The summer of 2009 started brightly for the image of rugby union in the British Isles. Although the Lions’ test series against South Africa ended in defeat, the epic nature of the series put the sport in the headlines for all the right reasons. Schalk Burger’s suspension for eye gouging made for an unpleasant subplot, but on the whole, the clubs of the English Premiership must have been looking forward to increased levels of interest in the new season.
Two months later and the top stories on the agenda for the 2009/10 season are drugs and fake blood. Much has been written about how the Harlequins fake blood scandal has damaged the image of the sport, and the rugby community is right to be outraged, especially for a sport which often sells itself on its integrity. However, the level of hysteria over the affair has been excessive. Other sports have faced worse scandals and survived, and rugby will be no different, so long as the authorities act to prevent this situation from arising again. This is not to diminish the seriousness of the matter, just to observe that it does not undermine the integrity of results to the degree of match fixing in cricket, or performance enhancing drugs in athletics or cycling.
Given that the consensus has been that Harlequins’ actions were indefensible, the main debate has focused on the level of punishments handed out. The fine levied on the club has met with little complaint. It will take pressure from club owners for this behaviour to be stamped out, and hitting the bottom line is the best way to do this. Their Heineken Cup place is still under threat, but organisers need to be careful. Having fined the club, they don’t want to throw its future into doubt by destroying its finances altogether. Ultimately the game is not served by ruining Harlequins. On the other hand, any success in this year’s tournament would be unwelcome. Perhaps it depends on examining the finances of Harlequins. If they can withstand expulsion, it must be considered to help wipe the slate clean. However, weeks have passed since the final punishments were issued, and the more time passes, the harder it will be to justify further sanctions. Luckily they lost the fateful quarterfinal against Leinster, so there is no result to be corrected.
Tom Williams’ ban is less debatable. The initial year-long ban was harsh, but clearly a ploy to force his testimony. On the field, he was put in a position, in front of 12,000 people in the stadium, and millions on TV, where it was difficult to refuse orders. However, committed the act, and a ban of three months will warn other players about their future conduct.
Steph Brennan, the physio, has been given a two-year ban, and has resigned from his job with the England team. It is hard to know the long-term damage to his career, but was it proportionate? That is the same length as Matt Stevens’ ban for failing a drug test. However, he played a key role, although following Richards’ orders, and it is right that he should be punished, and perhaps best for the image of the game if he is kept away from it. It would have been an unwelcome distraction for the England team management if he had stayed in his role with the national side. Two years perhaps seems harsh, but so long as he can find work elsewhere, then justice has been served by removing him from rugby.
The main headlines have been reserved for Dean Richards’ three-year worldwide ban, which leaves his career in tatters. With his former profession as a policeman long in the past, he will have to find a new one. He deserves a lengthy ban as the mastermind of the scheme, however the proportionality must be examined. Wilfully injuring another player in a way that could permanently affect his eyesight gets an eight-week ban. Failing to take a drug test, nine months. Failing a test, two years. Cheating the rules to make an illegal substitution, three years. Whilst recreational drugs do not threaten the integrity of results in the same way that performance enhancing ones would, they cast the shadow of illegality. Rugby needs to balance offences against the game alongside offences against public morality and the law, and against offences which threaten player safety. Richards’ ban has also resulted from his overall conduct, which has shown a surprising level of contempt for the values of the game that he has made his life over a 20 year period, and this is ultimately why he has received so little sympathy. He has appeared arrogant and willing to corrupt those around him to the last.
Rugby clearly needs to standardise its punishments, and make the process more transparent. An international code may not be necessary, and might prove logistically difficult, however each nation should produce its own regulations, perhaps within internationally agreed guidelines.
In a way, this scandal has been a good thing. As Rob Andrew recently observed, professional rugby is still a young sport. There are still players remaining from the amateur era, when there was self-policing, and less pressure to win. Although it would be nice if professional rules and practices had been laid down since the start, the reality is that it takes years to adapt to as big a culture shift as this, and it will take episodes like this one to help that process, however painful. Indeed, the RFU have already announced changes to match-day regulations designed to counter these problems.
It has not helped that this story has reached its conclusion during the offseason, with no other rugby headlines to focus on. Once the season begins, there will be a shift to on-field matters, and although the ripples from this story will continue to be felt, eventually the rugby community will move on. For now, it is a question of learning the lessons and deterring others from similar offences.
No comments:
Post a Comment