Munster's Gerbrandt Grobler signing - right or wrong?

phog · 17-01-2018 06:39PM

thomond2006 wrote: »

I think it's not too bad on the hypocrisy scale if the only case you could find was from 12 years ago.

You're also better off looking towards NI media to see if it was covered at the time. Ulster for better or worse don't get near the same level of coverage in ROI media that Munster or Leinster do.

Italian Del Fava joins Ulster

Ulster announce Del Fava deal

He actually captained Ulster

prawnsambo · 17-01-2018 06:40PM

who_me wrote: »

I don't know why this is such an issue. Unless you believe he's still using banned substances, or you believe being guilty of steroid abuse should result in a lifetime ban, what's the problem?

To be honest I suspect steroid abuse is more prevalent in Irish sport than we'd like or is publicly known. I'm not sure lifetime bans are the best way to tackle it, but if it that's the solution it should be adopted officially. Not some kind of "two year ban (* but really he should never play again)".

I don't think you can impose lifetime bans on prefessional sportspeople. Or at least it would be very problematic if you did.

phog · 17-01-2018 06:41PM

who_me wrote: »

I don't know why this is such an issue. Unless you believe he's still using banned substances, or you believe being guilty of steroid abuse should result in a lifetime ban, what's the problem?

To be honest I suspect steroid abuse is more prevalent in Irish sport than we'd like or is publicly known. I'm not sure lifetime bans are the best way to tackle it, but if it that's the solution it should be adopted officially. Not some kind of "two year ban (* but really he should never play again)".

It might just be a case of NIMBY

joseywhales · 17-01-2018 06:43PM

slingerz wrote: »

Of course this guy should be allowed play. Its the same as saying he is not allowed to work.

A lot of misinformation being peddled by journos about the drug drost he used and its effects. It is typically used in the treatment of breast cancer to maintain existing muscle rather than the patient losing muscle and therefore strength in their treatment. It is not used to packing on or adding bulk to a person.

A lot of moral high grounding going on and grandstanding by journos

If an accountant is convicted of fraud, he can no longer be an accountant.

Should be the same for any athlete, it's the only way to stop it, lifetime bans.

Should he also go to prison or be sued for financial losses if he helps his team win a professional game?

Lifetime ban is probably enough.

thomond2006 · 17-01-2018 06:44PM

phog wrote: »

Italian Del Fava joins Ulster

Ulster announce Del Fava deal

He actually captained Ulster

Should it have been brought up? Sure. Yet my point still stands. Ulster were at a very low ebb at that time iirc and again it's ROI media...

I don't mind the question being asked but it's leechs like K*mmage who jump from one anti-rugby bandwagon to another that are a waste of time.

prawnsambo · 17-01-2018 06:53PM

joseywhales wrote: »

If an accountant is convicted of fraud, he can no longer be an accountant.

That's not correct. He can be struck off the professional register like Chartered Accountants etc. But he can work as an accountant in any capacity except those that require certification. Like as an auditor.

17-01-2018 06:55PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

That's not correct. He can be struck off the professional register like Chartered Accountants etc. But he can work as an accountant in any capacity except those that require certification. Like as an auditor.

There are several professional bodies that I know off the top of my head who will permanently ban you if you screw around badly enough.

prawnsambo · 17-01-2018 06:59PM

Deleted User wrote: »

There are several professional bodies that I know off the top of my head who will permanently ban you if you screw around badly enough.

They can only take away their accreditation. They can't stop you from working. It would usually be at a lower level and not in a position of responsibility. Like signing authority as an auditor.

Even doctors who are barred for malpractice can work as paramedics.

17-01-2018 07:09PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

Even doctors who are barred for malpractice can work as paramedics.

Which in this context would mean playing amateur rugby or switching to league. You've still wasted 6+ years of education that you don't need to be a paramedic.

If the law society takes away your practising cert best of luck getting work as a solicitor, same if you are disbarred by kings inns. You can still work in the law, but in a very limited capacity and with extremely limited earning potential.

There are plenty of other examples where from a practical point of view you are so limited going forward that you are better off retraining.

Former Former · 17-01-2018 07:15PM

Took longer than usual for people to decide this was an anti Munster stitch up by the meeeeja.

But they got there in the end.

Carlos del Fava ffs

ThisRegard · 17-01-2018 07:19PM

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.

Does he mention the impact it had on his body which helped him become the size he is now and therefore how he may be still benefiting from when he was a drugs cheat?

Shefwedfan · 17-01-2018 07:22PM

We seem to have a lot of drug experts on this thread......

I find it strange seeing as the people that are doing constant testing are not even sure themselves what affect long/short term these drugs have.....

Shefwedfan · 17-01-2018 07:23PM

Deleted User wrote: »

There are several professional bodies that I know off the top of my head who will permanently ban you if you screw around badly enough.

Name them please

17-01-2018 07:24PM

Del Fava is just what-about-ery, plain and simple. Doesn't change for a second that Munster have gone and knowingly singed a drugs cheat. So much for honesty.

prawnsambo · 17-01-2018 07:24PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Which in this context would mean playing amateur rugby or switching to league. You've still wasted 6+ years of education that you don't need to be a paramedic.

You don't get paid as an amateur rugby player. Or at least not that you could live off it. As far as I know, you can't switch codes if you're banned from one. Open to correction there, but I'm fairly sure there's a reciprocal arrangement.

Any other profession won't stop you earning a living, albeit at a lower level. That's the difference that is being avoided by not implementing lifetime bans.

ThisRegard · 17-01-2018 07:24PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

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.

I think you're being pretty naïve. Team sports is as ripe as any for cheating. Take two teams, one with a doping program such as a soccer, and the other that doesn't. After an hour the dopers certainly have an advantage due to the extra strength and stamina.

17-01-2018 07:29PM

ThisRegard wrote: »

I think you're being pretty naïve. Team sports is as ripe as any for cheating. Take two teams, one with a doping program such as a soccer, and the other that doesn't. After an hour the dopers certainly have an advantage due to the extra strength and stamina.

I think you've missed my point or misread my post. I never said there was no benefit, just not as much as in cycling, swimming, running you don't have additional skills to worry about.

Put it this way, if you took two teams and one spent their time doping and in the gym and the other instead focused on skills and building a play system I'd back the latter to win.

If it was two people being asked to run around a track the doper would win comfortably.

17-01-2018 07:29PM

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Name them please

I've already named two.

17-01-2018 07:31PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

You don't get paid as an amateur rugby player. Or at least not that you could live off it. As far as I know, you can't switch codes if you're banned from one. Open to correction there, but I'm fairly sure there's a reciprocal arrangement.

Any other profession won't stop you earning a living, albeit at a lower level. That's the difference that is being avoided by not implementing lifetime bans.

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'.

prawnsambo · 17-01-2018 07:36PM

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.

17-01-2018 07:43PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

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.

Don't be daft. There is a massive difference between being a doctor and being a paramedic. Incidentally paramedics can also be banned for life.

I've no issue with a lifetime ban from professional rugby also including amateur and coaching option.

prawnsambo · 17-01-2018 07:51PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Don't be daft. There is a massive difference between being a doctor and being a paramedic. Incidentally paramedics can also be banned for life.

I've no issue with a lifetime ban from professional rugby also including amateur and coaching option.

I don't know where you're getting the idea that being barred from practicing medicine as a doctor is somehow the same thing as being prevented from earning a living in the medical industry. Or at all.

I haven't even broached the opportunities in academia, industry or research. Or going to another jurisdiction.

I don't think it matters whether you've an issue or not with lifetime bans also including coaching or other involvement. That's what they include. You are banned permanently for life from any involvement in the sport. Worldwide.

irishbucsfan · 17-01-2018 07:51PM

Lifetime bans in sport are illegal in Europe anyway, it's a pointless discussion.

Noone is talking about banning him for life. It's a complete red herring.

irishbucsfan · 17-01-2018 07:52PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

I don't know where you're getting the idea that being barred from practicing medicine as a doctor is somehow the same thing as being prevented from earning a living in the medical industry. Or at all.

I don't know where you're getting the idea that being banned from rugby is the same thing as being prevented from earning a living the sports industry.

prawnsambo · 17-01-2018 07:54PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Lifetime bans in sport are illegal in Europe anyway, it's a pointless discussion.

Noone is talking about banning him for life. It's a complete red herring.

They were in the post I replied to.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I don't know where you're getting the idea that being banned from rugby is the same thing as being prevented from earning a living the sports industry.

Ha ha!

ThisRegard · 17-01-2018 08:13PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

You don't get paid as an amateur rugby player. Or at least not that you could live off it. As far as I know, you can't switch codes if you're banned from one. Open to correction there, but I'm fairly sure there's a reciprocal arrangement.

Any other profession won't stop you earning a living, albeit at a lower level. That's the difference that is being avoided by not implementing lifetime bans.

Nobody would stop him from earning a living, just stopping them earning a living in a particular club or sport.

ThisRegard · 17-01-2018 08:15PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

I think you've missed my point or misread my post. I never said there was no benefit, just not as much as in cycling, swimming, running you don't have additional skills to worry about.

Put it this way, if you took two teams and one spent their time doping and in the gym and the other instead focused on skills and building a play system I'd back the latter to win.

If it was two people being asked to run around a track the doper would win comfortably.

I don't think that's true though, you can be more skilled but those skills aren't of much use if you can't get to the opposition/ball to use those skills. Compare it to a team who just played 2 games in a week to a team fully rested and recuperated. Everyone will comment on the fact that the rested team will have an advantage when they meet, despite the other being more skilled.

ThisRegard · 17-01-2018 08:19PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Lifetime bans in sport are illegal in Europe anyway, it's a pointless discussion.

Noone is talking about banning him for life. It's a complete red herring.

It's not pointless. The IRFU can stand by their zero tolerance stance and not sanction the players being employed in Ireland, regardless of the length of the ban.

(Edited for clarity)

17-01-2018 08:25PM

ThisRegard wrote: »

I don't think that's true though, you can be more skilled but those skills aren't of much use if you can't get to the opposition/ball to use those skills. Compare it to a team who just played 2 games in a week to a team fully rested and recuperated. Everyone will comment on the fact that the rested team will have an advantage when they meet, despite the other being more skilled.

Ok so you think a rugby player will improve his performance by taking PEDs as much as a cyclist or swimmer?

ThisRegard · 17-01-2018 08:28PM

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Ok so you think a rugby player will improve his performance by taking PEDs as much as a cyclist or swimmer?

Relative to a player of equal skill who doesn't. And players that do cheat obviously believe it gives them an advantage over others, be it for gains on the pitch or on the wage slip.

I don't know why you're comparing doping across sports though, it's no lesser an offence.

How often have we heard people make the asinine claim that doping in soccer wouldn't help? Legendary German player Franz Beckenbauer has said as much, as have myriad lesser football luminaries such as Guido Buchwald, Theo Zwanziger, Ewald Lienen, Robin Dutt and current Liverpool manager Jürgen Klopp.

Mehmet Scholl, a former Bayern Munich star and current TV commentator, even once explained why it wouldn't work. Football, he said, is too complex. "Let's assume that you take something to build up your muscles, your coordination would suffer. If you take something for conditioning, you'll get slower." According to Mehmet.

Why, then, do so many football players dope?

...............
doping expert and biochemist Mario Thevis from the German Sport University Cologne. "Among other things, players need endurance, strength endurance and the ability to recover quickly. In football as well, all of these factors can be influenced with the help of banned substances."

Stimulants, taken just before a game, for example, increase an athlete's aggression. Steroids make muscles bigger and stronger and help injured professionals return more quickly to the playing field.

It's the same reasoning you're using.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/zeitgeist/football-rife-with-performance-enhancing-drugs-a-1139238.html

Munster's Gerbrandt Grobler signing - right or wrong?

Comments