Munster's Gerbrandt Grobler signing - right or wrong?

joseywhales

joseywhales wrote: »

It's like humans are incapable psychologically of being wrong.

phog

Deleted User wrote: »

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

Former Former wrote: »

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?

Munster/IRFU obviously decided an NIQ replacement for Ryan was needed if it was wasn't Grobler then it was going to be someone else.

Every player and parent will think they deserve their game time but I'm sure they too would like to get a second chance too if the need arose

thebaz

Zzippy wrote: »

Do I think players deserve a second chance? Yes, but not after just 2 years

Do I think a 2 year ban is long enough for steroids? No, it's far too short and not a harsh enough deterrent

how long is long enough ? some will want life bans - personally, I think 2 years is about right - very difficult to get back in the game after a 2 yesr break anyway - I know people who struggle big time to get back into rugby even after one year.

ps caught twice then I agree a ban for life.

Trojan

Philip Browne comes across terribly in that interview.

"That doesn't come to me ... but I'm not ducking the question"

"If you'd I'll explain. I'll just continue... just let me explain"

(Ok, Philip, let's hear you explain!)

Filibuster, filibuster, filibuster...

Assistant: "We have to wrap this up"

irishbucsfan

To be honest I think the IRFU should announce that they're going to hold a review and will announce any new policy in the offseason.

To at least park the dicussion. That will placate people enough to at least let Grobler concentrate on his job. I'm starting to feel bad for him because I reckon he's a decent bloke who probably feels extremely guilty.

Tim Robbins

Wrong. As is signing South African's who are only 18 just out of school on the player project program.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

To be honest I think the IRFU should announce that they're going to hold a review and will announce any new policy in the offseason.

To at least park the dicussion. That will placate people enough to at least let Grobler concentrate on his job. I'm starting to feel bad for him because I reckon he's a decent bloke who probably feels extremely guilty.

It's a spotlight he could do without.

I don't think this will ever happen again, the IRFU and Munster have been damaged by it and no one player is worth it. Regardless of what I think about him playing, I don't think Grobler needs to have this brought back up and thrown at him at this stage when he has been welcomed into the team.

I'd be happy at this point if the IRFU enforced what it refers to as it's zero tolerance rule.

phog

Carlo Del Fava

While playing rugby in South Africa, Del Fava served a two-year ban after testing positive for the banned substance stanozolol

Played in Ireland from 2007 to 09

Where was the outcry then? When did a drug ban become an outrage?

Turnipman

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Wrong. As is signing South African's who are only 18 just out of school on the player project program.

Yep. For me that stinks to high heaven.

The only money that I'll ever be giving the IRFU or Munster Rugby will come indirectly through my Sky and BT Sports subscriptions, but if I was considering purchasing tickets or merchandise from either body then that kind of shabby carry-on would certainly make me think twice.

Henry Ford III

phog wrote: »

Carlo Del Fava



Played in Ireland from 2007 to 09

Where was the outcry then? When did a drug ban become an outrage?

Good find. I don't recall any outrage at the time, or even during hi international career.

Hypocrisy is alive and well.

Beechwoodspark

It’s damage limitation mode at this stage. Given the media storm lately I wonder if he will play even a minute of competitive rugby for Munster.

Owta Control

Shefwedfan wrote: »

It wasn't the IRFU, it was Munster that didn't cough up

He was moved from central contract and then left to Munster to negotiate.

The issue here is the bad running of Munster.....

In regards to Grobler, why sign him if he is never going to play? even before this storm in tea cup he hasn't played a minute

Because as anyone who was following the story and was actually interested knows, he's been injured since a pre season game

Owta Control

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

It’s damage limitation mode at this stage. Given the media storm lately I wonder if he will play even a minute of competitive rugby for Munster.

He'll play at the weekend

Buer

Henry Ford III wrote: »

Good find. I don't recall any outrage at the time, or even during hi international career.

Hypocrisy is alive and well.

Times change and the world is much smaller along with rugby being under far more scrutiny. If CDF signed today you can be sure the signing would be questioned.

The level of coverage of drugs in sport has absolutely exploded in the past 5 years in this part of the world. If Grobler had joined a decade ago, it would have flown under the radar too.

It's unlucky for Grobler that he's the fall guy in the situation but that's the reality of it.

thomond2006

phog wrote: »

Carlo Del Fava



Played in Ireland from 2007 to 09

Where was the outcry then? When did a drug ban become an outrage?

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.

slingerz

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

Trojan

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Wrong. As is signing South African's who are only 18 just out of school on the player project program.

I just heard about that on Eggchasers Podcast - it's been noticed. Very surprising.

Neil3030

How did this get so topical again, hasn't he already played for Munster in the preseason?

Former Former

Neil3030 wrote: »

How did this get so topical again, hasn't he already played for Munster in the preseason?

You've answered your own question there. No one cares about preseason games, most people aren't even aware they're happening.

But when a guy is in the mix for crucial Heineken Cup games, then it's more topical.

who_me

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)".

phog

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

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

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

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

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

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.

prawnsambo

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

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.

prawnsambo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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.

ThisRegard

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.

Shefwedfan

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Name them please

I've already named two.

prawnsambo

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

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.

prawnsambo

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

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

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

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

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

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

[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

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)

ThisRegard

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

[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