In the wake of Stuart Lancaster's departure, here's my post-mortem piece into what went wrong for the England head coach and his side at the Rugby World Cup.
And while Sam Burgess certainly gets a mention or two, he was - I argue - just one factor among many.
Xtra Time.
Showing posts with label RFU. Show all posts
Showing posts with label RFU. Show all posts
Sunday, 15 November 2015
Thursday, 24 October 2013
Drugs in rugby - a story of saints and sinners
Five Aviva Premiership players tested positive for recreational drug use last season. They were fined £5,000 each. That’s one heck of an expensive joint or line of cocaine. A strong deterrent, you would think, to those tempted to commit future abuses.
Five is a low figure – it amounts to about one per cent of Premiership players. If you contrast that to society at large, then rugby players are saints. According to the Crime Survey for England and Wales, about nine per cent of the adult population takes an illicit drug during a calendar year.
Moreover, the 2012-13 season was the first time that the RFU’s anti-doping scheme had recorded a positive test for a recreational drug since the scheme was introduced in 2009-10. And not a single positive test has been recorded for a performance-enhancing drug. Compared with the general population, rugby players’ halos really are burning bright.
But there is a ‘but’. The RFU’s anti-doping policy, administered in partnership with Premiership Rugby, was drawn up following Bath Rugby’s dark period in 2009, when five players – or, put another way, a third of the first team – received bans for either taking recreational drugs or refusing to take tests. In the wake of that, the RFU not only drew up its new policy but also – in conjunction with the players’ union, the Rugby Players Association – introduced an education programme to highlight both the dangers of drugs and the new testing regime.
In the wake of such an awareness campaign, it is perhaps somewhat surprising that five players have still been stupid enough to dabble in either cocaine, cannabis, ecstasy or amphetamines.
Following the publication of the RFU report on Tuesday, former Bath Rugby prop David Barnes, who is now director of the RPA, made a comment that blended reassurance with vigilance.
“A small number of adverse findings via the illicit drugs programme is a reminder that we can never assume the anti-doping job has been ‘done’,” said Barnes.
“It is reassuring to see another season concluded with no systemic doping amongst the senior elite players in England. They continue to be role models for the wider game.”
While a jump from zero positive tests to five is significant, it should be remembered that many professional players inhabit an environment that is virtually alien to the man on the street; an environment in which they are often lauded as giants among mortals. As Justin Harrison, one of the ex-Bath players banned four years ago, told me: “It [drugs] is an easy trap. Players have pretty high amounts of disposable income and most of the guys are being repeatedly told how invincible they are, so you push yourself to the limit, both physically and socially.”
And that’s why, as Barnes puts it, the anti-doping job is never ‘done’.
This column first appeared in The Bath Chronicle.
Five is a low figure – it amounts to about one per cent of Premiership players. If you contrast that to society at large, then rugby players are saints. According to the Crime Survey for England and Wales, about nine per cent of the adult population takes an illicit drug during a calendar year.
Moreover, the 2012-13 season was the first time that the RFU’s anti-doping scheme had recorded a positive test for a recreational drug since the scheme was introduced in 2009-10. And not a single positive test has been recorded for a performance-enhancing drug. Compared with the general population, rugby players’ halos really are burning bright.
But there is a ‘but’. The RFU’s anti-doping policy, administered in partnership with Premiership Rugby, was drawn up following Bath Rugby’s dark period in 2009, when five players – or, put another way, a third of the first team – received bans for either taking recreational drugs or refusing to take tests. In the wake of that, the RFU not only drew up its new policy but also – in conjunction with the players’ union, the Rugby Players Association – introduced an education programme to highlight both the dangers of drugs and the new testing regime.
In the wake of such an awareness campaign, it is perhaps somewhat surprising that five players have still been stupid enough to dabble in either cocaine, cannabis, ecstasy or amphetamines.
Following the publication of the RFU report on Tuesday, former Bath Rugby prop David Barnes, who is now director of the RPA, made a comment that blended reassurance with vigilance.
“A small number of adverse findings via the illicit drugs programme is a reminder that we can never assume the anti-doping job has been ‘done’,” said Barnes.
“It is reassuring to see another season concluded with no systemic doping amongst the senior elite players in England. They continue to be role models for the wider game.”
