Munster's Gerbrandt Grobler signing - right or wrong?

Neil3030

Dave_The_Sheep wrote: »

Kimmage would see PEDs in the local under-6 sports day egg and spoon race.

The rest I'm well up for listening to but at this stage, he's fanatical about it.

I wouldn't be at all surprised, for the record, but I'm not going to go throwing it about without any kind of proof.

Ah not just Kimmage, I listened to two conversations on it, one with Gilroy and that ginger lad interviewing Johne Murphy, the other with Joe Molloy interviewing O'Sullivan and Fez. The overarching theme of both conversations was that doping is a despicable act, that Grobler deserves a second chance - just "not here", and that signing Grobler tarnishes Munster's image and sets a terrible example to the young Munster players. The hand-wringing was mostly led by the interviewing journalists, not by the former players and in my opinion it screams of a rather puritanical naivety regarding PED usage, both in the sport, and in Ireland.

ThisRegard

Off the Ball have discussed doping being an issue in rugby before, more than once, in fairness to them. They may be either naïve or too ideological in how the sport should be.

Lil Wendy

Understand the mixed opinions [guy cheated], but I just feel a bit sorry for him. Made a mistake as a very young man, and now, probably for the duration of whatever is left of his career, he'll be the object of endless suspicion, and a talking point for pontificating moralists who have probably done a lot worse.

ThisRegard

Lil Wendy wrote: »

and a talking point for pontificating moralists who have probably done a lot worse.

Are you saying that only immoral people are allowed to have issues with dopers, or is it moral people as long as their sins weigh less than his?

Am I allowed to chastise my kids for cursing when as an adult I've done much worse than that?

Lil Wendy

ThisRegard wrote: »

Are you saying that only immoral people are allowed to have issues with drug cheats?

No.

Dave_The_Sheep

Neil3030 wrote: »

Ah not just Kimmage, I listened to two conversations on it, one with Gilroy and that ginger lad interviewing Johne Murphy, the other with Joe Molloy interviewing O'Sullivan and Fez. The overarching theme of both conversations was that doping is a despicable act, that Grobler deserves a second chance - just "not here", and that signing Grobler tarnishes Munster's image and sets a terrible example to the young Munster players. The hand-wringing was mostly led by the interviewing journalists, not by the former players and in my opinion it screams of a rather puritanical naivety regarding PED usage, both in the sport, and in Ireland.

Yeah, I've heard a few, and to be fair they're good enough debates usually. Thing is, if it's actually a rampant (or semi rampant) issue in professional rugby, we can't ncessarily trust what O'Sullivan, Fez, Gilroy or Murphy say, since they would have been involved at that time. You can look at it that they may have been involved, they may not, but they've no interest in blowing the lid, and they have prior colleagues still in the game. That's my cynical viewpoint.

Of course, that's a double edged sword - they have no reason now to not blow the lid either, since they're the ones that know etc and have a name to keep clean. They want to keep the name of the sport they love clean too. You can't prove a negative after all.

Anyway, the silly point I'm really badly making is that we can't really rely on people's interviews or otherwise. The only real way to know is to have independents go in as part of a PED testing programme and make that as robust as possible.

Until something like that comes up with dodgy results, I'll honestly ignore it. Because I don't know what to think otherwise.

joseywhales

prawnsambo wrote: »

Deleted User wrote: »

My point is that working as a paramedic having trained as a doctor is a massive step down. They aren't comparable positions at all so a being banned from practising as a doctor is taking that 'livelihood away'.

No it's not. It's a pay cut, not a complete loss of earnings.

A lifetime ban for a rugby player isn't just the loss of earnings from being a pro rugby player. He can't coach or even play at amateur level. That's what a ban entails.

Edit: Also, as far as I'm aware, no professional body can impose worldwide bans. So a disbarred solicitor can move to another jurisdiction and qualify and practice there.

The banned rugby player can also become a paramedic similar to the doctor.

joseywhales

Lil Wendy wrote: »

Understand the mixed opinions [guy cheated], but I just feel a bit sorry for him. Made a mistake as a very young man, and now, probably for the duration of whatever is left of his career, he'll be the object of endless suspicion, and a talking point for pontificating moralists who have probably done a lot worse.

