Munster 2017 -2018

[ronk]

Not that it was the only reason but that sequence of scrums in the 2nd half that lead to their 2nd? YC really knocked the stuffing out of the Castres forwards.
Their forwards were dragging themselves around the pitch after that.

They were super frustrated because the more they were threatened to behave the more Munster cheated in the scrum and the more the ref punished Castres.

[Oldschool]

Not that it was the only reason but that sequence of scrums in the 2nd half that lead to their 2nd? YC really knocked the stuffing out of the Castres forwards.
Their forwards were dragging themselves around the pitch after that.

They were super frustrated because the more they were threatened to behave the more Munster cheated in the scrum and the more the ref punished Castres.

Think Killer had been replaced at that stage.

[ronk]

Not that it was the only reason but that sequence of scrums in the 2nd half that lead to their 2nd? YC really knocked the stuffing out of the Castres forwards.
Their forwards were dragging themselves around the pitch after that.

They were super frustrated because the more they were threatened to behave the more Munster cheated in the scrum and the more the ref punished Castres.

Think Killer had been replaced at that stage.

He had but it was too gold plated for Cronin to pass.

[BlueBlue]

The debate is likely to lead to a policy change so it has probably done some good. I think the whole point of the line of questioning from OTB was that it's all very well to talk about culture and zero tolerance but what does it actually mean? If that's the policy then that's fine but we are constantly fed lines about how the provinces are different from other clubs, with their history, culture, etc. You can't have it both ways. Wear the jersey with pride and honesty, the brave and the faithful etc don't mean a lot if you let your own standards slip. It was uncomfortable for a lot of journalists because they are often used to writing happy stories and rarely rock the boat, possibly due to their close relationships, being past players etc. The debate forced players to state how they felt about it.

The Times had an article today, saying there are worse cheats, "stop throwing stones". It goes on to drag up the Neil Back hand, Thierry Henry and Luke Fitzgerald now working in financial services (far worse than doping). Powerful stuff!

You cant have it both ways is right. Munster values we are told are based on Honesty, Endeavour and playing for the parish. But the reality is now, that its not honest endeavour, its the opposite, its drug cheats who cut corners to get to where they need. Its not the parish, its bringing in kids to an academy from another country, that's very different to signing a CJ Stander, an Adult to fill a gap in your youth talent production line / depth chart. Its different because you are skipping over your Irish kids who are working to reach that goal.

I think the whole thing, hiring Dopers and supplanting Irish kids working to reach a goal is disgusting. Somebody said they are tired of the fake media indignation, I think a lot ok them are genuinely disgusted.

[BlueBlue]

The debate is likely to lead to a policy change so it has probably done some good. I think the whole point of the line of questioning from OTB was that it's all very well to talk about culture and zero tolerance but what does it actually mean? If that's the policy then that's fine but we are constantly fed lines about how the provinces are different from other clubs, with their history, culture, etc. You can't have it both ways. Wear the jersey with pride and honesty, the brave and the faithful etc don't mean a lot if you let your own standards slip. It was uncomfortable for a lot of journalists because they are often used to writing happy stories and rarely rock the boat, possibly due to their close relationships, being past players etc. The debate forced players to state how they felt about it.

The Times had an article today, saying there are worse cheats, "stop throwing stones". It goes on to drag up the Neil Back hand, Thierry Henry and Luke Fitzgerald now working in financial services (far worse than doping). Powerful stuff!

Indeed, it was noticeable how little a certain Mr Thornley had to say about it over the last week or so...

Yes, I noticed Mr Thornley didn't seem to have a view, bit of a 1st.

[BlueBlue]

Off The Ball seem to be taking a very hard line on the whole PED story, couple of podcasts got a bit nasty towards Munster and also towards the player to a certain extent, anyone think we could see Munster players circle the wagons and not engage with Newstalks for a while?

Not saying it's the right thing to do but I do get a bit sick at the fairly put on/hyped indignation that the media can come out with instead of just having a rational discussion. Personally I wanted match previews from WNR and I got another 20 mins of trial by media.