While a jump from zero positive tests to five is significant, it should be remembered that many professional players inhabit an environment that is virtually alien to the man on the street; an environment in which they are often lauded as giants among mortals. As Justin Harrison, one of the ex-Bath players banned four years ago, told me: “It [drugs] is an easy trap. Players have pretty high amounts of disposable income and most of the guys are being repeatedly told how invincible they are, so you push yourself to the limit, both physically and socially.”
And that’s why, as Barnes puts it, the anti-doping job is never ‘done’.
This column first appeared in The Bath Chronicle.
Thursday, 8 August 2013
Summer musings: Part II
Some recent columns of mine: Why the RFU was right not to reduce Richard Cockerill's ban (this was written before the Leicester DoR's appeal hearing, but you'll catch my drift) and what 7s can do to lift the English professional game.
Thursday, 8 March 2012
One rule for the pros, another for the amateurs - why rugby has a fight on its hands
You don’t have to be Hercule Poirot to conclude that there appears to be one law for professional rugby and another for the amateur game when it comes to the punishments handed down for on-pitch violence.
The jailing of Keynsham number eight Jack Weston for six months is a case that brings into sharp relief what, to my mind, is a disgusting disparity between the professional and amateur games in this country.
Weston was put behind bars for throwing two punches at an opponent during a ‘hotly contested’ derby with Oldfield Old Boys.
Back in May, a rather better known player by the name of Manu Tuilagi threw three punches at an opponent in another hotly contested derby, this time in the East Midlands, between Leicester and Northampton.
Weston is now sitting in a prison cell. Tuilagi? Well, less than a month after letting rip with his barrage of punches in front of the TV cameras, he was named the Premiership’s Young Player of the Season. He then went on to play for England in the World Cup.
The only slap on the wrist for Tuilagi was a nominal five-week ban – I say nominal because the regular league season was over.
He was also ordered to pay £500 in costs – pretty small change for an international star.
In evidence given against Weston – who pleaded guilty to GBH – his victim, Oldfield’s Ben Staunton, said the impact of the second punch he had received had been “ten out of ten”.
Those who have seen footage of Tuilagi’s final effort on Chris Ashton could quite reasonably give it the same rating.
Ashton needed treatment to his cut and bruised face; Staunton’s jaw was broken.
The RFU’s disciplinary officer, Judge Jeff Blackett, so often a voice of reason, made the following observation after the hearing into Tuilagi’s behaviour. It was an observation that raised eyebrows at the time but, in the context of Weston’s case, it raises as many questions as it does eyebrows.
“This sort of incident is very damaging to the image of the game and there is no place for this type of offending on the rugby pitch,” wrote Blackett.
“Had it occurred in the high street an offender would have been prosecuted in the criminal courts. Nevertheless we are confident that Manu Tuilagi will learn a valuable lesson from this.”
Had it occurred in the high street.... Is the inference from this that professional players enjoy immunity from prosecution for their on-field violence? Because if that is the case, then it is certainly not the case for the amateur game, as Weston’s case has shown.
Jack Weston’s unacceptable behaviour did not occur on the high street, it occurred on the rugby pitch – and he had the book thrown at him.
Manu Tuilagi’s unacceptable behaviour also occurred on the rugby pitch – in front of a massive TV audience – and the CPS sat on its hands.
Almost laughably in the context of Blackett’s remarks, the judge in Weston’s case, Judge Carol Hagen, jailed him because of the bad example he had set.
“It is important everyone realises the consequences of the behaviour you engaged in on that November afternoon,” she told him before sending him down.
If lessons about consequences are to be learned, then Judge Hagen’s logic would lead us to the conclusion that Tuilagi should have been jailed too. After all, he was playing in a match watched by hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people on television. He is the one idolised by kids.
I don’t condone Jack Weston’s actions, not one bit – thuggery in all its guises does not belong in the game – but the inconsistency across the different levels of the game stinks.
Once he is out of prison, Weston will face a Somerset RFU disciplinary hearing. That, surely, will be an ideal occasion for everyone in rugby to think long and hard about this frankly appalling disparity.
