0
- by: Wayne Smith
- From:The Australian
- June 23, 201212:00AM
"While natural justice demands any player is innocent until proven guilty, we believe there is justification to stand down any player who has a disciplinary hearing pending.
"The game is bigger than individuals. Disciplinary matters need to be taken seriously and dealt with accordingly, and in isolation, regardless of the team dynamics."
Thus spoke Australian Rugby Union boss John O'Neill through the pages of The Sydney Morning Herald on February 13, 2008, in an interview with respected sports journalist Rupert Guinness following an incident in which then Western Force halfback Matt Henjak assaulted teammate Haig Sare in an East Fremantle cafe bar. He was subsequently found guilty by a Force disciplinary committee.
And now this: "That is a matter that will be dealt with through the courts. Until such time as there is a resolution, there is no reason why he shouldn't play.
"Let's not pre-judge the outcome. Common assault is by definition ... I'm not condoning it ... but it is not at the serious end of the scale. Are we concerned about that incident? Of course, we are, but I think it's better for all parties Kurtley plays rugby." Yes, you guessed it, O'Neill again.
This second statement, as sharp-eyed readers would have quickly realised, relates to an incident at a Brisbane hotel that led to Wallabies fullback Kurtley Beale this month being charged by Queensland police with assault. Beale has not faced trial and until he does the ARU's own investigation of his actions will be held in abeyance. But, in stark contrast with his stance on the Henjak matter, O'Neill told esteemed colleague Bret Harris on Wednesday that was no reason why Beale shouldn't play in this afternoon's Third Test against Wales in Sydney.
Let me quickly add, before my patriotism is questioned, I'm not opposed to Beale playing in this Test. He is a decent kid, even an inspiring one when not under the sway of alcohol. But this is not about him per se. It's not about whether players are entitled to a presumption of innocence. It seems to me it's about those two irreconcilable sets of quotes and the flexible thinking behind them and the utterly debilitating effect a lack of consistency is having on the health of Australian rugby.
Now, granted, I may have missed the memo, the one that said rugby no longer sees itself as playing any role in the moral formation of young Australians, in which case I apologise and indeed feel a little ridiculous. After all, if it has been resolved that the game now is to be run entirely as a business, with expediency the only guiding precept, you'd be a real mug to take on the sackcloth role of a Jeremiah hankering after standards deemed obsolete. Yet my observation is that, quaintly, the idea of standing for something other than wins, losses and bottom lines is deeply embedded in the rugby community. It's not, I should point out, a holier than thou mentality. A host of sports aspire to teach young people high values. But rugby has long marketed itself as the game they play in heaven, and heaven, when last one looked, sets pretty exacting standards.
No one in Australian rugby looks to St Leonard's for moral leadership any more. It seems to me double standards and inconsistency apply in so many areas of the game it's almost laughable. The contrasting treatments Henjak and Beale received from the ARU are but the tip of the iceberg. Observe how Lote Tuqiri and Matt Dunning were punished and forced to observe a curfew through the 2007 World Cup simply for staying out drinking at 5am during a non-match week. They didn't belt any civilians, they didn't belt each other, and they certainly weren't arrested and charged with anything.
Every week in rugby brings new examples of ARU "openness and transparency". It's an open secret that there is a team within a team in the Wallabies, with senior players bewildered at what some of the younger players get away with. The Super Rugby franchises get rapped over the knuckles if they go public with news that overwhelmingly relates to them without first running it past the ARU, but the moment they alert the ARU to any developments, like re-signing a player, the news is leaked in such a way as to kill any major announcement.
The states are expected to put the national interests above their own, and they do, but rarely is that loyalty reciprocated. Really, with the Reds needing to win their remaining three matches to keep their Super Rugby title defence alive, was it necessary to keep Queensland's players in South Africa this week for the meaningless playoff for seventh and eighth last night against England in the Under 20 World Cup? What purpose was served by flogging Liam Gill to death by playing him in every game of the tournament and then handing him back exhausted to the Reds tomorrow?
But there is some cause for hope that the ARU can re-establish itself in the eyes of Australian rugby supporters. The elevation of former Wallabies centre Michael Hawker to chairman of the ARU should provide the national body with the strong leadership it craved during the lost years when Peter McGrath occupied that position.
Hawker seems to be asking questions that McGrath couldn't or wouldn't ask. Hopefully he listens carefully to the answers he receives. If he does, he'll be left in no doubt about the depth and breadth of disillusionment in Australian rugby.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/spor...-1226405907760