard for rugby in this country though, which imo they have completely failed to do here. "Sure he would have gone and played for Edinburgh anyway" is not even nearly a proper response imo.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭ blue note


    I've only a passing interest in rugby - would watch the Ireland games and a few club ones each year. So from an outsider looking in I think this looks very bad. A lot of people, myself included, are very skeptical about how natural the size of players in rugby is. And the fact that so few players get caught doping is also suspicious to many. I'd say the same about a lot of sports, but the size of the rugby lads just makes it look worse to me.

    Seeing this guy being brought into Ireland and the irfu not seeing a problem with it suggests to me that their attitude to doping is not what I'd like it to be.

    I'm just giving my outsiders opinion in case your curious as to how non rugby sports fans are viewing this. I'd say you all know much more about the story than me.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,564 ✭✭✭✭ Buer


    IRFU Chief Executive Philip Browne commented: "The IRFU continues to invest in education and awareness campaigns around the dangers of doping in sport. We operate a zero tolerance policy to cheating within rugby and must remain vigilant in our efforts to safeguard our players and educate them about the importance of clean sport.

    These comments were made at a press release following the publication of an anti-doping report at the end of the 2016/17 season.

    10 days after Grobler was signed.

    The IRFU have lost credibility in this situation. Signing him was a mistake. If not morally then certainly in a business sense. It has brought significant bad publicity of late and I'd wonder how it is received within the Munster camp.

    BOD spoke of how several Munster players were involved in a Newstalk roadshow a couple of years ago when Chiliboy was banned and the topic came up. One of the Munster players stated that Ralepelle was "a cheat". I'm sure he wasn't alone in that assertion. Whatver about us hurlers on the ditch, I would think many clean professionals would view doping as an unforgivable act.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,382 ✭✭✭ Thud


    Don't remember Drico or anyone coming out as strongly against Frankie back in 2003, which in hindsight is very similar to the current Chris Froome case...
    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/rugby-star-gets-twoyear-ban-over-asthma-drug-25938663.html


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 12,308 ✭✭✭✭ prawnsambo


    blue note wrote: »
    I've only a passing interest in rugby - would watch the Ireland games and a few club ones each year. So from an outsider looking in I think this looks very bad. A lot of people, myself included, are very skeptical about how natural the size of players in rugby is. And the fact that so few players get caught doping is also suspicious to many. I'd say the same about a lot of sports, but the size of the rugby lads just makes it look worse to me.

    Seeing this guy being brought into Ireland and the irfu not seeing a problem with it suggests to me that their attitude to doping is not what I'd like it to be.

    I'm just giving my outsiders opinion in case your curious as to how non rugby sports fans are viewing this. I'd say you all know much more about the story than me.
    It's a good point. I looked at doping results in rugby a couple of years ago and the vast majority of detections are in the younger age brackets. Very similar to Grobler in terms of what was used and the obvious reasons for their use. I say obvious because of the drugs that were used. Essentially for bulkling up.

    I don't know if there's more or less testing at the younger age groups, but I suspect that this is where more attention is needed (if it's not already being prioritised). By the time players get to professional level, there's a lot more testing and scrutiny; even within their own clubs.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,224 ✭✭✭✭ Venjur


    Buer wrote: »
    These comments were made at a press release following the publication of an anti-doping report at the end of the 2016/17 season.

    10 days after Grobler was signed.

    The IRFU have lost credibility in this situation. Signing him was a mistake. If not morally then certainly in a business sense. It has brought significant bad publicity of late and I'd wonder how it is received within the Munster camp.

    BOD spoke of how several Munster players were involved in a Newstalk roadshow a couple of years ago when Chiliboy was banned and the topic came up. One of the Munster players stated that Ralepelle was "a cheat". I'm sure he wasn't alone in that assertion. Whatver about us hurlers on the ditch, I would think many clean professionals would view doping as an unforgivable act.

    It's not unforgivable. You can forgive someone but you just don't afford them the benefit of the doubt again.

    Everything is wrong about this. Anyone not making the cut knows they can juice to reach the playing field and if caught sure sit out the two years and be welcomed back into the fold.

    I really don't care what province did it, it just shouldn't have happened at all. I hope Darcy is right and the IRFU didn't do their homework on this, I'd hate if any exceptions were made again.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,564 ✭✭✭✭ Buer


    Thud wrote: »
    Don't remember Drico or anyone coming out as strongly against Frankie back in 2003, which in hindsight is very similar to the current Chris Froome case...
    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/rugby-star-gets-twoyear-ban-over-asthma-drug-25938663.html

    I certainly had/have my suspicions in relation to that incident but he was cleared upon review and it isn't comparable at all to taking steroids.