I have no issue with it being discussed but I absolutely agree with this, that's exactly how it comes across to me. Gilroy (admittedly I can't stand him) seemed weirdly angry when he was asking Browne the questions and kept interrupting him, it was as if he'd been personally wronged, and the indignation just doesn't tally with the fact that the guy has already served a ban. You'd swear that he was caught doping last week and the IRFU have said there's no issue. It reminds me of the tabloids in England when Murdoch has an issue with someone and sets the dogs on them.

I'd be curious to see how Gilroy would have reacted if Browne had asked him if it was also wrong that George Hook was given a second chance at Newstalk? Or if he agrees with Irish Times journalists being banished from the station?

Again, no issue with it being discussed and there are important questions around Grobler and future signings, but their attitude stinks.

I think you're missing the point, the point is that the organisation, the IRFU has a stated policy of Zero tolerance, but then employ a drug cheat. I'd question that zero tolerance policy, wouldn't you ? I'd say is BS and lip service, a tag line that they have not put any thought or effort into. And then I'd worry about participation in the sport especially as a dad. I'd worry about a sport I love full stop. I mean, if the IRFU aren't looking out for the best interest of the sport, who will.

[BlueBlue]

If you build your brand or identity on Pride, Honesty, Bravery and Faithfulness, then if you sign someone who has a past that is contrary to all these pillars, then you are going to get hammered, and especially if you have a history of being particularly sanctimonious about your identity pillars.

Then Munster compounded things by deliberately "throwing the story out with the trash" i.e. releasing the news in the shadow of a far far bigger event on the other side of the world that has the rugby worlds attention fully fixed on it, nevermind the fact that the majority of the country's rugby correspondents are 20,000 km away so that a) it doesn't really attract any attention in the short term and b) when it does resurface you can claim that the story is old news and it should have been dealt with at time. Its a tried and tested strategy in business, politics and the media, even popular television programmes have done episodes about it.

Finally, in desperation, they're reduced to whataboutism as regards other players or other forms of behaviour - the Godwin's law of the social media age.

Perfection is something to strive for.
Mistakes happen.
If you've never made a mistake then you've never made anything.

*** Edited by Mod ***

[BlueBlue]

Thornley has been wise. There a lot of really sloppy thinking at play here.

To bring up one point that OTB keep hammering on about as if it’s a killer argument. “How can you say there’s zero tolerance if you signed this guy.” The obvious answer is that there’s no tolerance of players abusing drugs abs they will be punished to the limits of the laws. But that doesn’t- and shouldn’t, mean that players who serves their sentence and demonstrate to your satisfaction that they are both reformed and contrite, be given another chance. To claim it should be otherwise is to retrospectively introduce an ADDITIONAL penalty for all concerned.

Not when the IRFU double speak in saying they were aware that he was a doper, but also that they don't have a hire no hire question when someone is a past cheat. Browne said they would consider that now, which is an admittance that they did not even explore the circumstances of this players drug cheating. To not explore it, to not have a policy on the question at all, that's pretty hard to square with "the IRFU have a zero policy on Doping in rugby"

Here's a crazy idea, why not admit your wrong as an organisation, that you dropped the ball but that the situation has highlighted that the IRFU needs to reassess this aspect of contract offers.

[Lar]

If you build your brand or identity on Pride, Honesty, Bravery and Faithfulness, then if you sign someone who has a past that is contrary to all these pillars, then you are going to get hammered, and especially if you have a history of being particularly sanctimonious about your identity pillars.

Then Munster compounded things by deliberately "throwing the story out with the trash" i.e. releasing the news in the shadow of a far far bigger event on the other side of the world that has the rugby worlds attention fully fixed on it, nevermind the fact that the majority of the country's rugby correspondents are 20,000 km away so that a) it doesn't really attract any attention in the short term and b) when it does resurface you can claim that the story is old news and it should have been dealt with at time. Its a tried and tested strategy in business, politics and the media, even popular television programmes have done episodes about it.

Finally, in desperation, they're reduced to whataboutism as regards other players or other forms of behaviour - the Godwin's law of the social media age.

Perfection is something to strive for.
Mistakes happen.
If you've never made a mistake then you've never made anything.

*** Edited by Mod ***

You aren't pulling any punches BlueBlue. But I can't accept your analogies.

