Shame on the RFU

Shame of the RFU for not naming and shaming the players
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-2471519/Premiership-rugby-players-test-positive-drugs.html

Planet Rugby quotes 21 players failed random tests for recreational drugs

Cheap shot. This is covered in depth in the club section.

Oh - and a post that combines the word 'shame' with a link to the daily mail - who could have expected that?

lostinwales wrote:Cheap shot. This is covered in depth in the club section.

Oh - and a post that combines the word 'shame' with a link to the daily mail - who could have expected that?

Link from the Telegraph
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/international/england/10397192/Five-Aviva-Premiership-players-tested-positive-for-recreational-drugs-last-season-according-to-the-RFU.html

Link from the BBC.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/rugby-union/24626491

George Hotel1895 wrote:Shame of the RFU for not naming and shaming the players
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-2471519/Premiership-rugby-players-test-positive-drugs.html

Trying to divert attention from Gareth Hock?

The RFU should indeed be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Looking after the health and welfare of rugby players????

Disgraceful!

 

Are there any Employment Law specialists out there? Do they not have to keep the results of work place drug tests confidential?

MrsP wrote:The RFU should indeed be thoroughly ashamed of themselves.

Looking after the health and welfare of rugby players????

Disgraceful!

 

Are there any Employment Law specialists out there? Do they not have to keep the results of work place drug tests confidential?

Or are they protecting the RFU brand?

VietGwentRevisited wrote:

George Hotel1895 wrote:Shame of the RFU for not naming and shaming the players
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-2471519/Premiership-rugby-players-test-positive-drugs.html

Trying to divert attention from Gareth Hock?

Justin Harrison. Discuss
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/my_club/bath/8159862.stm

Matt Stevens. Discuss
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/my_club/bath/7913467.stm

?

By announcing that they have had positive tests?

How is that protecting the "brand"?

Would people say it was more acceptable to discover players A,B,C,D and E had tested positive than knowing it was actually V, W, X, Y and Z?

I'm sure they do want to preserve the reputation of their organisation but I don't see how that is the aim when they say they have positive tests but don't say exactly who tested positive.

The point is that the original poster is a league supporter and for some reason a subset of rugby league supporters have the kinds of chips on their shoulders about union that make, for instance, viewtothegym seem rational even handed and sane

George Hotel1895 wrote:

VietGwentRevisited wrote:

George Hotel1895 wrote:Shame of the RFU for not naming and shaming the players
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/rugbyunion/article-2471519/Premiership-rugby-players-test-positive-drugs.html

Trying to divert attention from Gareth Hock?

Justin Harrison. Discuss
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/my_club/bath/8159862.stm

Matt Stevens. Discuss
http://news.bbc.co.uk/sport2/hi/rugby_union/my_club/bath/7913467.stm

I was referring to him being kicked out of the England squad yesterday.

If you had an issue with this you should have raised it when RFU announced their recreational drug use policy a year ago. As it is the 5 un-named playes have not failed a drug test for anything that is banned by WADA - ie not cocaine. Stevens did and like Hock was banned for two years. Harrison did and retired to avoid punishment.

I think Harrison actually resigned to avoid being tested although he admitted taking Cocaine? So, he didn't actually fail a WADA test.

Maybe someone else can remember it better than I can?

WADA ya ever really know though?  It's clear WADA know very little about what goes on in Jamaica, for example.

Recreational drugs are in essence a player's own business - true - if used for recreational purposes.  It's naive though to think they couldn't be utilised to improve performance.  Something WADA might take into account in furture when not hunting down specifically defined PED use.

lostinwales wrote:The point is that the original poster is a league supporter and for some reason a subset of rugby league supporters have the kinds of chips on their shoulders about union that make, for instance, viewtothegym seem rational even handed and sane

And that is saying something

yawn. is that really the time?  

lostinwales wrote:Cheap shot. This is covered in depth in the club section.

Oh - and a post that combines the word 'shame' with a link to the daily mail - who could have expected that?

That is truly funny. Good catch.

Why should they publish the information? What would that achieve?

I think its the smartest thing the PRL have done all year.

I know this may not gel well with some, but I think there is a somewhat fine line to be drawn here.

Firstly, it must be emphasised that the question here is one of recreational use rather than one of gaining an unfair advantage. It is therefore a social issue rather than a sporting one. As far as I can tell (and I am no better informed of all the details than anybody else), these players were found to have used recreational narcotics in their private life, away from the game.

I'd question the notion that using, for instance, cannabis, could be construed as "performance enhancing".

Of course, the RFU must take it seriously. There is a genuine 'image' issue for the game and nobody would want rugby to become associated with drugs abuse of any kind.

But I can see where the RFU is coming from. They are making a balance between the obligations that these players have to the game and their right to a private life. If their drugs use came to the attention of the police (for example, if a player was found to be supplying drugs) and they regarded it as a matter for prosecution then that would be an altogether more serious issue, but the course of the law would be out of the RFU's hands.

The way I read the situation, these players have been caught doing something in their private lives that is contrary to their obligations as rugby players to the image of the sport. The RFU is right to take action and the players have been fined. But in a civilised society, justice should be tempered with mercy and I think it is merciful to give these men another chance.

