Munster's Gerbrandt Grobler signing - right or wrong?

Owta Control · 19-01-2018 09:19PM

Trojan wrote: »

Awful and all as it it, that's precisely what Munster are saying when they circle the wagons and double down on "he served his time".

Just what incentive is there for a young 19 year old who is skilled but just a bit too small to make the cut NOT to take the risk? The prize is a pro rugby contract and possibly even an international career. Even if they're caught, two years is nothing. And then they've served their time.

Murray and the rest of his teammates HAVE to support him publicly- that's just the nature of rugby. The fanbase do not.

Ruadhrai O'Connor?

irishbucsfan · 19-01-2018 09:19PM

The IRFU could have made this go away on day one with a few lines:

IRFU Chief Executive Philip Browne wishes to acknowledge the Union's role in causing unintentional concern and confusion around their policy on performance enhancing drugs.

The IRFU is fully committed to eliminating the misuse of drugs from rugby in Ireland and has already undertaken numerous awareness raising campaigns involving volunteers and senior IRFU staff from both the high performance and grassroots participation areas of the game.

As part of that process, it is intended to create a focused steering group co-chaired by (Blazer #1) and (Repentent-drug-cheat #1) to review the current strategy surrounding this area of the game and to make recommendations about the direction of future signings and policy on drugs going forward.

The work carried out by the steering group will contribute to building a framework for a long term strategic plan on the future of drug enforcement policy in Ireland. It is anticipated they will be able to deliver a report at the end of the current season.

This would have completely taken the sting out of the whole problem because the answer to any questions from any journalist would become "we'll wait on the outcome of the committee". The articles would have disappeared immediately. Whether or not the committee was completely meaningless would be down to how much the IRFU actually care about PEDs.

The IRFU are MORE than capable of doing this as well. I know that because I stole the above wording from a press release they released last year in an attempt to clean up another mess they created for themselves.

Owta Control · 19-01-2018 09:20PM

prawnsambo wrote: »

Classic rant!

Shame you didn't properly read the post you replied to. :pac:

Or use proper paragraphs......

"Ain't nobody got time fo' dat"

Neil3030 · 19-01-2018 09:40PM

Former Former wrote: »

The story is still a story because Munster and IRFU had the exact same stance as you; they just wanted it to go away, and they figured it would. Just like the way no one noticed or cared when he signed because of the Lions, it was a good bet that European Rugby and Six Nations squad would hog the attention and it would fade out. So they kept the heads down and waited.

But it didn't pan out that way. It was easy enough to dismiss the initial questions as click bait in a slow week and posters here jumped all over that, the old "fake news- sad!" defence. So far, so good.

This week, however , the tone changed. Donal Lenihan - a bona fide Munster legend, an Ireland captain - wrote a column on it. Former player after former player from ALL provinces came out against it, you had Henshaw looking very uncomfortable when questioned - so it became impossible to ignore.

And then they decided to respond. Philip Browne gave the most garbled answers in which he simultaneously defended Grobler and hung him out to dry. If you want a laugh, watch the growing terror on the face of the IRFU press guy as a car crash unfolds on his watch.

Munster then came out with a statement that was just incredibly ham fisted, it's beyond belief that it was drafted by a pro sports organisation.

Both Munster and Browne just created more questions than they answered so on it rumbles.

And all the while, there's the narrative building that everyone is agin'us, that this is only a story because it's Munster, and some fans are getting their backs up so much that we were facing the prospect of not only having a "drugs cheat" playing at Thomond but getting a rapturous ovation for doing so. That forced Munster's hand on his selection for Castres. They simply couldn't pick him. Now we have a guy who played 20 games for Racing last season togging out for Munster A in an obscure turkey shoot in Cork.

So yeah, this story could easily have blown over by now. The fact that it hasn't is due to an organisation stonewalling legitimate media questions and hoping it all went away. If Munster/IRFU had headed this off at the pass with a vanilla statement on day one or two, a few bullet points was all that was needed, then it would have been a story for a day or two and we'd all have gone back to discussing Zebo.

That it's run for so long is not the fault of the dastardly media.

Key point highlighted in bold for me - none of the questions put by Gilroy to Browne could have been preemptively addressed with any press release other than a grovelling apology and a promise to either bench the player indefinitely or release him from his contract.

19-01-2018 09:47PM

Neil3030 wrote: »

Key point highlighted in bold for me - none of the questions put by Gilroy to Browne could have been preemptively addressed with any press release other than a grovelling apology and a promise to either bench the player indefinitely or release him from his contract.

The point of the statement is that he doesn't then need to answer those questions.

jm08 · 20-01-2018 06:48PM

Deleted User wrote: »

The point of the statement is that he doesn't then need to answer those questions.

I think the difficulty for the IRFU has been that the two people involved in GGs recruitment are not available to answer the questions - Rassie & Nucifora (understandably).

