Puzzled - Saracens!

[Wayne Richardson Fan Club]

Time for some Wikipedia editing to * their titles?

[Traveller]

Press coverage of Saracens has fallen some way short of holding the club to account. Yes, the points deduction and relegation were covered widely, but ever since coverage has fallen back into eulogising them for their past/current achievements.

Note for journalists:
Saracens' achievements over the past THREE years have been sullied by persistent salary cap breaches. We don't still celebrate Marion Jones' Olympic titles, Lance Armstrong's Tour de France titles, or Melbourne Storm's NRL titles, so don't treat this instance of cheating differently.

Grossly unfair. It was perfectly justifiable for Lance Armstrong to lie and destroy other peoples careers because "everyone else was taking drugs". In just the same was as it was perfectly acceptable for Marion Jones to present herself as the transparent voice of clean athletics and be lying through her teeth "because everyone else was doing it". Of course they did get hammered by the media.

So it was perfectly acceptable for Saracens to promote the values of honesty and integrity on the walls of their stadium, tackle bags, training kit, jockstraps and website - whilst systematically undermining the competition rules that they signed up to, because "everyone else was doing the same". Although surprisingly since 2015 no such evidence has come to light of that being the case.

I mean why would any sports journalist want to emulate David Walsh, and go out on a limb in search of the truth when instead you could stand at the bar with your fellow journo mates, the cosy club of Stuart Barnes, Robert Kitson, Stephen Jones and co, and enjoy eat and drink as much as you like lunches and suppers and charge it all to The Wray Express Card. Why rock the boat just because your a sports journalist.

[jgriffin]

Spot on, Traveller.
The examples and the gross dereliction of the media are closer to the truth than is comfortable for rugby. Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) are hardly ever mentioned, yet once you start digging, as has happened in Wales, you discover abuse all the way through the tiers and leagues. Remember when we had a spate of bicep and attachment injuries? They are characteristic of PED gym training, where loading and muscle adaptation exceed the natural strengthening of attachments, and where steroid analogues are used to artificially speed recovery from training. I'm sure if a proper journo decided to dig we would find a heap of embarrassing cases. I'm not saying the clubs are involved (though they may be in some cases), but out of season individuals certainly would have no trouble accessing materials and advice, and returning to training having put on kgs of muscle should ring testing warning bells (as should unnaturally quick recoveries from high stress events).
Don't get me started on athletics (e.g. Marion Jones) BTW. Having been beaten in competition by subsequently revealed cheats (e.g. David Jenkins) and witnessed the drug paraphernalia debris left by two national field events names back in the late 60s, I have no illusions that athletics drug abuse in the UK has always been rife.

[mol2]

Whilst this thread is about Sarries and I don't want to imply that this reference is aimed at them other than the thread is about cheating I am concerned that PEDs are not being looked for anywhere near diligently enough in rugby union.

Too many superfit brick outhouses to be beleivable. Add to that the pressure at junior level to get on when not fully mature it must be a real concern.

There was an article on the draft in South African junior rugby where kids felt obliged to bulk up to have a change.
Certainly talking to some ex players who played in other countries, the use of PED was pretty much considered acceptable.
I'm not sure too much has changed and it is time world rugby grew some balls and dealt with it from grassroots the top.

The salary cap is less clear cut - that's a matter of business and finance not about player safety and some wll take the view it is not really cheating. Rugby has a track record of turniong a blind eye to this - in the amaateur era some fairly big "expenses" were paid. Some players had jobs where there workmates never saw them other than when a bit of publicity was needed.
It was ok to be a sham amateur and I think the league has been guilty of the same approach to the salary cap.

[Scott1]

Whilst this thread is about Sarries and I don't want to imply that this reference is aimed at them other than the thread is about cheating I am concerned that PEDs are not being looked for anywhere near diligently enough in rugby union.

Too many superfit brick outhouses to be beleivable. Add to that the pressure at junior level to get on when not fully mature it must be a real concern.

There was an article on the draft in South African junior rugby where kids felt obliged to bulk up to have a change.
Certainly talking to some ex players who played in other countries, the use of PED was pretty much considered acceptable.
I'm not sure too much has changed and it is time world rugby grew some balls and dealt with it from grassroots the top.

The salary cap is less clear cut - that's a matter of business and finance not about player safety and some wll take the view it is not really cheating. Rugby has a track record of turniong a blind eye to this - in the amaateur era some fairly big "expenses" were paid. Some players had jobs where there workmates never saw them other than when a bit of publicity was needed.
It was ok to be a sham amateur and I think the league has been guilty of the same approach to the salary cap.