  • Registered Users Posts: 37,978 irishbucsfan


    Thud wrote: »
    Don't remember Drico or anyone coming out as strongly against Frankie back in 2003, which in hindsight is very similar to the current Chris Froome case...
    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/rugby-star-gets-twoyear-ban-over-asthma-drug-25938663.html

    To be clear, he successfully appealed that with evidence showing the amount in his bloodstream was normal. Was playing again within a few months. It's nothing like the Chris Froome case.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,728 Former Former


    Thud wrote: »
    Don't remember Drico or anyone coming out as strongly against Frankie back in 2003, which in hindsight is very similar to the current Chris Froome case...
    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/rugby-star-gets-twoyear-ban-over-asthma-drug-25938663.html

    Ahhhh stop.

    Can we not just discuss the Grobler case without people spewing red herrings all over place.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,564 ✭✭✭✭ Buer


    Venjur wrote: »
    I really don't care what province did it, it just shouldn't have happened at all. I hope Darcy is right and the IRFU didn't do their homework on this, I'd hate if any exceptions were made again.

    They have to sign off on the player. There's zero chance they didn't know he had served a drug suspension. It's not plausible at all. I think they agreed to getting someone short term due to the PR disaster surrounding Ryan's departure and wanted to pacify the critics.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,737 ✭✭✭ jacothelad


    I believe in life sentences for murder, terrorism and other heinous and vile crimes. Sadly, our society ...well our judiciary and politicians ands other associated hypocrits......let murderers, child rapists, bombers, drug dealers out after a few years to resume their lives or in some instances to even allow them to become members of parliament. Life for them doesn't mean life.

    I don't believe in removing someone's ability to make a living in sport after a naive 21 year old made a serious and calamitous error of judgement. It's not like he's Justin Gatlin. He served his time as prescribed by WR. He is entitled to be given some absolution for his stupidity. In most, but not all, walks of life, people are given second chances. Grobler is such a case. If the IRFU decides that no drug cheats are ever to be allowed to play rugby in Ireland that is different. Best of luck to them and I'd agree 100%. They don't have such a policy. It seems that a few people - like a few other sections of our country - go out of their way to be easily offended.


  • Registered Users Posts: 37,978 irishbucsfan


    jacothelad wrote: »
    I believe in life sentences for murder, terrorism and other heinous and vile crimes. Sadly, our society ...well our judiciary and politicians ands other associated hypocrits......let murderers, child rapists, bombers, drug dealers out after a few years to resume their lives or in some instances to even allow them to become members of parliament. Life for them doesn't mean life.

    I don't believe in removing someone's ability to make a living in sport after a naive 21 year old made a serious and calamitous error of judgement. It's not like he's Justin Gatlin. He served his time as prescribed by WR. He is entitled to be given some absolution for his stupidity. In most, but not all, walks of life, people are given second chances. Grobler is such a case. If the IRFU decides that no drug cheats are ever to be allowed to play rugby in Ireland that is different. Best of luck to them and I'd agree 100%. They don't have such a policy. It seems that a few people - like a few other sections of our country - go out of their way to be easily offended.

    Noone is actually saying he shouldn't have an ability to make a living in sport.

    We're just questioning whether we should have gone out of our way to sign him. Not questioning whether anyone else should be allowed to. We're already very restrictive on NIQs, I think this is probably another criteria that should be added to those restrictions.


  • Registered Users Posts: 19,224 ✭✭✭✭ Venjur


    Buer wrote: »
    They have to sign off on the player. There's zero chance they didn't know he had served a drug suspension. It's not plausible at all. I think they agreed to getting someone short term due to the PR disaster surrounding Ryan's departure and wanted to pacify the critics.

    That certainly worked.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭ blue note


    I sometimes wonder if players do it from a younger age where there isn't much testing and then stop or cut back when they get to professional level, but continue to reap the benefits of the development work they did in getting there. I'm guessing it's easier to maintain bulk if you were already massive at 20.

    I think basically every sport has their heads in the sand on drugs. I thought the irfu would be a little more savvy inn relation to public perception, but I don't believe they actually want to catch dopers.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 213 ✭✭ lotmc


    Its wrong.

    What message does it send to younger kids who are already under pressure to meet the physical standards required to play at a high level? That you can "make a mistake" and all will be forgiven after a while?

    Zero tolerance must be the only policy here.

    Drug cheats have, in my opinion, destroyed a lot of sports (cycling, sprinting etc etc). Perhaps naively I assume that rugby is different, but the tolerance shown here suggests that it may not be.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,564 ✭✭✭✭ Buer


    Venjur wrote: »
    That certainly worked.

