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

LuckyLloyd

Buer wrote: »

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.

Yep, that's why they're a pre requisite to competing as a professional in a power / strength based sport like Rugby.

All I can takeaway from this "controversy" is that the powers that be need to drive the level of positive tests down even further. Less testing, less aggressively. They're already doing a good job keeping a testing to a mere facade and no more, but it just shows that even making a small amount of pros scapegoats is too many.

LuckyLloyd

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.

That's not a defect, it's a feature of the system.

thebaz

Former Former wrote: »

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

I would say nearly all top level players have been tested many times - and the results would indicate ther is not a problem in the Irish game

[Deleted User]

thomond2006 wrote: »

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

He is a fantastic sports journalist when he puts his mind to it, very few better in this country.

LuckyLloyd

thebaz wrote: »

I would say nearly all top level players have been tested many times - and the results would indicate ther is not a problem in the Irish game

That's a naive view, I would suggest.

thebaz

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

That's a naive view, I would suggest.

that all top players have been tested ?

sydthebeat

The list of doping bans for professional Rugby is so ridiculously small that its plainly evidence that there is either not enough high level testing or the testing isnt clean. Theres simply no way we have so many professional rugby players yet we have such a pitifully small amount of positive results. Even at that, the positive result for PEDs tend to be at levels below the top level players. On top of that again, cases of narcotic abuse tend to be counted under positive test results.

Its simply unbelievable that the sport which requires such athleticism and muscle mass is as clean as the lack of high level positive results suggest.

irishbucsfan

thebaz wrote: »

that all top players have been tested ?

The idea that all top players have been tested many times does not make sense given the statistics that are released.

Unfortunately we don't know how many players are tested or how often they're tested. We do know the number of tests.

blue note

budhabob wrote: »

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.

I would like players to get a second chance. I think the idea of someone doing something stupid as a young man is perfectly understandable and while I'd like to see them punished for it, I would also like to see them accepted back after they've served their time.

However, drugs have become such a problem in sport that I think organisations have to be seen to be whiter than white if they want people to believe in their sport. To me, this unfortunately means avoiding the likes of this guy. I've no reason to believe that this fella isn't fully clean, repentant and just wants to do all he can to have the career he dreamed of. But I don't think we can be so forgiving of dopers at present if we want to clean up sport.

Shefwedfan

To be honest this is another display of sh**ty journalism.....

Listen to the "off the ball" podcast. Ruaidhri O'Connor all happy with himself, proud he was the one who asked the question....who dragged it up

When Eddie O'Sullivan made a very valid point about the player been signed months ago, the excuse was the Lions was on.....that was how many months ago?????

I agree with Eddie, its a joke one of these plonker journalists couldn't bother doing any research when the player signed, then probably got a tip off in some forum and decided they would drag up old news....

Let the player get on with his life, tell the journalists to do their job properly, if they can't then do a Fergie on it and ban them :-)

I bet everyone of those whiter than whiter journalists have a few stories they wouldnt want plastered over the papers

[Deleted User]

irishbucsfan wrote: »

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.

My experience would have been different. In competition testing was common once above a certain standard and they would test continuously throughout whatever days events were there.

The most I was tested was 4 times in one year, 2 in and 2 out of competition.

I felt at the time that the Irish Sports Counsel was doing a good job as far as Irish sports people were concerned, from speaking with colleagues internationally it was much more light touch in other places.

I'd have a decent level of faith in the ISC in terms of testing in Ireland. I don't know whether IRFU players are treated differently. Jonny Holland may not have been tested during the years he was in Munster but I'm sure there were still plenty of samples taken from the Munster camp during the time he was there.

thomond2006

[Deleted User] wrote: »

My experience would have been different. In competition testing was common once above a certain standard and they would test continuously throughout whatever days events were there.

The most I was tested was 4 times in one year, 2 in and 2 out of competition.

I felt at the time that the Irish Sports Counsel was doing a good job as far as Irish sports people were concerned, from speaking with colleagues internationally it was much more light touch in other places.

I'd have a decent level of faith in the ISC in terms of testing in Ireland. I don't know whether IRFU players are treated differently. Jonny Holland may not have been tested during the years he was in Munster but I'm sure there were still plenty of samples taken from the Munster camp during the time he was there.

