nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Munster's Gerbrandt Grobler signing - right or wrong?

Slideshowbob

Some former players coming in heavily on this decision:

http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/columnists/donal-lenihan/gerbrandt-grobler-furore-is-a-problem-of-munsters-making-465891.html

https://www.irishtimes.com/sport/rugby/gordon-d-arcy-how-does-gerbrandt-grobler-s-signing-fit-munster-s-values-1.3357952

Thoughts on this signing?

Where does the buck stop on the decision to sign him?

What example does it set for developing Irish players?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

thebaz

certainly not condoning what he did - but reading Paul Kimmage anti-rugby tirade found it way over the top - people make mistakes in life , everyone , I've made many , but forgiveness is the sign of a better man - do the crime , do your time and move on - if he was a repeat offender then ban him from here - but maybe a little more compassion in this case.

phog

AdamD wrote: »

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.

They were probably getting enough clicks from the Lions Tour at the time.

irishbucsfan

AdamD wrote: »

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.

I keep seeing this questioned. It was reported at the time.

It wasn't debated in depth because his signing was a footnote during the offseason. Now people are realising the importance of the issue.

[Deleted User]

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I keep seeing this questioned. It was reported at the time.

It wasn't debated in depth because his signing was a footnote during the offseason. Now people are realising the importance of the issue.

Fair enough, don't recall coming across it at all.

[Deleted User]

phog wrote: »

if that cheat was my son/daughter I'd want them to get a 2nd chance.

And if your son or daughter lost their place to a cheat I'm sure you would feel the same way.

prawnsambo

thebaz wrote: »

certainly not condoning what he did - but reading Paul Kimmage anti-rugby tirade found it way over the top - people make mistakes in life , everyone , I've made many , but forgiveness is the sign of a better man - do the crime , do your time and move on - if he was a repeat offender then ban him from here - but maybe a little more compassion in this case.

A bit rich from Kimmage seeing as he admitted drug use himself.

Buer

irishbucsfan wrote: »

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.

The fact that Johnny Holland, who was a starting player for a province, confirmed he has never been tested in his life suggests there are grave issues with the IRFU testing regime.

Former Former

phog wrote: »

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.

And if your son was a pro rugby player trying to get every minute of game time he can to establish himself, and he finds himself on the bench or in the stands while a convicted drugs cheat lines out?

It's a zero sum game. Grobler plays, someone else has to drop out.

If you are Fineen Wycherly, or Darren O'Shea, how do you feel about it? Do you still want Grobler getting his second chance at your expense?

[Deleted User]

prawnsambo wrote: »

A bit rich from Kimmage seeing as he admitted drug use himself.

I've only ever seen rugby supporters try to use this line. I never ever saw it raised by anyone when it came to his anti-doping crusade in cycling. Probably means he's hitting a bit too close to home.

Buer

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I keep seeing this questioned. It was reported at the time.

It wasn't debated in depth because his signing was a footnote during the offseason. Now people are realising the importance of the issue.

It was very much known and I'm almost positive it was well discussed on these pages too.

Squidgy Black

It was reported at the time, but he was injured in pre-season, and now that he's actually played for the A team and could be included as part of the senior squad it's all kicked off.

Both sides of the argument are correct, he has served his time and by the rules is eligible to play again. But two years is definitely a short period for something that could have such a big knock on effect on the game, and it's not really setting an example for younger players, other than telling them, well the worst case scenario if you do get caught is you have to sit out two years and then you'll get signed again for another team.

[Deleted User]

Former Former wrote: »

If you are Fineen Wycherly, or Darren O'Shea, how do you feel about it? Do you still want Grobler getting his second chance at your expense?

This isn't the worst potential impact. The worst potential impact is these lads seeing the tolerance levels for cheating whilst sitting at home watching Grobler on the TV and deciding to do the same thing.

thebaz

prawnsambo wrote: »

A bit rich from Kimmage seeing as he admitted drug use himself.

likes to see himself as the puritan conscience of Irish sport, and yet he himself has a past - not to mention constantly sceptical and foerever knocking rugby - we get it you dont like rugby.

irishbucsfan

https://twitter.com/Cumoski/status/953598611027320832

https://twitter.com/Cumoski/status/953600691892781056

Oops

prawnsambo

Buer wrote: »

The fact that Johnny Holland, who was a starting player for a province, confirmed he has never been tested in his life suggests there are grave issues with the IRFU testing regime.

