IRFU adopts passing game

And so that was the week that was. Extraordinary, funny, frustrating and depressing. The impression given to the world game was of a drugs problem probably far greater than is actually the case in Irish rugby. How did that come to pass? Because, as is invariably the case when the heat is turned up, the IRFU handled things abysmally and was seen to have a modus operandum of management by crisis.

It was a disastrous week for both Irish rugby and the IRFU, which will linger for some time yet, and for that the union is largely responsible. At times like this it reminds you of the joke about the Irish contestant on Mastermind. Asked about his specialist subject, he responds to each question: "pass . . . pass . . . pass", until some countryman from the audience barks up: "that's right Paddy, tell 'em nothing."

Where possible, that seems to be the approach. Gloss the whole thing over, evasively avoid the questions with unrelated answers and produce brochures and statements.

It can employ professional lawyers and PR men but when it comes to the crunch, some things never change. For example, it was interesting to note at Friday's press conference that it was the two honorary amateurs (Noel Murphy and Billy Lavery) who did most of the talking as they were flanked by the three professionals (PR man, secretary and lawyer). That said everything.

Culminating in Friday's nadir, from day one the IRFU got it wrong. The union can backtrack now and claim it never said Irish rugby was clean of drugs in its overly swift response to Neil Francis's original claims last Sunday week. But there was no doubt that the tone was decidedly indignant and, as it transpired, decidedly disingenuous.

How, for example, could Noel Murphy purport to be "alarmed" at Francis's claims when he and the union already knew that two Irish players had tested positive last season, though of course they weren't telling us at the time. Instead, those cases came out subsequently, in drip feed fashion.

"The IRFU," went last Sunday week's statement, "condemns the use of illegal performance-enhancing drugs and is seen to be pro-active in this regard". Hah. What a howl. As usual, the union have been seen to be reactive rather than proactive; cue management by crisis.

"They had been warned from within that this was a disaster waiting to happen," said one insider yesterday, and while it's true that no testing facility exists in this country, there was nothing to stop the IRFU employing the UK Sports Council beyond full internationals.

Last season, there were over 250 tests in South Africa, 65 in England, 55 in Scotland and 32 in Wales, compared to 12 in Ireland. That there has never been testing after interprovincial or AIL games in the Republic gave it little substantive evidence of its own to react so indignantly to Francis's claims.

Furthermore, if it was half as proactive as it claimed to be, it would be willing to reveal how many Irish rugby players have been tested over the years, and how many were tested positive or negative. But it either can't or won't. The word inactive springs to mind.

"The IRFU," continued last Sunday week's statement, "has long been associated with the UK Sports Council in assisting them with drug testing." Hah. Another howl. Let's examine this `assistance' in real terms.

The UK Sports Council presented its annual report last Friday, including seven cases of positive drug tests in rugby union last year. Neither individual nor national identities are divulged but it is known that in the three cases involving English players the action read: "player received a severe reprimand and a press release was issued naming the player."

In another case, which was dealt with by the Scottish Rugby Union: "Player suspended for eight weeks. Disciplinary panel held that in failing to provide a sample the player should not be deemed to have refused to submit to the test."

The action taken in the other three cases read: "No governing body action advised to the UK Sports Council as of 3/9/98." The UKSC would not divulge the identity of the governing body, but presumably two, or all three, are the IRFU. So much for the IRFU's "assistance".

The union has made much of the fact that the UKSC didn't notify it of one positive test from last season until late last Tuesday afternoon. Coupled with the International Board's curiously aloof presence on this whole drugs issue (only three cases on file from last season!), it certainly highlighted a flawed Bermuda triangle type of communications difficulty between the UKSC, the IB, and the IRFU. But given it is now only one of three Irish cases that we know of, this is almost something of a red herring.

Furthermore, phone calls from this journalist to the other three unions readily procured the detailed outcomes and identities of all cases where there were positive tests. The three English players were Martin Hynes of Northampton, Steve Pearce of Bristol and Richard Gibbins of Exeter. Just like that.

Murrayfield's offices readily revealed that Stephen Clapperton had been suspended for eight weeks when failing to give a urine sample at the Kelso Sevens. On Friday, the IRFU men cited enough procedures, regulations and confidentiality clauses to have outdone the FBI, yet if Twickenham can be transparent with its unsanctioned players, why can't the IRFU? What has it got to hide?

As a result, it is the IRFU which has cast a cloud over Irish players, particularly those of the last year. It is the IRFU which, because of its disingenuous and evasive stance, has created the impression of both a cover-up and a cock-up, whether that is the case or not.

It's interesting to note that three English players tested positive, but were summarily dealt with and publicly reported, despite being cleared. Hence, no flak Twickenham's way.

It's impossible to believe that any other union would have handled this whole process so chaotically. Imagine the Australian or New Zealand unions making such a dog's dinner of such a scenario. But then they're professional.

This last week was perhaps both a timely eye-opener about drugs in Irish rugby, and - admittedly just when it was getting the provincial and international structures right - a timely reminder of the need for change in the IRFU. There will always be a need and a role for men like Murphy (who will have been hurting these past few days) and Lavery, titular roles, with primary responsible for an amateur club game. But what the last week has again shown is the need for the honorary amateurs to hand over power to a full-time management board and chief executive or CEO, who would have control over all the international teams and provincial sides.

Send in the professionals.