Munster's Gerbrandt Grobler signing - right or wrong?

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.

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.

thomond2006

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.