They have been spared the shame of being named. In this way, they are not subjected to public opprobrium and the sort of faux outrage that newspapers such as the Daily Mail (which can never be accused of balance or lack of bias) exploit in order to sell copies. But these players will today be in no doubt that such activities are considered unacceptable and that they are being given a second chance. A very generous second chance.

Each of the individuals now has a choice. They can take a deep breath, count themselves very lucky boys to have gotten off lightly, and grab the opportunity to make a fresh start with both hands. Very lucky boys. They can also be most assured that this is the only chance they get. Next time it really will be the back page splash and the ignominy that goes with it.

As I said.... they have a choice. In those circumstances, what would you do..?

Some may call this "PC gone mad" and the "hanging's too good for them" brigade can vent their purple faced apoplexy as they will, but in my opinion I think that in this situation, the RFU has taken a balanced, compassionate and considerate position.

Everybody is entitled to a second chance.

Its far better dealt with as a health issue than a disciplinary one and the RFUs approach is a good one. treamnet,counselling and testing not punishment.

Rubbish....getting busted for a little smoke/marching powder/pill in a job where you get drug tested is a sign of utter stupidity...not an illness.

Repeated incidents maybe....

mid_gen wrote:Rubbish....getting busted for a little smoke/marching powder/pill in a job where you get drug tested is a sign of utter stupidity...not an illness.

Repeated incidents maybe....

Have rugby players ever been noted for their intellect? I would say that testing is a major deterrent for 90% of professional rugby players but as in any walk of life there are always the risk takers. I wonder what percentage of players would test positive for both recreational and performance enhancing drugs if there were to be a surprise inspection in your local amateur club on a Saturday morning?

Submachine wrote:

mid_gen wrote:Rubbish....getting busted for a little smoke/marching powder/pill in a job where you get drug tested is a sign of utter stupidity...not an illness.

Repeated incidents maybe....

Have rugby players ever been noted for their intellect? I would say that testing is a major deterrent for 90% of professional rugby players but as in any walk of life there are always the risk takers. I wonder what percentage of players would test positive for both recreational and performance enhancing drugs if there were to be a surprise inspection in your local amateur club on a Saturday morning?

Sub,
A great example of your point is American sport.  Their major sports have pretty stringent drug testing protocols and yet there are always a few athletes who fail for PEDs and Recreational drugs.  They risk a lot more money than Rugby players since salaries are much higher:
Basketball:  $5.1 million
Baseball:  $3.3 million
Ice Hockey: $2.4 million
Football;  $1.9 million
A joint or a blow or some cream  or a jab can cost them millions.  Yet......
This is a societal problem. Only difference is in pro sport we have young men with disposable income.

The Fourth Lion wrote:I know this may not gel well with some, but I think there is a somewhat fine line to be drawn here.

Firstly, it must be emphasised that the question here is one of recreational use rather than one of gaining an unfair advantage.  It is therefore a social issue rather than a sporting one.   As far as I can tell (and I am no better informed of all the details than anybody else), these players were found to have used recreational narcotics in their private life, away from the game.  

I'd question the notion that using, for instance, cannabis, could be construed as "performance enhancing".  

Aparently according to Irish politician Luke "Ming the merciless" Flanagan it depends on what strain of cannabis you smoke. Some cannabis can actually boost energy levels and inspire you to go for a run according to Ming.

GunsGerms wrote:

The Fourth Lion wrote:I know this may not gel well with some, but I think there is a somewhat fine line to be drawn here.

Firstly, it must be emphasised that the question here is one of recreational use rather than one of gaining an unfair advantage.  It is therefore a social issue rather than a sporting one.   As far as I can tell (and I am no better informed of all the details than anybody else), these players were found to have used recreational narcotics in their private life, away from the game.  

I'd question the notion that using, for instance, cannabis, could be construed as "performance enhancing".  

Aparently according to Irish politician Luke "Ming the merciless" Flanagan it depends on what strain of cannabis you smoke. Some cannabis can actually boost energy levels and inspire you to go for a run according to Ming.

 

GunsGerms wrote:

The Fourth Lion wrote:I know this may not gel well with some, but I think there is a somewhat fine line to be drawn here.

Firstly, it must be emphasised that the question here is one of recreational use rather than one of gaining an unfair advantage.  It is therefore a social issue rather than a sporting one.   As far as I can tell (and I am no better informed of all the details than anybody else), these players were found to have used recreational narcotics in their private life, away from the game.  

I'd question the notion that using, for instance, cannabis, could be construed as "performance enhancing".  

Aparently according to Irish politician Luke "Ming the merciless" Flanagan it depends on what strain of cannabis you smoke. Some cannabis can actually boost energy levels and inspire you to go for a run according to Ming.

And a fat lot of good that did him against Flash Gordon..!!

He was using the wrong strain when Gordon Flashed. Don't blame him - blame the perverted exhibitionist Gordon.

It sounds almost like protective pre-screening to me. Disgraceful.

GloriousEmpire wrote:It sounds almost like protective pre-screening to me. Disgraceful.

that what you say to your boyfriend when you're not in the mood