Munster may have damaged their honesty and integrity etc brand by hiring Grobler but this is in no way equivalent to allowing a known paedophile look after kids once he has served his time.

First of all taking PEDs is not even a criminal offence as far as I know. Its a sporting offence. I don't know a lot about the detail but as far as I recall the IRFU are signed up to WADA's rules. And WADA's rules say that a bloke caught taking PEDs can play again after two years. That's the rule. You may disagree with it but that's the rule. [You may disagree with the three year residency rule but its the rule at least until 2020. You may disagree with rules around taking a player out in the air when the airborne player effectively jumps into the opponent but that's the rule - there are numerous examples]. Oppose the rule by all means but I don't think it's fair to be too critical or the IRFU or Munster Rugby for playing by the rules of the game, or to be too critical of the player.

I get the bit about the damage to the image of Munster Rugby but that's entirely different to Munster and the IRFU playing within the rules. As an aside I also think its wrong for Munster to complain that the story is old. The timing of the story is irrelevant. If it is a story then its a story and they have to live with that.

But don't forget there is ultimately a person here trying to earn a living from his chosen career. It's easy to say that a player caught doping should never play rugby again but is that fair on a youngster who makes an admittedly conscious error of judgement at the age of 20. Should that rule him out of his career for ever? I'm not for a moment expecting it to happen but if for example a young Leinster player was found to have taken a banned substance I would hate for that to be the end of his career. He would have to take the expected punishment his actions deserved but he should then be able to move on.

The IRFU have a policy of zero tolerance to doping. Do you know what this actually means? I don't, or at least I'm not sure. I know what I think it means but that may be different to what you think and it may be that neither of us agree with what the IRFU think it means. Certainly its possible that to the IRFU it may mean that they will apply WADA's rules rigorously and not allow any player found to be doping to escape a ban, or receive a reduced ban, but equally they may say that if WADA allow a player to return to play after two years then it would be excessive for the IRFU to impose a greater penalty.

Sorry - this was long but your mini rant made me put my thoughts down.

[Oldschool]

Actually the problem with problems is that people or society (both) don't embrace them and deal with them.
My simplistic, I admit, solution is to try to fix paedophiles.
Given the damage they do it strikes me that this is a problem that needs a long term solution to prevent victims and free paedophiles from their curse.
The world should have a serious research problem into the genetics of paedophiles and gene therapy.
Why isn't there one would be the question s the media should be asking instead of just vilifying paedophiles cos that's the easy and lazy thing to do.

[blockhead]

WTF!
Where is this thread going?
BlueBlue, cop yourself on.

[sunshiner1]

by blockhead
WTF!
Where is this thread going?
BlueBlue, cop yourself on.

Agreed. It's entered cloud cuckoo land.

[dropkick]

by blockhead
WTF!
Where is this thread going?
BlueBlue, cop yourself on.

Agreed. It's entered cloud cuckoo land.

Isn't the first, won't be the last.

[BlueBlue]

You aren't pulling any punches BlueBlue. But I can't accept your analogies.

Munster may have damaged their honesty and integrity etc brand by hiring Grobler but this is in no way equivalent to allowing a known paedophile look after kids once he has served his time.

First of all taking PEDs is not even a criminal offence as far as I know. Its a sporting offence. I don't know a lot about the detail but as far as I recall the IRFU are signed up to WADA's rules. And WADA's rules say that a bloke caught taking PEDs can play again after two years. That's the rule. You may disagree with it but that's the rule. [You may disagree with the three year residency rule but its the rule at least until 2020. You may disagree with rules around taking a player out in the air when the airborne player effectively jumps into the opponent but that's the rule - there are numerous examples]. Oppose the rule by all means but I don't think it's fair to be too critical or the IRFU or Munster Rugby for playing by the rules of the game, or to be too critical of the player.

I get the bit about the damage to the image of Munster Rugby but that's entirely different to Munster and the IRFU playing within the rules. As an aside I also think its wrong for Munster to complain that the story is old. The timing of the story is irrelevant. If it is a story then its a story and they have to live with that.