Just heard again Newstalk at lunchtime today going off on another rant about it and how the Munster 'brand' is now destroyed by this!

Informative article in the Examiner today where they interview Dr Una May, the Director of Participation and Ethics for Sport Ireland.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/sport/other-sports/its-not-up-to-us-to-make-those-moral-judgments-466054.html

Dr May, however, believes the testing in Irish rugby is appropriate to the level of risk. While figures are not yet available for 2017, Sport Ireland conducted 113 tests on rugby players in 2016 (out of a total of 1002 tests), making it the third most tested sport behind athletics (250) and cycling (155).
“Within the context rugby is fairly highly tested,” says May. “The IRFU is the only governing body that pays for tests in addition to the national programme.”

And while rugby players don’t face the same stringent whereabouts policies as those in individual sports, May notes that Sport Ireland has the ability to test players outside of training times if required.

“We’re quite targeted in rugby. We don’t go in and look for random players. We generally go in with a player in mind to test.”

Real problem seems to be with schools rugby where there is no testing. Once kids hit an academy or play underage, they will be tested.

irishbucsfan · 20-01-2018 06:55PM

What a shock, a director for Sport Ireland who are paid by the IRFU to test Irish rugby players, won't publically criticise the testing policies of the IRFU.

Owta Control · 20-01-2018 07:14PM

Third most tested sport.....how many professional cyclists have we in this country...or top level athletes.... I'd bet a damn small fraction of our rugby players.

Tim Robbins · 20-01-2018 07:18PM

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

You dont need to make a comparison at every opp between the organisations and quite often in some areas you are quit sanctimonious about differences....t

Play the argument, not the man...

jm08 · 20-01-2018 07:18PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

What a shock, a director for Sport Ireland who are paid by the IRFU to test Irish rugby players, won't publically criticise the testing policies of the IRFU.

Sport Ireland has an excellent reputation for its national anti doping programme. John Tracy (CEO) has always been very strong on it. This woman has been running the programme for the last 17 years.

The IRFU pay for extra testing, not the national drug testing programme.

joseywhales · 20-01-2018 07:37PM

Deleted User wrote: »

joseywhales wrote: »

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.

There is no obligation on any club to sign anyone.

I don't think anyone should be signing players who fundamentally tear at the fabric of the sports they play.

That the stakeholders of those games cannot ban them for life is a legal issue. Once again, there is no obligation on any club to sign any player. If a drugs cheat cannot find employment, then that is it. Be they a cyclist, a sprinter or indeed a rugby player. Nobody is compelled to offer them employment.

Fwiw, there are a few other circumstances which are easily understood to many as to why a player should not be deemed 'employable' by anyone in their competition. And I'm sure we all know that. It's just a matter of where people draw the line tbh.

So my view is that the signing is wrong because I believe he should have a lifetime ban and as such Munster should not play him in lieu of the legal framework to ban him.

Owta Control · 20-01-2018 07:38PM

joseywhales wrote: »

So my view is that the signing is wrong because I believe he should have a lifetime ban and as such Munster should not play him in lieu of the legal framework to ban him.

Who cares?

joseywhales · 20-01-2018 07:39PM

Owta Control wrote: »

joseywhales wrote: »

So my view is that the signing is wrong because I believe he should have a lifetime ban and as such Munster should not play him in lieu of the legal framework to ban him.

Who cares?

It is the heading of the thread

jm08 · 20-01-2018 07:56PM

Owta Control wrote: »

Third most tested sport.....how many professional cyclists have we in this country...or top level athletes.... I'd bet a damn small fraction of our rugby players.

Much higher risk for athletics and cycling. Carlo Del Valva said in his interview on Newstalk that when he took them he didn't realise that they could be detected for up to 18 months afterwards.

Thats not the same with athletics, cycling and swimming - they need to be tested frequently.

Owta Control · 20-01-2018 08:00PM

joseywhales wrote: »

It is the heading of the thread

Well your view is wrong

irishbucsfan · 20-01-2018 08:01PM

Owta Control wrote: »

Well your view is wrong

Hahaha

"Your opinion is wrong"

Great stuff

Owta Control · 20-01-2018 08:03PM

jm08 wrote: »

Much higher risk for athletics and cycling. Carlo Del Valva said in his interview on Newstalk that when he took them he didn't realise that they could be detected for up to 18 months afterwards.

Thats not the same with athletics, cycling and swimming - they need to be tested frequently.

And it's quite irrelevant tbf...we have over 120 professional Rugby players playing at the highest level ...we have less than a dozen cyclists and athletes at the same level

Owta Control · 20-01-2018 08:05PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Hahaha

"Your opinion is wrong"

Great stuff

No, his view is wrong as a lifetime ban is not applicable...and if he had studied the prepared material, he would have known this... he gets an E for effort

irishbucsfan · 20-01-2018 08:07PM

Owta Control wrote: »

No, his view is wrong as a lifetime ban is not applicable...and if he had studied the prepared material, he would have known this... he gets an E for effort

I don't think you read the post in that case. Clearly knew that a lifetime ban is not possible.

jm08 · 20-01-2018 08:38PM

Owta Control wrote: »

And it's quite irrelevant tbf...we have over 120 professional Rugby players playing at the highest level ...we have less than a dozen cyclists and athletes at the same level

And they have targetted who is likely to dope. Otherwise, they are in a controlled environment unlike say athletics and cycling where the athletes disappear off for months on end for high altitude training etc.

The real problem is the lack of testing in schools rugby - they are the ones who are most likely to chance it as there is no chance of them getting caught.

The Lost Sheep · 20-01-2018 08:43PM

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Play the argument, not the man...

Report if you have an issue tim but its a fair point. There doesnt always have to be a comparison with other sports.

20-01-2018 08:47PM

Owta Control wrote: »

And it's quite irrelevant tbf...we have over 120 professional Rugby players playing at the highest level ...we have less than a dozen cyclists and athletes at the same level

Most athletes or cyclist at or near international standard are training upwards of 15 times per week.

They don't need the facilities or depth of coaching of a team sport but they are still doing at least the same if not significantly more physical training.

I'd estimate that in athletics alone there are easily 100 individuals at around international or major competition qualification standard. The standards are set in almost every event by the fastest in the world and the overwhelming majority of those times are doped so it's plenty comparable to be honest.

20-01-2018 08:50PM

jm08 wrote: »

And they have targetted who is likely to dope. Otherwise, they are in a controlled environment unlike say athletics and cycling where the athletes disappear off for months on end for high altitude training etc.

The real problem is the lack of testing in schools rugby - they are the ones who are most likely to chance it as there is no chance of them getting caught.

Actually post school is the much more likely. The competition standards in school can easily be met naturally. There are no major drivers to cheat.

I can't envisage a 17 year old getting the money and the wherewithal to acquire this stuff while living at home. No one is going to be handing this stuff to them.

Owta Control · 20-01-2018 08:54PM

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I don't think you read the post in that case. Clearly knew that a lifetime ban is not possible.

But he wants Munster to sign the player.. pay him..and not ever play him...not sure if either of you are in touch with reality there

joseywhales · 20-01-2018 09:00PM

Owta Control wrote: »

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I don't think you read the post in that case. Clearly knew that a lifetime ban is not possible.

But he wants Munster to sign the player.. pay him..and not ever play him...not sure if either of you are in touch with reality there

I said the signing was wrong, so I did not want Munster to sign him.

However, he has already been signed therefore the next best option is to never play him, in my opinion.

Owta Control · 20-01-2018 09:02PM

joseywhales wrote: »

I said the signing was wrong, so I did not want Munster to sign him.

However, he has already been signed therefore the next best option is to never play him, in my opinion.

And... back to my original point... Who cares?

joseywhales · 20-01-2018 09:02PM

Owta Control wrote: »

joseywhales wrote: »

I said the signing was wrong, so I did not want Munster to sign him.

However, he has already been signed therefore the next best option is to never play him, in my opinion.

And... back to my original point... Who cares?

That is not a point that is a question

Owta Control · 20-01-2018 09:06PM

joseywhales wrote: »

That is not a point that is a question

Apologies, the question mark is like yourself.. redundant.

salmocab · 20-01-2018 09:15PM

Not really sure I should bother but anyway, don’t think Munster should have signed him as it makes a bit of a mockery of the zero tolerance approach, that said we should be careful of saying things about a young man who has done wrong but has also done the time. He got the ban and served it, I’m sure most think it should of been longer as he is a cheat but that’s irrelevant now they have signed him and he’s clear to play. Provinces have a bigger role to play in what’s right and wrong in the wider community than say an aviva premiership team as the provinces are also the administrators of rugby in their whole province. All that said the real test comes if a provincial player is tested positive to a performance enhancer and how we all see it then.

jm08 · 20-01-2018 09:15PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually post school is the much more likely. The competition standards in school can easily be met naturally. There are no major drivers to cheat.

I can't envisage a 17 year old getting the money and the wherewithal to acquire this stuff while living at home. No one is going to be handing this stuff to them.

Really. I recall Ian Keatly saying that the year Belvedere won the cup, Cian Healy just bulldozed them around the pitch. So obviously strength and conditioning is handy to have.

As for getting the stuff - you seriously don't think they wouldn't be able to get their hands on the stuff if their dream was to have a professional rugby career and were afraid they were a little bit on the small size?

Munster's Gerbrandt Grobler signing - right or wrong?

Comments