I've always had my suspicions mate. I understand that players have access to the best therapy,sports science, s and c coaches etc but being a ex gym rat (keep threatening to go back haha) and having my fair share of bumps and niggles and having problems with weight gain/loss depending on what I'm aiming at something doesn't add up for me. Its rife in boxing and the testing is way more strict than union so why not? Plus nowadays there are masking agents,users are way more clued up on cycles,there are more designer steroids that have a very short half life so the temptation will always be there. Hopefully I'm wrong.

[Dangerous4]

Whilst this thread is about Sarries and I don't want to imply that this reference is aimed at them other than the thread is about cheating I am concerned that PEDs are not being looked for anywhere near diligently enough in rugby union.

Too many superfit brick outhouses to be beleivable. Add to that the pressure at junior level to get on when not fully mature it must be a real concern.

There was an article on the draft in South African junior rugby where kids felt obliged to bulk up to have a change.
Certainly talking to some ex players who played in other countries, the use of PED was pretty much considered acceptable.
I'm not sure too much has changed and it is time world rugby grew some balls and dealt with it from grassroots the top.

The salary cap is less clear cut - that's a matter of business and finance not about player safety and some wll take the view it is not really cheating. Rugby has a track record of turniong a blind eye to this - in the amaateur era some fairly big "expenses" were paid. Some players had jobs where there workmates never saw them other than when a bit of publicity was needed.
It was ok to be a sham amateur and I think the league has been guilty of the same approach to the salary cap.

I've always had my suspicions mate. I understand that players have access to the best therapy,sports science, s and c coaches etc but being a ex gym rat (keep threatening to go back haha) and having my fair share of bumps and niggles and having problems with weight gain/loss depending on what I'm aiming at something doesn't add up for me. Its rife in boxing and the testing is way more strict than union so why not? Plus nowadays there are masking agents,users are way more clued up on cycles,there are more designer steroids that have a very short half life so the temptation will always be there. Hopefully I'm wrong.


I do agree Scott. All sports now have worked out dodges.

Why, oh why, weren't Saracens stripped of their titles for the past three years. It's a sad joke. Who said cheats never prosper?

[mol2]

Presumably retrospective removal of titles isn't or wasn't a punishment option.

Who then becomes the champion? The side that finished second? The team they beat in the semi?
Who would have been the top four sides if all of that season's results for Sarries were removed? The make up of the semis would have been different.....

Who would have won the Tour De France in the years that Lance Armstrong did? Not necessarily the one who finished second behind Armstrong. How many of those were cheating too as it is patently obvious that the drug screening program was inadequate to miss him which begs the question as to who else didn't test positive?

[BengalTiger]

Regarding removal of the titles, that should have been easy, the silverware should have been returned and the record books amended to record that there was no winner that year and the reason, the title could not be awarded to anyone because there are to many variables and most clubs would not be interested in having a retrospective title anyway as it brings no reward.

The unwillingness in applying, what most of us would regard as obvious sanctions shows the weakness of both the Premiership management and the RFU who are supposed to be the guardians of the good governance and the reputation of the game in England.

There is a cabal of clubs who did not want sanctions imposed retrospectively on Sarries as they are possibly thinking "there but for the grace of god go I" if not now then in the future!

[Cardiff Tig]

Regarding removal of the titles, that should have been easy, the silverware should have been returned and the record books amended to record that there was no winner that year and the reason, the title could not be awarded to anyone because there are to many variables and most clubs would not be interested in having a retrospective title anyway as it brings no reward.

The unwillingness in applying, what most of us would regard as obvious sanctions shows the weakness of both the Premiership management and the RFU who are supposed to be the guardians of the good governance and the reputation of the game in England.

There is a cabal of clubs who did not want sanctions imposed retrospectively on Sarries as they are possibly thinking "there but for the grace of god go I" if not now then in the future!

It's not. It's because the removal of titles was not in the regulations (which was clearly an error). You can't just make up sanctions on the fly, it would mean there was no point having the regulations in the first place if its arbitrarily up to some committee what the punishment is.

[BengalTiger]

Regarding removal of the titles, that should have been easy, the silverware should have been returned and the record books amended to record that there was no winner that year and the reason, the title could not be awarded to anyone because there are to many variables and most clubs would not be interested in having a retrospective title anyway as it brings no reward.

The unwillingness in applying, what most of us would regard as obvious sanctions shows the weakness of both the Premiership management and the RFU who are supposed to be the guardians of the good governance and the reputation of the game in England.

There is a cabal of clubs who did not want sanctions imposed retrospectively on Sarries as they are possibly thinking "there but for the grace of god go I" if not now then in the future!

It's not. It's because the removal of titles was not in the regulations (which was clearly an error). You can't just make up sanctions on the fly, it would mean there was no point having the regulations in the first place if its arbitrarily up to some committee what the punishment is.

