Irish rugby on slippery slope after decision to employ doper – it sends the

Gerbrandt Grobler’s presence at Munster has potential to hold back others who have not used drugs

THE day after Munster confirmed that Gerbrandt Grobler was fit to make his competitive debut after recovering from ankle surgery came the news that the most senior player in the squad, fellow lock Billy Holland, signed a two-year contract extension.

Holland had started every game for Munster this season – 16 games in-a-row – before being sidelined for the Connacht game last weekend.

Holland stands for everything that’s good about Munster. He works bloody hard. He’s a leader. He showed loyalty and perseverance by staying with the province despite having to wait almost a decade to become a regular starter for European games after years spent down the pecking order behind the likes of Paul O’Connell, Donncha O’Callaghan, Mick O’Driscoll and Donnacha Ryan.

When Grobler was signed by Munster last summer on a season-long deal he was tipped to become the regular starting lock alongside fellow South African Jean Kleyn.

G rob lerw as one of the best players for Racing 92 last season after returning to rugby following a two-year ban for testing positive for the anabolic steroid drostanolone.

“I was 21 at the time, young, stupid, and struggling with serious ankle and shoulder injuries,” Grobler said in an interview last season about his decision to take drugs.

“They weren’t getting any better, and I knew I needed to start playing again or I could lose my contract.

“I had my back against the wall and had reached a point where I thought, ‘OK, I’ve done all I can, so what else can I do?’”.

Grobler had every right to resume playing after the ban and there has been a certain amount of empathy for him.

“If you are being humanist about it you would say he did his time, he got past it,” former Ireland head coach Eddie O’Sullivan said on ‘Off The Ball’ on Wednesday night.

“It doesn’t sit easy with me but I find it very hard to condemn the guy for life. That’s the human side of the story”.

But, as always with doping in sport, the ‘human side’ of the story has a few different faces.

This was the final season in Holland’s current contract.

I’ m not at all pr ivy to the details of his contract talks but it’s not hard to imagine that if Grobler was fit from the start of the season that could have had a knock-on effect on Holland’s playing time. And by extension, it could possibly have lessened the strength of Holland’s bargaining position when it came to negotiating a new deal with Munster.

Of course Munster needed another lock on their books before Tadhg Beirne joins from Scarlets next season. But the possibility that a player, whose suspension for doping only finished in October 2016, could in any way affect the future of another player would have left a major stink.

In other sports like athletics, clean athletes continually get caught in the cross-fire of convicted dopers who are allowed compete again.

Clean athletes get cheated out of money, medals, moments, they might train harder to stay up with the dopers and pick up injuries.

When it comes to arguments for players/athletes to be given a second chance after a ban the emphasis tends to be on the athlete who doped rather than on clean athletes and protecting their livelihood.

What’s also skimmed past is that a sportsperson’s professional career isn’t for life, it’s probably around 10 years – a short time-frame compared to most careers.

Which is why it needs to be protected. If you want to know about the advantages of giving a player who served a doping ban a second chance then look at the state of athletics and cycling.