Light touch regulation? In Ireland? Never!

thebaz

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The idea that all top players have been tested many times does not make sense given the statistics that are released.

Unfortunately we don't know how many players are tested or how often they're tested. We do know the number of tests.

just my take from whats out ther and talking to a few - if ther was a big problem , think we would know by now - just my view , maybe naive (as some call it

[Deleted User]

sydthebeat wrote: »

The list of doping bans for professional Rugby is so ridiculously small that its plainly evidence that there is either not enough high level testing or the testing isnt clean. Theres simply no way we have so many professional rugby players yet we have such a pitifully small amount of positive results. Even at that, the positive result for PEDs tend to be at levels below the top level players. On top of that again, cases of narcotic abuse tend to be counted under positive test results.

Its simply unbelievable that the sport which requires such athleticism and muscle mass is as clean as the lack of high level positive results suggest.

It's different though. Competing in events to cycle, swim or run in relatively straight lines as fast as possible is an environment that is ripe for cheating.

Weight lifting would be similar as would most individual sports.

Team sports have always been different.

So much of rugby is about skill, organisation, communication and countless other non physical elements that the benefit of drugs would be significantly lower.

I would be of the opinion that team sports are automatically less conducive to drug taking than Individual sports.

Buer

Shefwedfan wrote: »

I agree with Eddie, its a joke one of these plonker journalists couldn't bother doing any research when the player signed, then probably got a tip off in some forum and decided they would drag up old news....

Let the player get on with his life, tell the journalists to do their job properly, if they can't then do a Fergie on it and ban them :-)

I bet everyone of those whiter than whiter journalists have a few stories they wouldnt want plastered over the papers

It's not up to the media to do due dilligence on signings but, regardless, it was clearly reported at the time in the Irish media that Munster had signed a player who had been banned for doping including the details around the ban.

I don't know what EOS is waffling on about. The irony is that he is very much a member of the media now.

[Deleted User]

Deleted User wrote: »

So much of rugby is about skill, organisation, communication and countless other non physical elements that the benefit of drugs would be significantly lower than.

I would be of the opinion that team sports are automatically less conducive to drug taking than Individual sports.

Would it not be fair to say though, that you must have certain physical attributes in terms of size and/or strength and/or speed in order to play professional rugby? If you have the skill and the brains but not at least two of the three physical attributes above you aren't going to make it. Which is where the juice might provide assistance.

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

My experience would have been different. In competition testing was common once above a certain standard and they would test continuously throughout whatever days events were there.

The most I was tested was 4 times in one year, 2 in and 2 out of competition.

I felt at the time that the Irish Sports Counsel was doing a good job as far as Irish sports people were concerned, from speaking with colleagues internationally it was much more light touch in other places.

I'd have a decent level of faith in the ISC in terms of testing in Ireland. I don't know whether IRFU players are treated differently. Jonny Holland may not have been tested during the years he was in Munster but I'm sure there were still plenty of samples taken from the Munster camp during the time he was there.

I have always got the impression that individual sports are far more rigorous in their treatment of the issue. In team sports I feel they are less worried about letting abusers slip through the net because the reputational risk is considered to be less.

We know that there are about 200-300 tests a year. But we don't know if they are massively concentrated on international players. EPCR for example only did 16 tests here in 2015/16 and we don't know how many players were tested. It could be that our internationals are all being tested 3/4 times a year while academy guys are never tested at all.

prawnsambo

irishbucsfan wrote: »

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

I was replying to a specific question. Nothing to do with the Grobler signing. If that's what you're referring to by 'it'.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

We have no idea who they are testing or how often

They produce a report every year.

At least I was able to find the last two years on the IRFU website.

[Deleted User]

Interested Observer wrote: »

Would it not be fair to say though, that you must have certain physical attributes in terms of size and/or strength and/or speed in order to play professional rugby? If you have the skill and the brains but not at least two of the three physical attributes above you aren't going to make it. Which is where the juice might provide assistance.

Of course. I'm not saying there is no benefit, but when you are cycling up the side of a mountain you don't need to be worrying about passing off your weak side, hitting the breakdown or catching a garryowen.

The benefit of PED's in rugby is limited to the purely physical side of a game that is about a lot more.