I disagree, they can make up regulations and apply them retrospectively, that is their choice, I am aware of no regulation that prevented them from plugging an obvious error, the Premiership clubs did not foresee it being necessary but that does not preclude the action of removing the titles in retrospect, being unwilling and being unable are not the same thing!

[jgriffin]

Regarding removal of the titles, that should have been easy, the silverware should have been returned and the record books amended to record that there was no winner that year and the reason, the title could not be awarded to anyone because there are to many variables and most clubs would not be interested in having a retrospective title anyway as it brings no reward.

The unwillingness in applying, what most of us would regard as obvious sanctions shows the weakness of both the Premiership management and the RFU who are supposed to be the guardians of the good governance and the reputation of the game in England.

There is a cabal of clubs who did not want sanctions imposed retrospectively on Sarries as they are possibly thinking "there but for the grace of god go I" if not now then in the future!

It's not. It's because the removal of titles was not in the regulations (which was clearly an error). You can't just make up sanctions on the fly, it would mean there was no point having the regulations in the first place if its arbitrarily up to some committee what the punishment is.

I disagree, they can make up regulations and apply them retrospectively, that is their choice, I am aware of no regulation that prevented them from plugging an obvious error, the Premiership clubs did not foresee it being necessary but that does not preclude the action of removing the titles in retrospect, being unwilling and being unable are not the same thing!

Even athletics, where gross cheating has been revealed, persists on retaining drug-fuelled records (Flo-Jo, Koch, Kratochvilova, Olizarenko etc); scuttlebutt suggests that for the Mens 1988 100 metres final, there was one competitor who was probably clean....think he was Ray Stewart, last finisher.

[TigerFeetSteve]

It's not. It's because the removal of titles was not in the regulations (which was clearly an error). You can't just make up sanctions on the fly, it would mean there was no point having the regulations in the first place if its arbitrarily up to some committee what the punishment is.

I disagree, they can make up regulations and apply them retrospectively, that is their choice, I am aware of no regulation that prevented them from plugging an obvious error, the Premiership clubs did not foresee it being necessary but that does not preclude the action of removing the titles in retrospect, being unwilling and being unable are not the same thing!

Even athletics, where gross cheating has been revealed, persists on retaining drug-fuelled records (Flo-Jo, Koch, Kratochvilova, Olizarenko etc); scuttlebutt suggests that for the Mens 1988 100 metres final, there was one competitor who was probably clean....think he was Ray Stewart, last finisher.

Ray Stewart was banned for trafficking PED's (though never caught using) think the Clean one would have been Robson Da Silva?

[Crofty]

Regarding removal of the titles, that should have been easy, the silverware should have been returned and the record books amended to record that there was no winner that year and the reason, the title could not be awarded to anyone because there are to many variables and most clubs would not be interested in having a retrospective title anyway as it brings no reward.

The unwillingness in applying, what most of us would regard as obvious sanctions shows the weakness of both the Premiership management and the RFU who are supposed to be the guardians of the good governance and the reputation of the game in England.

There is a cabal of clubs who did not want sanctions imposed retrospectively on Sarries as they are possibly thinking "there but for the grace of god go I" if not now then in the future!

It's not. It's because the removal of titles was not in the regulations (which was clearly an error). You can't just make up sanctions on the fly, it would mean there was no point having the regulations in the first place if its arbitrarily up to some committee what the punishment is.

I disagree, they can make up regulations and apply them retrospectively, that is their choice, I am aware of no regulation that prevented them from plugging an obvious error, the Premiership clubs did not foresee it being necessary but that does not preclude the action of removing the titles in retrospect, being unwilling and being unable are not the same thing!

Wasn't the automatic relegation a sanction made up on the fly? Not to defend Sarries, they deserve everything they've got and probably more, but their relegation came from them refusing to submit to an audit mid year for the salary cap year 2019-20 if I recall correctly, a requirement not in the regulations and a punishment not listed for any offence against any regulation.

[Cardiff Tig]

They were given the second points deduction for salary cap breaches for this season - they were offered an audit to show that they were complying or they could just accept the punishment. It wasn't a punishment for not accepting the audit.

[Crofty]

The automatic relegation was a newly made up sanction, the second points deduction followed that when it was realised that it would look silly if Sarries were relegated having made it to a greater points total than us. Additionally, the salary cap regulations did not contain any requirement to show compliance in a year until after the completion of that year and the production of the accounts for it. Like I said, Sarries were definitely cheating for a long time and probably this year too, they deserve harsh punishment but you can't say that there hasn't been sanction made up on the fly already in order to get them.