Munster's Gerbrandt Grobler signing - right or wrong?

2smiggy

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

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

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

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

prawnsambo wrote: »

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

Very much so

prawnsambo

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

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

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

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

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

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

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).

2smiggy

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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

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.

joseywhales

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.

Former Former

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.

But is this not exactly what we should want?

Or is our default position now that, if we don't break any rules, then it's ok?

If the latter, then grand, but let's not delude ourselves with any more guff about ethos and what we stand for.

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

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.

Exactly right. And between the players who are in many cases experts on gym work and the strength and conditioning guys people are going to notice quickly enough if someone is making unnatural gains in the gym. It can't be an easy environment to cheat in, not impossible but not easy.

And that's on top of the risks which are significant enough. Plenty of dopers have developed life threatening illnesses and countless have died young.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

Exactly right. And between the players who are in many cases experts on gym work and the strength and conditioning guys people are going to notice quickly enough if someone is making unnatural gains in the gym. It can't be an easy environment to cheat in, not impossible but not easy.

And that's on top of the risks which are significant enough. Plenty of dopers have developed life threatening illnesses and countless have died young.

In some ways, that reminds me of the Michelle Smith saga and what her competitors were saying about her gains in speed. Of course we all said it was sour grapes , but they were actually the experts on what can be achieved through regular training methods.

prawnsambo

Just out of interest, here's the WADA list of ADRVs (Anti-Doping Rule Violations) for Rugby in 2015. (the latest available).

The Lost Sheep

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.

I dont really think there is a need to mention FAI/Soccer here just to have a pop at them as its rather childish.
I dont see any real issue with Munster signing this player. He served his time. Would you say the same if the player was irish?

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 would you suggest be done instead?

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

Who funds all these extra tests. The testing can be very expensive so who pays for this if its done every week?

prawnsambo wrote: »

Just out of interest, here's the WADA list of ADRVs (Anti-Doping Rule Violations) for Rugby in 2015. (the latest available).

Not that surprising but would be interesting to see the breakdown by country of the United Kingdom figure. Any way to find that out?

prawnsambo

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

Not that surprising but would be interesting to see the breakdown by country of the United Kingdom figure. Any way to find that out?

Not from WADA anyway. They don't seem to think like that.

Perhaps the individual governing bodies might have the figiures.

Tim Robbins

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

I dont really think there is a need to mention FAI/Soccer here just to have a pop at them as its rather childish.

What do you mean "them"? I like / play Soccer myself. Both Soccer and GAA are always saying to me I wish things in Soccer / GAA were run like Rugby.

I dont see any real issue with Munster signing this player. He served his time. Would you say the same if the player was irish?

There's a higher bar on overseas players on all standards. Otherwise why sign them?

What would you suggest be done instead?

It was a mistake. Nothing can be done now. The ship has sailed. The time to sort this out was when he was signed.

The Lost Sheep

Tim Robbins wrote: »

What do you mean "them"? I like / play Soccer myself. Both Soccer and GAA are always saying to me I wish things in Soccer / GAA were run like Rugby.

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....

There's a higher bar on overseas players on all standards. Otherwise why sign them?

There doesnt have to be or should be simply because he's not irish.

It was a mistake. Nothing can be done now. The ship has sailed. The time to sort this out was when he was signed.

It wasnt a mistake to sign him. He failed a drugs test, was banned and returned. I dont see why we shouldnt have signed him because he failed a drugs test

The Lost Sheep

The Lost Sheep wrote: »

He failed a drugs test, was banned and returned. I dont see why we shouldnt have signed him because he failed a drugs test

Deleted User wrote: »

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.

.

LuckyLloyd

[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.

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.

Your complete faith in the system and unquestioning belief that the sport is clean is...stunning.

prawnsambo

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Your complete faith in the system and unquestioning belief that the sport is clean is...stunning.

You seem to be speaking from knowledge or experience?

Buer

prawnsambo wrote: »

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.

Players out with long term injuries should be considered a red flag when it comes to testing. Holland specifically mentioned that he wasn't tested when out injured for a year. Surely that is when temptation is greatest and players are desperate to come back stronger and make up lost ground.