The jailing of Keynsham number eight Jack Weston for six months is a case that brings into sharp relief what, to my mind, is a disgusting disparity between the professional and amateur games in this country.
Weston was put behind bars for throwing two punches at an opponent during a ‘hotly contested’ derby with Oldfield Old Boys.
The moment that cost Jack Weston, left, his freedom
Weston is now sitting in a prison cell. Tuilagi? Well, less than a month after letting rip with his barrage of punches in front of the TV cameras, he was named the Premiership’s Young Player of the Season. He then went on to play for England in the World Cup.
The only slap on the wrist for Tuilagi was a nominal five-week ban – I say nominal because the regular league season was over.
He was also ordered to pay £500 in costs – pretty small change for an international star.
In evidence given against Weston – who pleaded guilty to GBH – his victim, Oldfield’s Ben Staunton, said the impact of the second punch he had received had been “ten out of ten”.
Those who have seen footage of Tuilagi’s final effort on Chris Ashton could quite reasonably give it the same rating.
Ashton needed treatment to his cut and bruised face; Staunton’s jaw was broken.
The RFU’s disciplinary officer, Judge Jeff Blackett, so often a voice of reason, made the following observation after the hearing into Tuilagi’s behaviour. It was an observation that raised eyebrows at the time but, in the context of Weston’s case, it raises as many questions as it does eyebrows.
“This sort of incident is very damaging to the image of the game and there is no place for this type of offending on the rugby pitch,” wrote Blackett.
“Had it occurred in the high street an offender would have been prosecuted in the criminal courts. Nevertheless we are confident that Manu Tuilagi will learn a valuable lesson from this.”
Had it occurred in the high street.... Is the inference from this that professional players enjoy immunity from prosecution for their on-field violence? Because if that is the case, then it is certainly not the case for the amateur game, as Weston’s case has shown.
Jack Weston’s unacceptable behaviour did not occur on the high street, it occurred on the rugby pitch – and he had the book thrown at him.
Manu Tuilagi’s unacceptable behaviour also occurred on the rugby pitch – in front of a massive TV audience – and the CPS sat on its hands.
Almost laughably in the context of Blackett’s remarks, the judge in Weston’s case, Judge Carol Hagen, jailed him because of the bad example he had set.
“It is important everyone realises the consequences of the behaviour you engaged in on that November afternoon,” she told him before sending him down.
If lessons about consequences are to be learned, then Judge Hagen’s logic would lead us to the conclusion that Tuilagi should have been jailed too. After all, he was playing in a match watched by hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people on television. He is the one idolised by kids.
I don’t condone Jack Weston’s actions, not one bit – thuggery in all its guises does not belong in the game – but the inconsistency across the different levels of the game stinks.
Once he is out of prison, Weston will face a Somerset RFU disciplinary hearing. That, surely, will be an ideal occasion for everyone in rugby to think long and hard about this frankly appalling disparity.
Monday, 7 November 2011
Sam Vesty voices rugby concussion worry
An alarming brush with concussion has prompted Bath Rugby's Sam Vesty to call for the game's authorities to take action to reduce the number of head injuries.
Vesty, who is Bath's representative on the Rugby Players' Association management board, fears the game could be sitting on a dementia time bomb.
He has spoken out after being concussed while playing against his former club, Leicester Tigers, at The Rec on October 1.
The 29-year-old suffered worrying symptoms for a fortnight after taking a blow to the head from Boris Stankovich. The prop was cited for the tackle but was not banned.
Following the impact, Vesty was unable to concentrate in training, felt dizzy whenever he exercised and struggled to stay awake during the day.
Vesty says he was in excellent hands with the Bath Rugby medical team but wants to see procedures tightened across the game.
The twice-capped fly half believes dangerous tackles should be more rigorously policed and has suggested that the number of games played per season in England should be reduced to ease the demands on players.
Vesty said of his experience:
"I don't think there was anything malicious in the blow I received, it was just one of those things you get every now and again in rugby – a head knock.
"You can get over it in a day or it can take a couple of weeks, and I was rubbish for a couple of weeks.
"I felt groggy and was sleeping during the day, which is something I never do. Any time I tried to do any exercise I felt dizzy and I couldn't concentrate on the ball.
"I'd been knocked out before but I'd been fine then, so nothing like this had really happened to me."
