Rugby’s dilemma
O’Driscoll comments on painkillers will carry much weight
Why the IRFU must tackle the use of prescription drugs
THE RESPONSE is critical now. Irish rugby needs to be more convincing in reacting to Brian O’Driscoll’s comments on painkillers than it has been thus far. There was a watery statement issued to the Irish Daily Mail on Thursday night that declared the ‘IRFU medical staff operate under guidelines and protocols for the provision of appropriate medicines to players when required as part of a holistic treatment plan’. That just won’t do. The union will eventually realise this, but they need to learn quicker, because O’Driscoll’s candour has presented it with a significant problem.
The problem of drugs in the sport has been raised before, and not just the proscribed, performanceenhancing variety.
Rather, the subject of using legal drugs has been bubbling for years, and it involves moral as well as health questions.
For instance, is using a legal painkiller a way of gaining an advantage? And if it is, does that make it so very different from using illegal drugs?
This is not a quandary that confronts only rugby, but it is a sport that takes a particularly heavy toll on players. Endurance and recovery time are highly valued, which raises the prospect of those involved relying on painkillers to get through matches.
Leinster coach Leo Cullen alluded to this aspect of the argument earlier this week.
‘Like, rugby as a game, it’s a physical, contact sport. With that comes inflammation. What would you take to get rid of inflammation? It would be an anti-inflammatory, probably.’
Cullen, a long-time teammate of O’Driscoll’s with Leinster and Ireland, would go on to defend the environment he now helps to oversee.
‘The care and duty of care that we, the club, the province, provides for the players, I think is second to none.
‘It would really upset me if that was tarnished in any way whatsoever because I understand how much the people that care for the players actually care for them.’
O’Driscoll only retired four years ago, however, and unless there has been a transformational overhaul in that time, the culture he describes is remarkable.
‘I would have been part of teams where, on the way to a game, a doctor would have walked down the bus on the way to the game and enquired as to who wanted what in advance of it,’ claimed O’Driscoll.
Do the rugby authorities understand how important this is?
That the question needs to be asked is astonishing, but the repercussions of that one interview, by a figure so highly respected, could be enormous.
There is, firstly, an immediate concern: the health of players taking drugs that are, in some cases, potent and, if mismanaged, deadly.
‘I didn’t take so many Difene that I’m concerned but there would be players out there taking them every single day, that can’t be good for you,’ he said. Earlier this year, the British Medical Journal published a study that reported a link between Difene and increased risks of heart attacks and strokes.
Less obviously serious but also notable in O’Driscoll’s interview was his account of players being given sleeping tablets to counteract the effects of caffeine supplements they would take for training and matches.
It should be noted that O’Driscoll’s revelations come at a time when Irish society more widely is dealing with alarming increases in the use of powerful medication.
In September, it was reported that the number of prescriptions written by doctors for 10 powerful opioids has increased by 20 per cent in the last decade.
In February, it was revealed that prescriptions of a very powerful anti-anxiety drug have risen by over 1,000 per cent since 2008.
GPs blame it on health service waiting lists: patients awaiting procedures are having their pain managed by the prescription of potent medicines, including opioids. But rugby has a particular longer-term problem that should concern it, too.
O’Driscoll remains an idol to thousands, and when he talks it gets noticed.
There are many parents around the country who will have noted what he said and consider how that affects where their child should go on a Saturday morning.
It is naive to suppose that Gaelic games and soccer do not have issues with the use of painkillers, too, but rugby takes a heavy, sometimes cruel toll on those who play it as adults.
Furthermore, this story emerges at a time when the problem of concussion remains a prominent one in the game.
Nobody can easily wave away concerns about potentially life-altering dangers such as concussion and powerful medicines – least of all parents.
That alone should be the impetus the IRFU needs to respond more fully to the O’Driscoll interview.
The urgent need to do the right thing should also hurry them along, too.
Rugby has never been so popular in this country. The game has been managed mostly well as it grew from the uncertain end of the amateur days to the powerful, successful force of today.
But it has a very significant concern with which to grapple now.
The idea of a limping player chewing down painkillers to join the battle one more time might appeal to a certain unreconstructed spirit, but the old days should be left where they are.
We know too much, understand too much now, to watch players batter themselves week on week and suppose that there will be no longlasting consequences.
Rugby is an exhilarating, honourable but also demanding and physically damaging sport. Playing at the highest level can come at a cost.
O’Driscoll’s contribution this week has hauled the subject into the mainstream.
And just as it took concussion some time to be acknowledged as a problem until it became too big to ignore, so it will be with this one.
Parents of talented adolescents dreaming of professional careers in the game will ask more questions now.
And those parents of a small child looking for a Saturday morning outlet for their little one’s energy, can choose more than rugby.
In urban areas in particular, GAA and soccer compete enthusiastically for young hearts and minds.
Rugby will be a harder sell if worries about the use of medicines with potentially catastrophic side-effects are not fully addressed.
O’Driscoll served Irish rugby long and well, and he did one more good deed when he spoke to Newstalk and the conversation veered into this area.
There were many insights in what he said. One line that, on first contact, was not obviously remarkable actually has a great relevance in the ensuing debate.
‘But again, if it’s perfectly legal and there’s no need for Theraputic Use Examptions or any of that, it gives yourself the chance of playing your best game.’
That is what many once thought: once it’s legal, it can’t be wrong.
But we are increasingly understanding that maybe this isn’t so, after all. Just because a drug is not written in red on a banned list does not make its consumption safe, or
‘JUST BECAUSE A DRUG ISN’T BANNED, IT DOESN’T MEAN IT’S SAFE’
advisable, or even ethical.
The health concerns come first and need to be urgently addressed. But then a more extensive conversation is required, about what is right and wrong when it comes to drugs in sport.
And the IRFU should not shrink away from that debate. It is too important, for them and for the aspiring young stars who idolise the broken heroes of today.