PetKing

Does anyone here think he has or has not been test since arriving in Ireland? Do you think Ireland and IRFU with 'zero tolerance' should be at odds with a 2 year ban, and return to the sport? Bearing in mind that lifetime ban cannot ever happen.

irishbucsfan

PetKing wrote: »

Does anyone here think he has or has not been test since arriving in Ireland?

I would hope he has been, but some of the stories of guys who haven't been tested are amazing so I wouldn't be shocked if he hadn't. I don't really think he is still using the drugs though.

PetKing wrote: »

Do you think Ireland and IRFU with 'zero tolerance' should be at odds with a 2 year ban, and return to the sport? Bearing in mind that lifetime ban cannot ever happen.

Yes, absolutely. If we want a zero tolerance approach (which the IRFU have claimed, obviously incorrectly), then that is what should be done. Obviously what we have right now is not a zero tolerance approach, it's just a nice soundbite that the IRFU marketing team have been throwing around.

There's absolutely nothing wrong with a policy that says we shouldn't sign overseas players with a history of doping. It would be a small step towards 'zero tolerance', although we'd still need a clear policy on how we'd deal with Irish players who are convicted of doping.

prawnsambo

Buer wrote: »

Players out with long term injuries should be considered a red flag when it comes to testing. Holland specifically mentioned that he wasn't tested when out injured for a year. Surely that is when temptation is greatest and players are desperate to come back stronger and make up lost ground.

It's more that out of competition testing seems to be done at a lower rate than in competition testing. It's just a fact that exposure to testing increases with the level of competition. I'm not saying that's a good thing, just as an explanation as to why he'd have been less likely to be tested.

It seems to me that off-season and pre-season would be the best time to test rugby players. Not so much injury layoffs because the injuries often preclude any of the required weights work that would accompany PED use.

Vinnie222

prawnsambo wrote: »

It's more that out of competition testing seems to be done at a lower rate than in competition testing. It's just a fact that exposure to testing increases with the level of competition. I'm not saying that's a good thing, just as an explanation as to why he'd have been less likely to be tested.

It seems to me that off-season and pre-season would be the best time to test rugby players. Not so much injury layoffs because the injuries often preclude any of the required weights work that would accompany PED use.

3/4 of the testing done in 2016/2015 was ooc testing .

LuckyLloyd

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Your complete faith in the system and unquestioning belief that the sport is clean is...stunning.

Not really. I am under no doubt that there are drugs in all sports. I'm probably more familiar than a lot on here. I just don't think it's a huge issue in rugby and I've good reason to think that.

It's not unquestioning, I've considered a lot of things to reach this conclusion. Feel free to read back over my posts on the subject to get a better picture of why I think this way.

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

It's more that out of competition testing seems to be done at a lower rate than in competition testing. It's just a fact that exposure to testing increases with the level of competition. I'm not saying that's a good thing, just as an explanation as to why he'd have been less likely to be tested.

It seems to me that off-season and pre-season would be the best time to test rugby players. Not so much injury layoffs because the injuries often preclude any of the required weights work that would accompany PED use.

Taking drugs right before competition in most instances is no where near as effective at all. Drugs are training 'supplements' for the most part, they aren't really a quick 'power boost' so out of competition is always where the emphasis should be. Additionally so given the randomness of it as opposed to scheduling around known competition dates.

Vinnie222 wrote: »

3/4 of the testing done in 2016/2015 was ooc testing .

That would make a lot more sense.

prawnsambo

Deleted User wrote: »

Taking drugs right before competition in most instances is no where near as effective at all. Drugs are training 'supplements' for the most part, they aren't really a quick 'power boost' so out of competition is always where the emphasis should be. Additionally so given the randomness of it as opposed to scheduling around known competition dates.

Yes, but OOC for a rugby player is during the 'working' week. It's effectively IC testing since they pretty much play every week. I'm not sure are you agreeing with me or disagreeing that more testing should be done in the 'actual' OOC period between seasons? Where (as you eem to be saying above) the most benefit would be gained from PED use.

irishbucsfan

prawnsambo wrote: »

Yes, but OOC for a rugby player is during the 'working' week. It's effectively IC testing since they pretty much play every week. I'm not sure are you agreeing with me or disagreeing that more testing should be done in the 'actual' OOC period between seasons? Where (as you eem to be saying above) the most benefit would be gained from PED use.

Are you sure about this? I thought there was a period either side of games that count as in competition testing?

EDIT: It actually says in the report the period is only 12 hours. In other countries its much longer. In other team sports in Ireland I know its 4 days prior. This should be changed as well.

prawnsambo

prawnsambo wrote: »

Yes, but OOC for a rugby player is during the 'working' week. It's effectively IC testing since they pretty much play every week. I'm not sure are you agreeing with me or disagreeing that more testing should be done in the 'actual' OOC period between seasons? Where (as you eem to be saying above) the most benefit would be gained from PED use.

No I'm in agreement, the testing should be focused on pre season, injury periods, breaks during the season and at the very least mid week.

irishbucsfan

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Are you sure about this? I thought there was a period either side of games that count as in competition testing?

In competition testing by my understanding is where they set up physically in the stadium to take 'x' amount of samples.

Any time I gave in-competition samples I was basically taken from the finish line and walked over to a room to take a wee in front of some randomer.

prawnsambo

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Are you sure about this? I thought there was a period either side of games that count as in competition testing?

It's not how anti-doping agencies describe it. They say IC testing is immediately after the competition where the athlete's movements are completely controlled right up to the actual test being conducted.

irishbucsfan

Deleted User wrote: »

In competition testing by my understanding is where they set up physically in the stadium to take 'x' amount of samples.

Any time I gave in-competition samples I was basically taken from the finish line and walked over to a room to take a wee in front of some randomer.

It's 12 hours either side in rugby it turns out. In other team sports of a rounder ball variety it can be up to 4 days, but I think that's mostly because they were trying to catch specific infringements that might not have been performace-related.

prawnsambo

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It's 12 hours either side in rugby it turns out. In other team sports of a rounder ball variety it can be up to 4 days, but I think that's mostly because they were trying to catch specific infringements that might not have been performace-related.

Clearly based on what PEDs (or other substances) are suspected alright.

Akrasia

There is a lot of hypocrisy surrounding PEDs in rugby where players routinely start matches loaded up on pain killers so they can absorb bigger hits to and past the point of injury.

Players with dislocated joints and fractures given pain killers and sent back on regardless of the future disability this might lead to.

Theres this huge condemnation of players who are caught stepping over a fuzzy line from the same players who take their 'smarties' before each game, while others, like Dan Carter get TUEs to use PEDs and are able to play the system.

Then there are all the teenagers legally bulking up on creatine from puberty onwards which have undoubtedly changed their physical development through supplements that are not proven to be safe long term and could damage the liver, and kidneys when taken in high doses.

irishbucsfan

Akrasia wrote: »

There is a lot of hypocrisy

What follows is not hypocrisy

surrounding PEDs in rugby where players routinely start matches loaded up on pain killers so they can absorb bigger hits to and past the point of injury.

Players with dislocated joints and fractures given pain killers and sent back on regardless of the future disability this might lead to.

Theres this huge condemnation of players who are caught stepping over a fuzzy line from the same players who take their 'smarties' before each game, while others, like Dan Carter get TUEs to use PEDs and are able to play the system.

To be clear, all of the above are decisions made by doctors. From painkiller use through to TUEs.

It may be a wrong decision. But I'm no doctor, are you?

I can see a player having a finger re-located and playing on but that is absolutely it. I can't think of a single instance of a player getting a fracture, it being spotted by the doctors, and them going back out to play.

About 10 years ago EOS commented openly on POC having a steroid injection as a course of treatment for an injury. This is obviously a world away from what GG did.

And I honestly don't think I've seen the word 'hypocrisy' used once in proper context around this entire discussion. Who exactly is being a hypocrite?

irishbucsfan

Joe Delicious Skirmish wrote: »

I can see a player having a finger re-located and playing on but that is absolutely it. I can't think of a single instance of a player getting a fracture, it being spotted by the doctors, and them going back out to play.

About 10 years ago EOS commented openly on POC having a steroid injection as a course of treatment for an injury. This is obviously a world away from what GG did.

And I honestly don't think I've seen the word 'hypocrisy' used once in proper context around this entire discussion. Who exactly is being a hypocrite?

There is definitely a huge problem with painkiller use in rugby. Bernard Jackman spoke on it earlier in the season and it was pretty shocking to hear the amount of guys who need them to stay on the field