But don't forget there is ultimately a person here trying to earn a living from his chosen career. It's easy to say that a player caught doping should never play rugby again but is that fair on a youngster who makes an admittedly conscious error of judgement at the age of 20. Should that rule him out of his career for ever? I'm not for a moment expecting it to happen but if for example a young Leinster player was found to have taken a banned substance I would hate for that to be the end of his career. He would have to take the expected punishment his actions deserved but he should then be able to move on.

The IRFU have a policy of zero tolerance to doping. Do you know what this actually means? I don't, or at least I'm not sure. I know what I think it means but that may be different to what you think and it may be that neither of us agree with what the IRFU think it means. Certainly its possible that to the IRFU it may mean that they will apply WADA's rules rigorously and not allow any player found to be doping to escape a ban, or receive a reduced ban, but equally they may say that if WADA allow a player to return to play after two years then it would be excessive for the IRFU to impose a greater penalty.

Sorry - this was long but your mini rant made me put my thoughts down.

Some valid points there. The reference to a paedophile and a second chance is made in response to another post which makes the point that everyone deserves a second chance, that's BS. People deserve a 2nd chance based on the circumstances, its not automatic. Grobler had his 2nd chance at Racing already, NO NEED for Munster to do him favours ( I presume nobody is buy that BS).

You mention and give examples of Rugby rules, we both know they are laws, a rule is inflexible and absolute, black and white, clear. A law is flexible and allows judgement to be used based on circumstances. The IRFU should have a rule on ex-drug cheats, they have admitted that they do not. The rugby law thing is interesting in another regard, for example World Rugby have laws, but the IRFU is free to adapt them, modify them or over rule them within its borders. An example is the U19 Irish scrum laws being applied to J2 to J5 rugby. IRFU is a member of World rugby but can think for itself. In regard to WADA, the IRFU can sign up but also apply a higher standard in Ireland. Claiming Zero tolerance is a very high standard.

I cant help but think that many people are willing to give the IRFU a bye, base on hot air, while not calling them out on what they mean by zero tolerance. I suspect, the IRFU have not idea of thought invested in their claim of zero tolerance. And that my friends is an unacceptable level of BS.

[Oldschool]

You aren't pulling any punches BlueBlue. But I can't accept your analogies.

Munster may have damaged their honesty and integrity etc brand by hiring Grobler but this is in no way equivalent to allowing a known paedophile look after kids once he has served his time.

First of all taking PEDs is not even a criminal offence as far as I know. Its a sporting offence. I don't know a lot about the detail but as far as I recall the IRFU are signed up to WADA's rules. And WADA's rules say that a bloke caught taking PEDs can play again after two years. That's the rule. You may disagree with it but that's the rule. [You may disagree with the three year residency rule but its the rule at least until 2020. You may disagree with rules around taking a player out in the air when the airborne player effectively jumps into the opponent but that's the rule - there are numerous examples]. Oppose the rule by all means but I don't think it's fair to be too critical or the IRFU or Munster Rugby for playing by the rules of the game, or to be too critical of the player.

I get the bit about the damage to the image of Munster Rugby but that's entirely different to Munster and the IRFU playing within the rules. As an aside I also think its wrong for Munster to complain that the story is old. The timing of the story is irrelevant. If it is a story then its a story and they have to live with that.

But don't forget there is ultimately a person here trying to earn a living from his chosen career. It's easy to say that a player caught doping should never play rugby again but is that fair on a youngster who makes an admittedly conscious error of judgement at the age of 20. Should that rule him out of his career for ever? I'm not for a moment expecting it to happen but if for example a young Leinster player was found to have taken a banned substance I would hate for that to be the end of his career. He would have to take the expected punishment his actions deserved but he should then be able to move on.

The IRFU have a policy of zero tolerance to doping. Do you know what this actually means? I don't, or at least I'm not sure. I know what I think it means but that may be different to what you think and it may be that neither of us agree with what the IRFU think it means. Certainly its possible that to the IRFU it may mean that they will apply WADA's rules rigorously and not allow any player found to be doping to escape a ban, or receive a reduced ban, but equally they may say that if WADA allow a player to return to play after two years then it would be excessive for the IRFU to impose a greater penalty.

Sorry - this was long but your mini rant made me put my thoughts down.