The International Rugby Board currently has a policy of 'graduated return to play' following concussion, whereby a player undergoes a steady reintroduction to contact sessions. In the Premiership, players also have to pass a series of cognitive tests before they can return to action.
Vesty, who made his comeback off the bench against Worcester on October 22 and featured in the starting XV that beat London Irish on Saturday, continued: "There is medical protocol in place now but it just needs to be adhered to. They maybe also need to look into how many knocks you get in training and how many games you play a year.
"All these things have an impact on a player but we don't know what the repercussions are. There are some studies coming out that are a little bit worrying.
"It's not just me. A lot of the rugby public are looking into it. It's getting addressed and getting looked at and I think it's very important."
The issue is high up the agenda at Bath, with three players at the club having suffered blows to the head in October. As well as Vesty, Francois Louw and Tom Biggs suffered high challenges that floored them.
Club chief executive Nick Blofeld said: "We have had three incidents recently and are very conscious of this issue. Our medical staff are very hot on it.
"Our concern with Francois Louw is that it looked a nasty challenge and the player wasn't cited."
Vesty's position on the RPA's board gives his views weight and after the Chronicle raised his concerns with Premiership Rugby, the organisation offered to hold further talks with players.
A Premiership Rugby Ltd spokeswoman said: "Phil Winstanley (PRL rugby director) will be discussing with the Rugby Players' Association whether there's anything more that we should be doing."
An IRB spokesman said he was pleased a player of Vesty's prominence was bringing attention to the issue: “Education is key and it is great to see the RPA taking a leading role in educating its membership on the implications of concussion.”
The RFU said a regime of cognitive tests following concussion meant players’ safety was protected.
“Every elite player over the age of 18 undergoes a baseline CogSport test annually and can only return to play if they pass the test,” said a spokesman. “‘Rushing’ a player back to player is against regulation."
Vesty, who is Bath's representative on the Rugby Players' Association management board, fears the game could be sitting on a dementia time bomb.
He has spoken out after being concussed while playing against his former club, Leicester Tigers, at The Rec on October 1.
The 29-year-old suffered worrying symptoms for a fortnight after taking a blow to the head from Boris Stankovich. The prop was cited for the tackle but was not banned.
Following the impact, Vesty was unable to concentrate in training, felt dizzy whenever he exercised and struggled to stay awake during the day.
Vesty says he was in excellent hands with the Bath Rugby medical team but wants to see procedures tightened across the game.
The twice-capped fly half believes dangerous tackles should be more rigorously policed and has suggested that the number of games played per season in England should be reduced to ease the demands on players.
Vesty said of his experience:
"It was worrying. There is a lot of research in America, some of which shows that American footballers are 19 times more likely to get dementia than the ordinary person, and rugby union is not a million miles away from that."From a long-term perspective, it's an issue the game needs to look at.
"I don't think there was anything malicious in the blow I received, it was just one of those things you get every now and again in rugby – a head knock.
"You can get over it in a day or it can take a couple of weeks, and I was rubbish for a couple of weeks.
"I felt groggy and was sleeping during the day, which is something I never do. Any time I tried to do any exercise I felt dizzy and I couldn't concentrate on the ball.
"I'd been knocked out before but I'd been fine then, so nothing like this had really happened to me."
The International Rugby Board currently has a policy of 'graduated return to play' following concussion, whereby a player undergoes a steady reintroduction to contact sessions. In the Premiership, players also have to pass a series of cognitive tests before they can return to action.
Vesty, who made his comeback off the bench against Worcester on October 22 and featured in the starting XV that beat London Irish on Saturday, continued: "There is medical protocol in place now but it just needs to be adhered to. They maybe also need to look into how many knocks you get in training and how many games you play a year.
"All these things have an impact on a player but we don't know what the repercussions are. There are some studies coming out that are a little bit worrying.
"It's not just me. A lot of the rugby public are looking into it. It's getting addressed and getting looked at and I think it's very important."
The issue is high up the agenda at Bath, with three players at the club having suffered blows to the head in October. As well as Vesty, Francois Louw and Tom Biggs suffered high challenges that floored them.
Club chief executive Nick Blofeld said: "We have had three incidents recently and are very conscious of this issue. Our medical staff are very hot on it.