There are hundreds of guys who suffered career ending injuries, there are many more who had absolutely no ability, they were unlucky, this guy cheated. He can still live his life, if not like he is being executed ,he has his whole life ahead of him the same as any normal person in their mid twenties.

budhabob

Neil3030 wrote: »

Ah not just Kimmage, I listened to two conversations on it, one with Gilroy and that ginger lad interviewing Johne Murphy, the other with Joe Molloy interviewing O'Sullivan and Fez. The overarching theme of both conversations was that doping is a despicable act, that Grobler deserves a second chance - just "not here", and that signing Grobler tarnishes Munster's image and sets a terrible example to the young Munster players. The hand-wringing was mostly led by the interviewing journalists, not by the former players and in my opinion it screams of a rather puritanical naivety regarding PED usage, both in the sport, and in Ireland.

That's just the Irish bloody "Nimby" attitude that we see everywhere. If hes entitled to a second chance, that should be anywhere. What makes us holier than thou to say not here? (I know youre not necessarily of that opinion, but its something I have seen thrown about).

Buer

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Great example.

If you get caught on the stuff you can take two years off with a fully semesterised weights program while still benefiting from the drugs you’ve taken and come back much bigger, which is perfect for getting a bit of an advantage. Anyone struggling in the academy will be comforted in that knowledge, particularly guys stuck behind South Africans who have been flown in based on their physical prowess.

This is the thing for me. And I say this in isolation, completely separate to the GG situation.

I'm a 20 year old Donnacha Ryan. I'm highly rated but notoriously lightweight for my position and struggle to bulk up. What's to stop me hitting a programme of steroids to bulk up knowing the risk and implications? I'll raise my muscle mass and get where I need to be quickly. If I get caught, I simply continue to train and increase my muscle mass whilst taking a break.

No team in Ireland will look at me again but at 22 years old, I'm a physical specimen who was highly rated and completely free to take a contract in France or England as a professional player which will no doubt be offered. I don't need to take drugs ever again, they've done what was needed.

I don't agree with life time bans against guys who are so young but it's an incredibly difficult area to legislate for.

Owta Control

Personally, I have absolutely no issues at all with Grobler playing for Munster, there was no issue when he signed..there was no issue 10 days ago...and there only seems to be an issue in some journalists minds.... they'll have a new hobbyhorse next week.

Buer

prawnsambo wrote: »

Well since he's served his ban, he's had a year at Racing, probably at a knock-down price, been shuffled on to Munster for another year and has had a sh1tstorm blow up around him where he can't look at a newspaper and not see his name and inevitably will be let go at the end of his one year contract and have to try and peddle his wares somewhere else.

Not exactly a stellar career so far. And it's very precarious.

He has started in Super Rugby for the Stormers (before his injuries and doping), in the ECC for Racing and will collect a number of appearances in an injury hit year at Munster. At 25 years old, he has a very strong CV and will have no issue getting a contract elsewhere.

Buer

phog wrote: »

I think everyone who follows Irish rugby knows Munster signed a drug cheat, some of us knew a few months ago.

There's no whataboutery in relating Del Favo to the Grobler signing, two SA players, both banned for two years for drug taking but the latter is being told your ban isn't good enough, you can't play rugby here.

NIMBY

You're completely ignoring how much the landscape has changed in the past 10 years. The two situations may be very similar in terms of the players themselves but the environments they operate in are wildly different.

Former Former

budhabob wrote: »

That's just the Irish bloody "Nimby" attitude that we see everywhere. If hes entitled to a second chance, that should be anywhere. What makes us holier than thou to say not here? (I know youre not necessarily of that opinion, but its something I have seen thrown about).

Yeah, that's pretty much the question.

We have a union who claims to have a zero tolerance policy on drugs. There's very little room for interpretation on "zero tolerance". The IRFU have shown that, in fact, they have some tolerance; that's fine, but don't make a virtue of something that you're not prepared to follow through on.

And let's be honest about it. We've always taken huge pride in the Munster ethos and what Munster stand for. Maybe this doesn't undermine that, but it certainly doesn't help it.

Other clubs and unions can look after their own shop. Our back yard is the only one we should be worried about, so yeah, NIMBY is the appropriate stance.

irishbucsfan

What is the level above zero tolerance? Do Munster have one tolerance for drugs cheats?

irishbucsfan

Former Former wrote: »

Other clubs and unions can look after their own shop. Our back yard is the only one we should be worried about, so yeah, NIMBY is the appropriate stance.