Another thing is that I've read what some professional players are doing in the gym and whilst some are doing big numbers the majority are doing decent but not outrageous workouts.

Probably the most impressive thing about rugby players is their ability to mix power with skill and endurance over 60 - 80 minutes. Again these are all things that require different training and aren't going to be uniformly benefited by one type of drug.

I can believe with some exceptions that a lot of the players we see are for the most part clean.

irishbucsfan

prawnsambo wrote: »

I was replying to a specific question. Nothing to do with the Grobler signing. If that's what you're referring to by 'it'.

No, I'm talking about the fact testing is external. More than half of testing in Ireland in any given year is not organised by ISC, just conducted.

prawnsambo wrote: »

They produce a report every year.

Yes, I'm completely aware of the report. As I said, we have no idea who (i.e. how many players) they are testing nor how often.

[Deleted User]

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I have always got the impression that individual sports are far more rigorous in their treatment of the issue. In team sports I feel they are less worried about letting abusers slip through the net because the reputational risk is considered to be less.

We know that there are about 200-300 tests a year. But we don't know if they are massively concentrated on international players. EPCR for example only did 16 tests here in 2015/16 and we don't know how many players were tested. It could be that our internationals are all being tested 3/4 times a year while academy guys are never tested at all.

Part of this is that the main concern for the bodies is institutional cheating. That's why the Russian federation is getting banned of late.

If you can ensure that Leinster rugby or Munster rugby as an institution aren't condoning or enabling cheating then you massively reduce the chances of players taking the risk on themselves.

There are many serious adverse reactions to steroids and drugs of a performance enhancing nature and a lot of people are put off by this. If your in a setup and a doctor is telling you its fine however that is going to change the ball game.

People will still find a way to get this stuff and administer it themselves but the numbers will be a fraction of a % of what you would find in an institutional setup.

sydthebeat

Deleted User wrote: »

So much of rugby is about skill, organisation, communication and countless other non physical elements that the benefit of drugs would be significantly lower.

I would be of the opinion that team sports are automatically less conducive to drug taking than Individual sports.

oh quite possibly, i wouldnt argue with that.

however, id argue with the point above. Increased physicality in rugby is a very very significant factor between players of similar skill levels. in fact, skills, i would argue, have a finite limit for most players.... god given talent if you will.... the physicality and athleticism is something that can be enhanced, naturally or unnaturally. We have 135 kg 6' 5" wingers who can run 100m in sub 11 seconds.... and we have players who need to be able to play against that.

I would argue that the enticement is very real for young rugby players to get that bit bigger, that bit faster. The benefits of PEDs to rugby is significantly more than a hell of a lot of other professional sports

prawnsambo

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No, I'm talking about the fact testing is external. More than half of testing in Ireland in any given year is not organised by ISC, just conducted.

OK, so are you saying that the IRFU decide who's tested? Sorry if I'm slow catching on to your point.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Yes, I'm completely aware of the report. As I said, we have no idea who (i.e. how many players) they are testing nor how often.

Well they list the number of tests. Do we assume they're testing the same player over and over again? I doubt they can publish who they're testing. It would lead to people jumping to conclusions.

razorblunt

Would I want my team signing him? No
Do I believe in second chances? Yes.

Hypocritical? Yes.

I'm a Munster fan and I wasn't happy with this signing and I made my opinion clear at the time.
Would I begrudge him a contract and a career providing he kept clean? Of course not, I would like to think that just because he deserves a second chance does not mean teams are forced to give him that chance.
Am I ok with my team signing him? Yes. My opinion, is just that, an opinion, others have deemed signing him is ok.

That backslapping for the "hard questions being asked" by ROC, Cumiskey and Kimmage is pathetic though, it got no traction in the summer when news of the signing was announced so they're trying it again. Kimmage is after rugby for years he, almost, went as far to fingerpoint at Leinster and was told to fock off and get proof. He quickly dropped that. He'll be onto something new next.
I don't understand what Kimmage wants at all though. Should Grobler have gone amateur until he's retired and then become a journalist, would Kimmage be ok with him getting employment then? Or is "banned for life" just that, for life?

I'm also not naïve enough to think he's the only player doing this. A lot of the media bury their heads in the sand when it comes to players, their recovery, their physiques that could yet come back to haunt them.

