This should have been put to bed on Monday, if not much, much earlier.
Buried before Johan van Graan had to address the issue for a second time. Buried before Peter O’Mahony and Conor Murray had to speak to the media on Tuesday.
Before I had the chance to write this article. I should have never had the chance, but the IRFU have inadvertently granted me the opportunity, firstly, by signing off on Gerbrandt Grobler’s Munster deal, and secondly, by failing to take a ‘zero tolerance’ approach to an issue that they said they had a ‘zero tolerance’ approach for.
“The IRFU has a zero tolerance policy to cheating within rugby and is committed to delivering ongoing education in the area of anti-doping,” IRFU CEO Philip Browne wrote in the union’s 2015/16 anti-doping report which showed 267 tests in Irish Rugby with no adverse findings.
“Although rugby has a strong anti-doping track record it is important that we remain vigilant and demonstrate the core values of our game – integrity, respect and excellence. We are grateful to Sport Ireland for their support, professionalism and expertise.
“As a sport our message in clear – if you are doping there is no place for you in rugby.”
The players were only going to respond one way, writes @jackjotoole https://t.co/YMFIgkp7Uy
— SportsJOE (@SportsJOEdotie) January 17, 2018
Is the message clear though? Is the message ‘if you are doping there is no place for you in rugby’? Or is it ‘if you serve a two-year ban and we’re stuck for a second-row, there’s a place for you in Irish Rugby?’
Browne moved to make the union’s stance clear on this issue on Wednesday at the announcement that Aviva are continuing their sponsorship of Lansdowne Road until 2025.
He was clear in the fact that a zero tolerance approach had existed in 2016, but on Wednesday, it seemed as if the union would now be reviewing their policies instead of taking a hardline stance against bringing in any more convicted dopers into Irish Rugby.
When Philip Browne (IRFU CEO) was asked if any convicted dopers will be recruited in future he replied: "Well, that's a nonsense question…"
Yet, in the same reply, Browne stated: "'Are we going to bring in drug cheats?' the answer is: I don't think we are."
— Gavin Cummiskey (@Cumoski) January 17, 2018
‘Are we going to bring in drug cheats? The answer is: I don’t think we are’.
This is not on an issue of latching onto one quote and making an issue where no issue exists, the CEO of the IRFU had a chance to categorically rule out signing any convicted dopers in the future and his answer was ‘I don’t think so’. He left the door ajar when there needed to be absolutely no doubt that it would be slammed shut.
Why not say ‘no’ to that question? There and then. What is there to think about?
What policies are there to review? The policy of bringing in known dopers or the zero tolerance policy? Which one is it?
The review is short, in fact, it’s two letters, and I’ll do it free of charge: no. That’s the answer.
‘No, we will not be bringing in any players with a prior history of cheating. We made a mistake, we will no longer bring in convicted dopers into Irish Rugby. No exceptions, ifs, buts or maybes’.
Instead, in a later interview with Ger Gilroy, Irish Rugby received this response from Browne on the Grobler situation that prompted this controversey.
“In relation to the Grobler situation, the answer really is, firstly, there was no specific policy at that particular time to deal with that particular set of circumstances…”
Except for the zero tolerance policy, the policy printed on the first page of your annual doping report from 2016, a year before Munster signed Grobler. What about that specific policy?
Putting the philosophical questions about acquiring a convicted doper aside, which has returned an overwhelming response of ‘this is not good for the short term or long term future of Irish Rugby’, why open your organisation up to this type of criticism again in the future?
The avalanche of criticism from the media and former players. The hypocrisy of the statements. The mere notion that anyone in the future can point to this week as an abject failure should a similar situation arise again in the future.
From an optics point alone, and leaving aside for a brief second the morale idea that maybe you shouldn’t hire convicted dopers in a contact sport, why would you not eradicate any possibility of a Grobler repeat ever happening again?
Maybe Browne’s ‘I don’t think we are going to bring in drug cheats in the future’ is meant in a similar vein to a pedestrian’s ‘I dont’ think I’ll walk in front of oncoming traffic today’, in that it should be a blatantly straightforward decision, but maybe it also leaves the door open to a future Gerbrandt Grobler, where the IRFU can hide behind the defence of we said ‘we’d review our policies’ or ‘we never said we wouldn’t’.
Here’s hoping this week acts as a turning point in educating future players and deterring them from substance abuse, and not promoting the fact that the chief executive of the IRFU failed to categorically deny the possibility of employing known dopers in the future.
However, despite Browne’s lack of clarity, the decision to sign Grobler was not his, but rather a choice made by IRFU Performance Director David Nucifora and Munster CEO Garrett Fitzgerald, as it is understood that Browne was not aware of the decision at the time.
We have heard from Browne but should we now demand answers from Nucifora?
Maybe, but given that it has only been three weeks since his 21-year-old daughter Katie Frances passed away, for me, personally, and I hope I would speak for the rest of the media when I say that we can wait for those answers as he grieves the loss of something more important. Life.
Fitzgerald, however, has failed to go on the record. van Graan, O’Mahony and Murray have all addressed the issue before the province’s CEO. That is unacceptable. None of the aforementioned had a say in the signing of Grobler as the player was hired under former Munster Director of Rugby Rassie Erasmus.
van Graan, O’Mahony and Murray should not have had to field questions that Fitzgerald ultimately created and avoided.
Silence is deafening, but in Browne’s case, his words also hurt the ears. There is no need to consider and review policies. You don’t have to judge each case on its merit.
If a player, foreign born, naturalised, or actually Irish born and bred, has been proven to have used performance enhancing drugs, you do not reward that player with a professional contract in Irish Rugby. They can look elsewhere. They will have suitors.
That’s the policy. That’s a zero tolerance approach. You kill a snake by cutting off the head, not by considering your position on whether to pull at its tail.