Some valid points there. The reference to a paedophile and a second chance is made in response to another post which makes the point that everyone deserves a second chance, that's BS. People deserve a 2nd chance based on the circumstances, its not automatic. Grobler had his 2nd chance at Racing already, NO NEED for Munster to do him favours ( I presume nobody is buy that BS).

You mention and give examples of Rugby rules, we both know they are laws, a rule is inflexible and absolute, black and white, clear. A law is flexible and allows judgement to be used based on circumstances. The IRFU should have a rule on ex-drug cheats, they have admitted that they do not. The rugby law thing is interesting in another regard, for example World Rugby have laws, but the IRFU is free to adapt them, modify them or over rule them within its borders. An example is the U19 Irish scrum laws being applied to J2 to J5 rugby. IRFU is a member of World rugby but can think for itself. In regard to WADA, the IRFU can sign up but also apply a higher standard in Ireland. Claiming Zero tolerance is a very high standard.

I cant help but think that many people are willing to give the IRFU a bye, base on hot air, while not calling them out on what they mean by zero tolerance. I suspect, the IRFU have not idea of thought invested in their claim of zero tolerance. And that my friends is an unacceptable level of BS.

Nice to know someone else out there is perfect.

[FLIP]

Zero tolerance doesn't mean you have no more rights ever once you are caught.

Zero tolerance means that if you are caught you will be punished, there will be not let offs, you will have the same punishment as anyone else doing the very same thing.

Do you think when politicians say "Zero Tolerance on knife crime" they mean to lock anyone who has a knife away in prison for the rest of their lives?

[BlueBlue]

Zero tolerance doesn't mean you have no more rights ever once you are caught.

Zero tolerance means that if you are caught you will be punished, there will be not let offs, you will have the same punishment as anyone else doing the very same thing.

Do you think when politicians say "Zero Tolerance on knife crime" they mean to lock anyone who has a knife away in prison for the rest of their lives?

On the Knife analogy, no it would mean that a person who uses a knife and commits a crime would be punished, Grobler used drugs, got punished. That's not really the issue.

- Why employ him?
- Do the circumstances of his offence merit a 2nd chance, or not?
- Does this effect our (IRFU) claim of Zero Tolerance, how does it fit they policy claim.
- What does offering this person employment say about the values of Irish Rugby and our brand.

Based on Philip Browne's half baked press conference and the letter released to the press by Munster his doping was known but is not a go / no go question in regard to hiring, its not part of the criteria / measures. If its not part of the decision making process then point 2 above, Groblers circumstances / assessment of same are also not part of the decision making process. Point 3 above, the IRFU have a tag line that claims zero tolerance, they play lip service to it, its good PR but they have not put any work into it. In fact they don't actually have a policy, its not defined, its not clear. A lot of people here are coming back claiming Zero tolerance means this and that, and that it means 1 thing to x and another to y. This is the crux of the Grobler signing problem, the IRFU have no idea of what there zero tolerance claim they make actually means or the boundaries of it. On point 4 above, it cant be great can it.

The IRFU on one of the greatest issues in pro sport have no Idea what they are doing, that's my issue, not Grobler the person or the notion that we all make mistakes and deserve a second chance(Glen Hoddle's understanding of Karma comes to mind). The IRFU protecting our game, that's my worry. Its not good enough, and I cant think why anyone would say its trivial or doesn't matter.

[Oldschoolsocks]

FFS: the man took some gear and got caught - served the prescribed ban that’s it

RC92 gave him a second chance he took it

He got a contract with Munster - that’s not a new second chance ffs, it’s just a new contract!!

All this talk of lifetime bans is nonsense being fueled by journos and commentators trying to be as holy as Ruurry the Hack O’Connor. Just as well he wasn’t branded a witch as well or they’d have the one legged stool out at this stage

[Peg Leg]

Would i be correct to say that if munster brought Grobler to the irfu as a chosen candidate (having met the criteria required), that it would be illegal to deny them/him the position on the sole basis that he had served a ban for using peds?

[fourthirtythree]

I can't see that it would be illegal, merely against policy, but it would be a harsh, inflexible, and draconian policy.