Interestingly, according to Quinlan he has already signed a 3 year contract with Gloucester.

Buer

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Interestingly, according to Quinlan he has already signed a 3 year contract with Gloucester.

The deal apparently was in place since last summer. He was in talks with them at that point but went for Munster. It would appear the return of Beirne to Ireland and Grobler only being here short term was always the arrangement.

Gloucester media also reported at the time that Toulon were interested last summer.

prawnsambo

joseywhales wrote: »

The banned rugby player can also become a paramedic similar to the doctor.

Yes. Because being a rugby player automatically qualifies you for that. Silly me.

ThisRegard

Owta Control wrote: »

Personally, I have absolutely no issues at all with Grobler playing for Munster, there was no issue when he signed..there was no issue 10 days ago...and there only seems to be an issue in some journalists minds.... they'll have a new hobbyhorse next week.

I would see doubt most people on this thread with an issue with it are journalists. There was an issue 10 days, it was around then when I raised it for discussion in the forum.

Dravokivich

Buer wrote: »

This is the thing for me. And I say this in isolation, completely separate to the GG situation.

I'm a 20 year old Donnacha Ryan. I'm highly rated but notoriously lightweight for my position and struggle to bulk up. What's to stop me hitting a programme of steroids to bulk up knowing the risk and implications? I'll raise my muscle mass and get where I need to be quickly. If I get caught, I simply continue to train and increase my muscle mass whilst taking a break.

No team in Ireland will look at me again but at 22 years old, I'm a physical specimen who was highly rated and completely free to take a contract in France or England as a professional player which will no doubt be offered. I don't need to take drugs ever again, they've done what was needed.

I don't agree with life time bans against guys who are so young but it's an incredibly difficult area to legislate for.

How effective are steroids? I'm not denying they aid. But does anybody actually say how much of a significance they are? One would still need to work out at a high rate along with eating a lot of food. The steroids don't just create muscle from nothing and your post comes across as suggesting that's the case.

Former Former

Dravokivich wrote: »

How effective are steroids? I'm not denying they aid. But does anybody actually say how much of a significance they are? One would still need to work out at a high rate along with eating a lot of food. The steroids don't just create muscle from nothing and your post comes across as suggesting that's the case.

Very, very effective.

Of course you still have to work out, but you recover faster so you can work out again more quickly, and of course you're packing on the muscle much faster than the guy who's only swilling raw eggs and chicken breast smoothies.

Especially for a second row, where sheer bulk is a huge benefit, steroids are the PED of choice. EPO is no use when you're shoving a tighthead forward or clearing out bodies from a ruck, but steroids absolutely are.

Tell me how

Owta Control wrote:

Personally, I have absolutely no issues at all with Grobler playing for Munster, there was no issue when he signed..there was no issue 10 days ago...and there only seems to be an issue in some journalists minds.... they'll have a new hobbyhorse next week.

Thankfully such journalists exist or else it would turn in to a free for all.

There was an issue all along, it was missed, that doesn't mean it didn't or doesn't exist.

Buer

Dravokivich wrote: »

How effective are steroids? I'm not denying they aid. But does anybody actually say how much of a significance they are? One would still need to work out at a high rate along with eating a lot of food. The steroids don't just create muscle from nothing and your post comes across as suggesting that's the case.

I'd like to think nobody on here is naive enough to think that steroids simply create muscle mass on thier own.

They're extremely effective and give a huge boost to someone looking to build additional muscle quickly. The best analogy I read was to consider a normal work out regime to taking the stairs to the 10th floor. Taking steroids is taking the elevator.

The elevator gets you there far more quickly and the stairs requires more time and dedication but is far healthier.

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

Yes. Because being a rugby player automatically qualifies you for that. Silly me.

Does a banned doctor automatically qualify as a paramedic? I'd like information on that to be honest as I'm sure if the ban was for a serious offence it might not be quite that seamless.

Either way, it's very clear that there exists punishments within the professional non sports world that are the equivalence from a career perspective of a rugby player being banned for life.

Dravokivich

Former Former wrote: »

Very, very effective.

Of course you still have to work out, but you recover faster so you can work out again more quickly, and of course you're packing on the muscle much faster than the guy who's only swilling raw eggs and chicken breast smoothies.

Especially for a second row, where sheer bulk is a huge benefit, steroids are the PED of choice. EPO is no use when you're shoving a tighthead forward or clearing out bodies from a ruck, but steroids absolutely are.

Buer wrote: »

I'd like to think nobody on here is naive enough to think that steroids simply create muscle mass on thier own.

They're extremely effective and give a huge boost to someone looking to build additional muscle quickly. The best analogy I read was to consider a normal work out regime to taking the stairs to the 10th floor. Taking steroids is taking the elevator.

The elevator gets you there far more quickly and the stairs requires more time and dedication but is far healthier.

As I said, I'm not denying they are effective. But both comments here trying to show how effective they are, are just generalisations.

irishbucsfan

Dravokivich wrote: »

As I said, I'm not denying they are effective. But both comments here trying to show how effective they are, are just generalisations.

It increases the returns on your workout by 5-6x times and recent studies (linked) earlier suggests they continue to have benefits for up to a decade after your program ends.

The benefits in a contact sport are huge. You can't do full time weights programs to build mass during the season, the only time you can push yourself like that is offseason and pre-season. But with steroids you can get the benefits of the equivalent of a full year of lifting from those 2-3 months.

Buer

Dravokivich wrote: »

As I said, I'm not denying they are effective. But both comments here trying to show how effective they are, are just generalisations.

I'm not deliberately being awkward but there are multiple studies carried out on the matter that are available to read. I'm not bothered enough to provide a list of citations. The studies have shown that a years worth of gains can be reached in approximately 10 weeks.

In more recent years, there are studies showing that the impact and benefit from steroids can go as far as 10 years after someone has stopped taking them.

ThisRegard

Dravokivich wrote: »

As I said, I'm not denying they are effective. But both comments here trying to show how effective they are, are just generalisations.

I posted links and quotes from medical professionals yesterday evening highlighting their benefit. A cursory google will give you pages upon pages of results.

There's a reason they're banned in sports, given to seriously ill people and why people use them to cheat.

Owta Control

ThisRegard wrote: »

I would see doubt most people on this thread with an issue with it are journalists. There was an issue 10 days, it was around then when I raised it for discussion in the forum.

I would be of the opinion that, as is quite often the case, a lot of the outrage in here is nothing more than mischief making.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

Does a banned doctor automatically qualify as a paramedic? I'd like information on that to be honest as I'm sure if the ban was for a serious offence it might not be quite that seamless.

Either way, it's very clear that there exists punishments within the professional non sports world that are the equivalence from a career perspective of a rugby player being banned for life.

Ah, don't get hung up on the paramedic thing. It's probably a poor example. But a medical qualification has many uses and if you're banned from practice, that's not the end of your earning potential as a medical professional. Even a disbarred solicitor who owns a practice can get another solicitor in as a front man and continue to reap the income from their practice and work in the background in an advisory capacity. Same with accountants.

prawnsambo

Owta Control wrote: »

I would be of the opinion that, as is quite often the case, a lot of the outrage in here is nothing more than mischief making.

If that's the case, then you know what to do.

connemara man

Surely a lifetime ban from playing rugby, would still leave a career in the sportsground open, from coaching and training, all the way to physio and fitness work

Dravokivich

Sorry, I read the start of the thread then just came in the end and saw those. I was going to look into those question I asked myself, but would have done later when I had a chance to. I just saw those posts I enquired on, and wanted to see if there was anything ye could say on it beyond what is generally perceived.

thomond2006

connemara man wrote: »

Surely a lifetime ban from playing rugby, would still leave a career in the sportsground open, from coaching and training, all the way to physio and fitness work

Feckin' cheeky Connacht fan wants to poach him as a coach. :pac:

prawnsambo

connemara man wrote: »

Surely a lifetime ban from playing rugby, would still leave a career in the sportsground open, from coaching and training, all the way to physio and fitness work

Most of the bans are from all involvement. Including coaching. For pretty obvious reasons tbh. Michelle Smith's caoch being the obvious example.

connemara man

thomond2006 wrote: »

Feckin' cheeky Connacht fan wants to poach him as a coach. :pac:

That's how often I type sportsground that my phone autocorrect sports to it

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

Ah, don't get hung up on the paramedic thing. It's probably a poor example. But a medical qualification has many uses and if you're banned from practice, that's not the end of your earning potential as a medical professional. Even a disbarred solicitor who owns a practice can get another solicitor in as a front man and continue to reap the income from their practice and work in the background in an advisory capacity. Same with accountants.