    It reminds me of The Simpsons episode with the lizard infestation.
    Lisa: Isn't that a little short sighted? What happens when we're up to our ears with lizards?
    Skinner: We shall simply release wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes.
    Lisa: Then what about the snakes?
    Skinner: We simply import gorillas who will eat all the snakes.
    Lisa: Well what happens when we're up to our ears in gorillas?!
    Skinner: Ah that's the beauty of the thing. Come winter the gorillas will freeze to death.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 3,585 irishfan9


    Philip Browne says the IRFU will review their policies around signing players with a prior history of doping in the wake of the Gerbrandt Grobler controversy.


  • Registered Users Posts: 23,564 ✭✭✭✭ Buer


    blue note wrote: »
    , but I don't believe they actually want to catch dopers.

    I don't think any professional sport does. It completely undermines the sport and drives people away. I'm convinced that some of the more marketable athletes in the world have authorities happily ready to bury a positive test if one came to pass, Lance Armstrong being an obvious example.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,382 ✭✭✭ Thud


    To be clear, he successfully appealed that with evidence showing the amount in his bloodstream was normal. Was playing again within a few months. It's nothing like the Chris Froome case.

    Chris Froome ~2,000ng/ml
    Franike Sheehan 1,644ng/ml and 1,764ng/ml

    WADA's threshold limit 1,000ng/ml


  • Subscribers Posts: 36,215 ✭✭✭✭ sydthebeat


    Because it's highly unlikely a promising young lock from Munster is going to play for the Waratahs. It's equally unlikely that Chiliboy is every going to play for an Irish province.

    The IRFU can't control anything that happens outside of Ireland. They can set the standard for rugby in this country though, which imo they have completely failed to do here. "Sure he would have gone and played for Edinburgh anyway" is not even nearly a proper response imo.


    its a fair point, but i would question what exact example you are saying is being set.

    basically your arguing the IRFU has said we will welcome dope cheats. i dont believe thats a policy. I think theyve made a big mistake here and i think the realise that now.

    until its a young irish player in the situation grobler was in 2 years ago... i dont think the situations are the same and examples are being set. Grobler has moved away from his home country to play again... so it can be argued that the example set to young irish players is "if you dope cheat, youll have to move away"

    by the way, its a one year deal.

    If the IRFU give permission to extend the contract THEN certainly theres a vista of a formation of a policy... but i would be highly highly surprised if that will happen.


  • Registered Users Posts: 37,978 irishbucsfan


    blue note wrote: »
    I sometimes wonder if players do it from a younger age where there isn't much testing and then stop or cut back when they get to professional level, but continue to reap the benefits of the development work they did in getting there. I'm guessing it's easier to maintain bulk if you were already massive at 20.

    I think basically every sport has their heads in the sand on drugs. I thought the irfu would be a little more savvy inn relation to public perception, but I don't believe they actually want to catch dopers.

    I only ever got tested as a young player. Never got tested once as the amateur dirt-tracker rubbish player that I have become. I think they would be caught at that age if they were any good.

    Unfortunately Irish rugby is not good on the issue of transparency with testing. We get periodical figures about how many tests have been carried out and also figures on what level the players tested were (IE international, or provincial, or club). What we should know is exactly how many players were tested (which is very different). Every player should be getting tested regularly to dispel the concerns that you have.

    In my opinion of the 100+ professional players in the country there are likely a couple of drugs cheats, based on my experience within the game and based on the people who I know within it, but there are people who believe the number is likely much higher and there is very little evidence against that theory. It is not hard and also would not be unprecedented to begin publishing the data that would legitimise the players a bit more.


  • Registered Users Posts: 20,610 ✭✭✭✭ phog


    Grobler served the ban that was handed down at the time and is free to play again.

    I really don't see the fuss I can understand some people not wanting a cheat on their team but if that cheat was my son/daughter I'd want them to get a 2nd chance.


  • Registered Users Posts: 37,978 irishbucsfan


    Thud wrote: »
    Chris Froome ~2,000ng/ml
    Franike Sheehan 1,644ng/ml and 1,764ng/ml

    WADA's threshold limit 1,000ng/ml

    Maybe Chris Froome will successfully challenge the decision like Sheahan did. Until then the comparison is completely pointless.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 11,266 ✭✭✭✭ AdamD


    Whilst the timing is irrelevant to the debate, surely someone from these newspapers should be questioning how their writers seemingly missed this 6 months ago? Its all a bit bizarre. Between this and signing the 18 years olds from South Africa, its not a great look for Munster and their brand.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement