Munster's Gerbrandt Grobler signing - right or wrong?

roundymac · 18-01-2018 12:02PM

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.

18-01-2018 12:04PM

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 · 18-01-2018 12:10PM

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 · 18-01-2018 12:25PM

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 · 18-01-2018 12:29PM

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 · 18-01-2018 01:41PM

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 · 18-01-2018 01:44PM

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 · 18-01-2018 04:26PM

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 · 18-01-2018 04:31PM

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 · 18-01-2018 04:32PM

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

2smiggy · 18-01-2018 04:34PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

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

Johnny Holland retired aged 25 having never been tested in a professional sport. You see anything wrong with that

prawnsambo · 18-01-2018 04:36PM

2smiggy wrote: »

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

Does it particularly matter as to when it becomes of interest?

2smiggy · 18-01-2018 04:37PM

Also cannot see why they are not all tested. There are plenty of job where you are drug and alcohol tested every week. the results in rugby would be fairly interesting

2smiggy · 18-01-2018 04:39PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

Does it particularly matter as to when it becomes of interest?

ya , he signed months ago after playing a year of rugby after he served his ban. why not all the outrage when he signed

Owta Control · 18-01-2018 04:41PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

Does it particularly matter as to when it becomes of interest?

Very much so

prawnsambo · 18-01-2018 04:42PM

2smiggy wrote: »

Johnny Holland retired aged 25 having never been tested in a professional sport. You see anything wrong with that

He had what? Ten or eleven caps for Munster? It's not ideal, but the law of averages would lean aginst him being tested with his injury profile and lack of game time.

It's very hard to judge the efficacy of a system from such a small sample size. It would help if we knew which players were being tested and how often.

2smiggy · 18-01-2018 04:45PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

He had what? Ten or eleven caps for Munster? It's not ideal, but the law of averages would lean aginst him being tested with his injury profile and lack of game time.

It's very hard to judge the efficacy of a system from such a small sample size. It would help if we knew which players were being tested and how often.

like i said, like other forms of employment, why is not every player tested for drugs weekly, or even a random day monthly would do.

The Specialist · 18-01-2018 04:45PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

Does it particularly matter as to when it becomes of interest?

Yes it does, particularly when he has served a 2 year ban and even played 20 games for another club last season. I'd say something about the outrage if he had some mad exception to use steroids that no other player has, but it's all just guff and bluster over **** all really, a past mistake being dug up again. Does nobody deserve a second chance when it comes to rugby?

irishbucsfan · 18-01-2018 04:45PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

He had what? Ten or eleven caps for Munster? It's not ideal, but the law of averages would lean aginst him being tested with his injury profile and lack of game time.

Ahhh stop. Someone who is a professional rugby player for 3 years should absolutely be tested. How can anyone think otherwise.

prawnsambo · 18-01-2018 04:46PM

Owta Control wrote: »

Very much so

Why? Genuine question. I was completely unaware of the situation until it was brought up here and in the media. Not sure how I can be told not to talk about it now that I know of it. Is there some sort of boat that I have missed that precludes me from discussing it?

irishbucsfan · 18-01-2018 04:46PM

The Specialist wrote: »

Yes it does, particularly when he has served a 2 year ban and even played 20 games for another club last season. I'd say something about the outrage if he had an exception to use steroids but it's all just guff and bluster over **** all really. Does nobody deserve a second chance when it comes to rugby?

It doesn't matter whatsoever what he did last season.

He was only signed by an Irish province this season and that's whats being questioned.

Noone is saying he doesn't deserve a 2nd chance. This is the biggest strawman going at this stage.

The Specialist · 18-01-2018 04:50PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It doesn't matter whatsoever what he did last season.

He was only signed by an Irish province this season and that's whats being questioned.

Noone is saying he doesn't deserve a 2nd chance. This is the biggest strawman going at this stage.

What's to question? He has served a ban and was signed from another club where he was actively playing games - there is nothing to question (only people frothing at the mouth over his error in the past).

18-01-2018 04:53PM

2smiggy wrote: »

Johnny Holland retired aged 25 having never been tested in a professional sport. You see anything wrong with that

2smiggy wrote: »

Also cannot see why they are not all tested. There are plenty of job where you are drug and alcohol tested every week. the results in rugby would be fairly interesting

This has already been covered generally but a few things. Testing for narcotics and alcohol is relatively easy. Testing for performance enhancing drugs is extremely difficult and extremely expensive. They are worlds apart.

In terms of the number of tests. Enough testing is being done to ensure that the provinces aren't running Russian style doping programmes on the players.

Beyond this I'd say the internationals are kept a close eye on and maybe players in positions that are known to benefit most from doping get a few more tests a year.

I don't know if enough is being done, I'd say very few people would be able to answer that. I'm not overly concerned about drug use in Irish rugby, I know enough people that have been in and around provincial squads to be satisfied that anyone known to be doing it would be a bit of a pariah.

irishbucsfan · 18-01-2018 04:54PM

The Specialist wrote: »

What's to question? He has served a ban and was signed from another club where he was actively playing games - there is nothing to question (only people frothing at the mouth over his error in the past).

Why have we signed a convicted drugs cheat? What happened to zero tolerance on drugs? How much is he still benefitting from previous steroids use? Is it actually worth the bad example and media backlash to sign a guy to line out periodically for Munster A?

That only scratches the surface of the questions.

prawnsambo · 18-01-2018 05:00PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Ahhh stop. Someone who is a professional rugby player for 3 years should absolutely be tested. How can anyone think otherwise.

I said it's not ideal. There definitely should be more testing. But as we discussed earlier, we don't know who is being tested and how often.

18-01-2018 05:01PM

For any of those using the 'he served his time' as a way of suggesting that the signing is fine.

How would you feel if Callum Clarke was signed by your club?

He served his time too.

irishbucsfan · 18-01-2018 05:02PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

I said it's not ideal. There definitely should be more testing. But as we discussed earlier, we don't know who is being tested and how often.

No. But we do know that someone can be a professional rugby for years in Ireland and never be tested. And that's all we should need to know that it is nowhere near good enough.

joseywhales · 18-01-2018 05:04PM

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.

If Munster believe that someone banned for doping should never play for Munster, then in order for them to be morally consistent they must also believe that such a player should be defacto banned from all professional rugby unless they can identify why Munster should be of a higher moral standard than other professional clubs.

It might be illegal for a rugby board to impose lifetime bans but leading clubs can create the social pressure of refusing to ever sign one, thereby pushing former dopers to the periphery of the professional game. Munster have an opportunity to show leadership in that regard here, to lead the change in culture.
I think in order to avoid moral hypocrisy, if you believe its wrong that munster should ever sign him then you should also believe that noone should ever sign him. That's why I think it is relevant to discuss the morality of a lifetime ban of a former drugs cheat. It will be the end result if all clubs refuse to sign one.

prawnsambo · 18-01-2018 05:05PM

Deleted User wrote: »

This has already been covered generally but a few things. Testing for narcotics and alcohol is relatively easy. Testing for performance enhancing drugs is extremely difficult and extremely expensive. They are worlds apart.

In terms of the number of tests. Enough testing is being done to ensure that the provinces aren't running Russian style doping programmes on the players.

This is something that occurred to me also. It's possible that an individual could be doping and not be spotted by his team medical and nutritional specialists, but it's probably very risky. And that only leaves the russian style approach which I think would fail very quickly because it would become too widely known.

irishbucsfan · 18-01-2018 05:07PM

joseywhales wrote: »

If Munster believe that someone banned for doping should never play for Munster, then in order for them to be morally consistent they must also believe that such a player should be defacto banned from all professional rugby unless they can identify why Munster should be of a higher moral standard than other professional clubs.

No, it doesn't matter what Munster believe about the legalities of lifetime bans.

They are completely free to hire whoever they want to. Grobler had a 3 year contract from Gloucester, if Munster had made the decision not to sign him it would in absolutely no way have been similar to a lifetime ban from rugby. This is a fairly transparent attempt at diverting from the issue at hand.

Munster's Gerbrandt Grobler signing - right or wrong?

Comments