The IRFU don't do the testing, that's done by the ISC. They fund the testing program though, through the ISC's 'user pays' program.

Testing should always be independent.

budhabob

Either we believe in justice, or we hang when not satisfied! The guy got caught doing something very wrong (and something I totally disagree with), went through due process, was found guilty, and was given a sentence meaning he could not earn a living in the career path he had carved for himself for 2 years. In my opinion, that's it, job done. The message sent out is, if you get caught, you're heavily impacted. Lesser sentences have been passed down for drink driving!

People should read the interview with him, the impact the ban etc had on him, the impact it had on his family. The bloke has served his time, get on with it.

Former Former

Buer wrote: »

The fact that Johnny Holland, who was a starting player for a province, confirmed he has never been tested in his life suggests there are grave issues with the IRFU testing regime.

I don't doubt that the testing regime is seriously deficient, but Holland made 11 appearances for Munster. Statistically speaking, I don' t think his non-testing means anything.

thomond2006

Buer wrote: »

The fact that Johnny Holland, who was a starting player for a province, confirmed he has never been tested in his life suggests there are grave issues with the IRFU testing regime.

That's absolutely laughable. Holland was in the Munster setup for at least 4 years?

Edit: To FF's point, I assume players are/should be tested regardless of appearances?

[Deleted User]

But Munster aren't giving him the second chance. Racing did that.

irishbucsfan

Former Former wrote: »

I don't doubt that the testing regime is seriously deficient, but Holland made 11 appearances for Munster. Statistically speaking, I don' t think his non-testing means anything.

Unfortunately we have no idea what the statistics are for how many players are getting tested. But there are plenty of guys, anecdotally, who haven't been. That's not good enough.

Buer

Former Former wrote: »

I don't doubt that the testing regime is seriously deficient, but Holland made 11 appearances for Munster. Statistically speaking, I don' t think his non-testing means anything.

It's not really about how many appearances he had but the fact that he was in the professional environment for years and never tested. As he said in his AMA, he was out injured for a year (which is surely a red flag for doping) and nobody came near him.

irishbucsfan

prawnsambo wrote: »

The IRFU don't do the testing, that's done by the ISC. They fund the testing program though, through the ISC's 'user pays' program.

Testing should always be independent.

All of this is the IRFU's decision though, to be clear. So they take responsibility for it.

[Deleted User]

Do they only test players who are making appearances? Surely that leaves a massive gap for academy players to dope before they hit pro 14..

irishbucsfan

AdamD wrote: »

Do they only test players who are making appearances? Surely that leaves a massive gap for academy players to dope before they hit pro 14..

We have no idea who they are testing or how often

Former Former

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Unfortunately we have no idea what the statistics are for how many players are getting tested. But there are plenty of guys, anecdotally, who haven't been. That's not good enough.

Absolutely agree, from anything I've read, testing is limited to the point of non-existence.

thomond2006

I wouldn't care what someone like K*mmage writes. A leech trying to stay somewhat relevant.

Buer

budhabob wrote: »

People should read the interview with him, the impact the ban etc had on him, the impact it had on his family. The bloke has served his time, get on with it.

Well, the studies that suggest use of steroids can have long term benefits to athletes muddies the water somewhat. According to those, a steroid user may be able to develop muscle/improve performance up to a decade after taking them.

irishbucsfan

Former Former wrote: »

Absolutely agree, from anything I've read, testing is limited to the point of non-existence.

A lot of the time it's down to the testers as well. A good friend of mine is a professional in a different spor. Heard that regularly the testers will show up at games, set out all their stuff to prepare for testing, take 0 samples, and then leave. Seems like a really strange environment... although it might be that particular sport, it could also be going on across the board.

thomond2006

Buer wrote: »

It's not really about how many appearances he had but the fact that he was in the professional environment for years and never tested. As he said in his AMA, he was out injured for a year (which is surely a red flag for doping) and nobody came near him.

An academy/professional player for 4 years never getting tested is actually a much bigger deal than Grobler's signing. 10x so.