[Deleted User]

sydthebeat wrote: »

oh quite possibly, i wouldnt argue with that.

however, id argue with the point above. Increased physicality in rugby is a very very significant factor between players of similar skill levels. in fact, skills, i would argue, have a finite limit for most players.... god given talent if you will.... the physicality and athleticism is something that can be enhanced, naturally or unnaturally. We have 135 kg 6' 5" wingers who can run 100m in sub 11 seconds.... and we have players who need to be able to play against that.

I would argue that the enticement is very real for young rugby players to get that bit bigger, that bit faster. The benefits of PEDs to rugby is significantly more than a hell of a lot of other professional sports

PED's are massively consequential. I don't think people quite realise just how much of a benefit that they give you.

For example, if you were to run a 5000m in 15 minutes you would be a decent club runner in Ireland. It's not considered a particularly fast time but it's going to have you in the top 30 in Ireland in any given year.

EPO offers as much as a 10% improvement in performance if used correctly as a training assist. That's going to bring a 15 minute 5k which is decidedly average down to a 13:30 5k which is bordering on Olympic standard and most years will have you no.1 in Ireland by a margin.

The % improvement in rugby is going to still be high, but the % benefit significantly lower for all the reasons we've discussed.

In terms of some of the extremes we've seen take to the field. Yes there are Nadolo's that are freaks but their size has draw backs also lets not forget. It's a trade off that in Nadolo's case means he is only capable of a couple of big moments per game and he is a poor defender.

I look at someone like VDF as a good alternative. He's not unusually big albeit he is well conditioned. His strengths come from his pace, athleticism and his engine / work rate over 80 minutes. I would have no hesitation believing that VDF is completely clean and his style of play probably doesn't require PEDs to thrive. He's a gifted athlete with a good rugby brain.

I think there are drugs in rugby, I'm just not worried that they are so widespread that it's materially damaging the pro game.

sydthebeat

Deleted User wrote: »

I think there are drugs in rugby, I'm just not worried that they are so widespread that it's materially damaging the pro game.

and my initial point is that the lack of high level positive results points to a scenario that the sport is pristine clean at that level.... which i find to be unbelievable.

Squatter

Buer wrote: »

It's not up to the media to do due dilligence on signings but, regardless, it was clearly reported at the time in the Irish media that Munster had signed a player who had been banned for doping including the details around the ban.

Irish Times Friday 7 July 2017:

"Munster and the IRFU have confirmed the signings of Chris Cloete and Gerbrandt Grobler.

...... secondrow Grobler joins from French side Racing 92 and is a potential replacement for Donnacha Ryan, who will be plying his trade for Racing next season after the IRFU decided not to offer him a central contract.

The secondrow’s season in Paris came after he had served a two-year ban for failing a drugs test following a Currie Cup fixture in 2014."

Irish Times 1 September 2017:-

"MUNSTER
Coach: Rassie Erasmus (until January 1st)
Captain: CJ Stander

Overview: Uncertainty and instability are unavoidable due to the imminent departure of Rassie Erasmus and Jacques Nienaber but Munster have covered the loss of Francis Saili with the return of JJ Hanrahan and recruitment of big Belfast centre Chris Farrell.

New South African lock Gerbrandt Grobler recently served a drugs ban after testing positive for the anabolic steroid dromostanolone."

irishbucsfan

prawnsambo wrote: »

OK, so are you saying that the IRFU decide who's tested? Sorry if I'm slow catching on to your point.

The majority of testing is decided by rugby bodies. Depends on the test

prawnsambo wrote: »

Well they list the number of tests. Do we assume they're testing the same player over and over again? I doubt they can publish who they're testing. It would lead to people jumping to conclusions.

They absolutely can publish who they are testing and how many times they've been tested. This is done in other sports in other jurisdictions. Although I'm not sure that's necessary in a team sport They can and should publish how many players have been tested and what their targets are.

Slideshowbob

The irony of the IRFU castigating Zebo from the Irish team for wanting to earn what he can abroad, while at the same time approving Grobler's signing .........

prawnsambo

Slideshowbob wrote: »

The irony of the IRFU castigating Zebo from the Irish team for wanting to earn what he can abroad, while at the same time approving Grobler's signing .........

Castigating him?