"Our concern with Francois Louw is that it looked a nasty challenge and the player wasn't cited."
Vesty's position on the RPA's board gives his views weight and after the Chronicle raised his concerns with Premiership Rugby, the organisation offered to hold further talks with players.
A Premiership Rugby Ltd spokeswoman said: "Phil Winstanley (PRL rugby director) will be discussing with the Rugby Players' Association whether there's anything more that we should be doing."
An IRB spokesman said he was pleased a player of Vesty's prominence was bringing attention to the issue: “Education is key and it is great to see the RPA taking a leading role in educating its membership on the implications of concussion.”
The RFU said a regime of cognitive tests following concussion meant players’ safety was protected.
“Every elite player over the age of 18 undergoes a baseline CogSport test annually and can only return to play if they pass the test,” said a spokesman. “‘Rushing’ a player back to player is against regulation."
Wednesday, 20 July 2011
RFU set Bath Rugby deadline for Stephen Donald appeal
Bath Rugby have until August 12 to appeal against the RFU's decision to deny All Black Stephen Donald, pictured, the right to play in England.
Reports over the past week have suggested that it was the Home Office's UK Border Agency which turned down Bath's bid to bring the New Zealand star to The Rec next season.
But I have received confirmation that it was the RFU that made the decision on Friday.
It has also emerged that the rules that led to the RFU verdict were only implemented after Bath had begun discussions with Donald, who has 21 caps for his country.
The regulations came into effect on May 16 when they were signed off by the UKBA. They had been drafted by the RFU Governance Standing Committee, which has representatives from Premiership clubs.
An RFU spokesperson said today: "Stephen Donald failed to meet the RFU Governing Body Endorsement criteria to play rugby in England, in accordance with UKBA requirements, because he has not started a game for New Zealand within the past 15 months.
"Bath Rugby are entitled to appeal."
I understands that Donald is still keen on a move to the West Country, despite reports linking him to the Auckland Blues, and that Bath will appeal.
Any appeal is likely to focus on Donald's injury record, as well as his high profile.
The outside half required chest surgery in June 2010. If Bath can persuade the independent appeal panel that such an injury prevented him from playing his way into contention for a starting berth for the All Blacks, then the appeal – according to RFU regulations – would succeed. Donald also suffered broken vertebrae in March this year.
An appeal panel would also need to consider "whether the player is able to contribute significantly to the development of the game at the top level in England".
Given that Donald has been understudy to the best fly-half in the world, Dan Carter, for the past few years, Bath could well argue that he is of sufficient quality to "contribute significantly" to the profile and spectacle of the English game.
The Home Office suggested to me this week that the RFU decision had been made to protect the UK labour market.
A UK Border Agency spokesman said: "The responsibility rests with sports governing bodies such as the Rugby Football Union to endorse sponsorship applications from clubs and the application of each sportsperson wishing to enter the UK.
"This is because they are best placed to determine the skill level of a migrant and whether there will be an adverse impact on the resident labour market of their sport."
I understand that Donald had agreed terms and signed a contract with Bath following the expiration of his deal with Hamilton-based Super 15 side the Chiefs. He has been lined up as a replacement for Springbok Butch James.
It is also understood that the senior management at Bath, who have not commented on any reports linking Donald to the club, had been aware that he needed both RFU endorsement and then migration clearance from the UKBA. The RFU endorsement rules require foreign players to be recent, full internationals.
Donald has made three appearances for the All Blacks in the past 15 months, but all from off the bench. Last month - after he had been linked to Bath - he was dropped from the New Zealand squad ahead of the World Cup
Sophie Barrett-Brown, a leading immigration expert with international sports law specialists Laura Devine, said Bath had no option but to request an appeal if the club wanted to persist in its bid for Donald.
If the appeal fails, then it could demand a judicial review but that could have huge financial ramifications.
"There has to be the governing body's endorsement, there is no way around that," said Barrett-Brown.
"Judicial review is the only potential way around it but that is costly and risky. If you are unsuccessful the costs of the other party can be awarded against you."
Should Bath call for a review, then the panel would comprise an independent chairman, an RFU representative and a Premiership Rugby representative.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)