Stimulating Springboks

As published in my column 'The Blog Roll' in the December 2010 edition of SPORTElizabeth

Springbok rugby is a mess. There, I said it. It’s an issue I’ve been avoiding and, admittedly, too proud a do-or-die Bok supporter to even admit to myself, let alone advocate in a newspaper column. I cannot help but feel that the international rugby fraternity is having a fat laugh, while week in and week out, considering the talent we have in the country, South African rugby seems to turn what really should be a plain and simple task into rocket science.

More about that a bit later. I am going to start with an issue that I have, until recently, been ambivalent on since the ‘scandal’ erupted. By the way, I absolutely detest that word, and the media’s liberal use of it. Moving on. When I first heard about the positive drug tests of rising Springbok star Bjorn Basson and Bok prop (and possible future skipper) Chiliboy Ralapelle, I immediately labelled it a storm in a teacup. In fact, I suspect that Professor Tim Noakes might be stalking me, as in the KFC Sports Cage on Algoa FM two days later, that is exactly what he called it: ‘a storm in a teacup’. Why thank you Prof, however, I would appreciate it if you would reference me when you so blatantly plagiarise my words. And stop following me – it’s getting a bit weird now.

Prof Noakes explains that the stimulant found in their bodies, methylhexaneamine, only hangs around for between 24 and 36 hours, before it surreptitiously slips into the porcelain. So, provided the athlete in question stops consuming any ‘dubious’ supplements and/or medication immediately after the first test, the B-sample should be fine. This, together with the fact that in January, methylhexaneamine is scheduled to be reclassified anyway, tells me that this really is nothing but a deluge in a coffee mug. In fact, speaking of which, the substance is really nothing more than a stimulant very similar to caffeine. Listen out for Prof Noakes’ next interview – he’ll no doubt use my ‘coffee mug’ thing.

Ok, so this is all easy enough, right? So we can laugh it off and pretend it never happened and declare the whole system a farce? Absolutely not. The stimulant first reared its energetic head last year when five Jamaican athletes tested positive for the substance, and were subsequently banned for three months. It was then traced to a supplement being distributed during the Jamaican Championships. During the 2010 Commonwealth Games in New Delhi, Nigerian sprinter Damola Osayemi was stripped of her gold medal after she tested positive for methylhexaneamine. And recently, Australian officials announced that nine Australian athletes were facing possible sanctions after testing positive for the substance. Yes, I’ll admit, it is a notoriously devious and conniving stimulant that operates under at least two pseudonyms. But, come on. Has SARU had its head in the sand all of this time? At first I came out defending SARU, blaming the notoriety of the stimulant, but then I realised that my argument was self-destructive. Surely the notoriety of the stimulant, and the list of cases mentioned above, should mean that extra caution and vigilance be practiced.

Now don’t get me wrong. I do not for one second lay any blame whatsoever on 23-year-old sensation and 2010 Currie Cup top try scorer, Basson or the 24-year-old Ralapelle for the presence of this conniving substance in their urine. In fact, if anything, I sympathise with both players. Nobody, let alone a rising rugby talent in the dawn of his international career, nor the man touted as the future Springbok captain, want their name in the same sentence as ‘doping scandal’ in the international press. That sticks. It hangs around for much longer than the stimulant itself. Wait, I like this train of thought, so I am going to give an example. Let’s imagine for a second that Basson scores a hat-trick of tries in a 2011 RWC match in New Zealand. The story in many international newspapers will very possibly read something along the lines of, “Bjorn Basson, the man who found himself embroiled in a doping scandal less than a year ago, scored a hat-trick of tries for the defending champions, the Springboks, in their 2011 RWC opening match against Wales in Wellington last night.” It sticks. The same can be said if/when Ralapelle is appointed Bok captain. It sticks.

Surely somebody at SARU is tasked with keeping a persistently accurate and well-informed eye on what goes into the bodies of the Rugby World Champions. I don’t know exactly who that person (people) is, or if it is in fact Dr Craig Roberts, but he admitted both players were recently treated for flu, but that he had never experienced any problems in the past with his flu treatment/medication. Upon hearing the news of the positive tests, Bok management had everything that was being consumed by the Boks sent for laboratory tests, as it was feared that the whole squad might be ‘contaminated’. At the time of writing, there has been no further news on the results of those tests or the possible reasons for the positive tests. That’s not the point here, anyway. In my opinion, the most important issue is not how or why the substance came to be in the bodies of those two players. Admittedly, it is vital that we find out to prevent this happening again. But for me, what this whole debacle illustrates so beautifully is the lack of professionalism in Springbok rugby at the moment. Why is it that to date this stimulant has not found its way into any other major rugby union? There simply is no excuse as far as I’m concerned.

Finally, Scotland 21 – 17 South Africa. Admittedly, a determined and passionate Scotland team played its heart out at a wet and cold Murrayfield, and the (conniving and notorious) Stuart Dickinson did the Boks no favours either, but come on. The Springboks seemed to have no cohesion. There appeared to be no real strategy, and for the most part, the ball was either thrown around frantically like a coffee mug full of methylhexaneamine, or kicked aimlessly at the opposition allowing a counterattack. Also, your team is trailing (and visibly struggling), and your Grand Slam hopes hang on the next 20 minutes of the match, and you substitute arguably the world’s best goal-kicker for the inexperienced (but admittedly brilliant) Pat Lambie. And it’s certainly not the first time Bok management has made questionable substitutions at crucial moments. But we’ll save that issue for a different day.

When the Boks beat a lacklustre Ireland team at Aviva Stadium in the opening match, I was not overly convinced. When the Boks clawed back to beat Wales at the Millennium Stadium a week later, I was not convinced. And finally, when the Boks disposed of their Grand Slam hopes at Murrayfield on 20 November, I was livid. And, once again, call me crazy, but I am not blaming the players. There is something wrong. And there certainly is no shortage of rugby talent in South Africa. For this reason, and the others discussed above, I feel at the moment, Springbok rugby is a mess. And, you know what, it really should not be.

PS: I do not really suspect Prof Noakes of stalking me, however, I wish he’d stalk the Springboks and secretly plant his wisdom on player fatigue in places they’re bound to find it.