This isn't even remotely true as it's completely illegal. It breaks countless data protection and confidentiality laws. That's aside from the fact that the Law Society actually steps in and takes over a practice where the principle has been disbarred with a view to winding it down.

Anyway, it's comprehensive that there are worse examples in terms of career impact than a pro rugby player getting a life time ban which was the original argument.

Owta Control

Owta Control wrote: »

I would be of the opinion that, as is quite often the case, a lot of the outrage in here is nothing more than mischief making.

I don't see this at all to be honest. I'm certainly not.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

This isn't even remotely true as it's completely illegal. It breaks countless data protection and confidentiality laws. That's aside from the fact that the Law Society actually steps in and takes over a practice where the principle has been disbarred with a view to winding it down.

Anyway, it's comprehensive that there are worse examples in terms of career impact than a pro rugby player getting a life time ban which was the original argument.

Fair enough. Anything stopping said solicitor from moving abroad and getting recognised there?

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

Fair enough. Anything stopping said solicitor from moving abroad and getting recognised there?

Yes, they would have to re-qualify from scratch as they wouldn't be able to transfer their qualification having been disbarred.

roundymac

If a couple of sponsers start to act up we'll see how wise a move it was. This is another problem that has arisen on Garret Fitz's watch, maybe we should be looking for a new Chief Exec.

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

Fair enough. Anything stopping said solicitor from moving abroad and getting recognised there?

A lawyer friend of mine who is very much not disbarred recently moved from the US to the UK. She's not allowed practice in the UK because her qualification isn't recognised (or something along those lines).

prawnsambo

Joe Delicious Skirmish wrote: »

A lawyer friend of mine who is very much not disbarred recently moved from the US to the UK. She's not allowed practice in the UK because her qualification isn't recognised (or something along those lines).

Yeah, I know that their primary degree has to be recognised firstly and then there can be an application process. UK and EU lawyers can practice here with very little difficulty.

irishbucsfan

A lifetime ban from rugby or sports is illegal. Again.

No point even considering it, the EU courts have made it clear. Until they change their minds there will be none.

It’s off topic anyway.

prawnsambo

irishbucsfan wrote: »

A lifetime ban from rugby or sports is illegal. Again.

No point even considering it, the EU courts have made it clear. Until they change their minds there will be none.

It’s off topic anyway.

Thanks. I keep forgetting that every time somebody posts about it.

Will remember in future. It is indeed a pointless discussion.

The Specialist

The hysteria around this is ridiculous, a lot of bandwagon jumping going on which is just typical of the culture these days of being perpetually offended at everything.

Paul Kimmage has already gotten 3 articles of complete horse**** out of it.

Tim Robbins

Just thinking about this a bit more... for those of us with an interest in several sports one standout from Rugby is the game has a culture of good values and respect. I don't like any Irish team signing a doper and I don't like the way Mr. Bastearau only got three weeks for verbally abusing a player.

I like Soccer but the FAI, John Delaney, the way clubs are run breaks my heart. Rugby is a warm place in comparison. I don't like the way the professionalism and the need to win is threatening the values and ethos of the sport and it irks me we are heading closer to Soccer.

LuckyLloyd

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Just thinking about this a bit more... for those of us with an interest in several sports one standout from Rugby is the game has a culture of good values and respect. I don't like any Irish team signing a doper and I don't like the way Mr. Bastearau only got three weeks for verbally abusing a player.

I like Soccer but the FAI, John Delaney, the way clubs are run breaks my heart. Rugby is a warm place in comparison. I don't like the way the professionalism and the need to win is threatening the values and ethos of the sport and it irks me we are heading closer to Soccer.

It might have a culture of good value and respect but if anyone thinks their doping testing program is genuine and with a real intention of tackling doping within the sport they're on cloud cuckoo land imo.

prawnsambo

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

It might have a culture of good value and respect but if anyone thinks their doping testing program is genuine and with a real intention of tackling doping within the sport they're on cloud cuckoo land imo.

What's specifically wrong with the testing program in rugby?

2smiggy

why all the interest in this now ? I looked him up when he signed months ago and his past quickly showed up.