Jeff Probyn: Warburton would be perfect fit at Kassam
The ongoing row between the Regions and the WRU seems to be setting Wales on a road that will only end in litigation and accusations, as each seeks to blame the other for the mess they have both created.
The Regions have failed to attract the levels of support that they hoped would naturally occur when the super teams were formed and are too reliant on funding from the owners and the WRU – rather than self- generated revenues.
The double-edged sword of central contracts for established internationals should have been a welcome source of funding for the Regions as it would have cut wage bills and enabled them to keep a number of those leaving to ply their trade in foreign lands.
Unfortunately, the levels of distrust between the two sides have seen the regions refuse to play centrally contract players, which leaves Sam Warburton with potentially no club to play for – but I may just have a solution.
Warren Gatland has said he would prefer players to play at home in Wales but that hasn’t stopped him from picking those from clubs outside and that leaves the door open for Warburton to be bought out of his WRU contract and offered to a club in England (preferably) or France at a knock-down price.
The perfect club would be London Welsh as they have just gained promotion and Warburton would be playing in one of the two strongest club competitions in the world.His presence would both help London Welsh on and off the field, potentially bringing more spectators to the Kassam stadium.
It could also provide the template for the other ‘exile’ clubs allowing them to fulfill the original purpose of their creation as teams for displaced players.
Back in the 60s and 70s a number of the Welsh squad were playing at London Welsh without any problems and could do so again, unless PRL back the Welsh Regions and refuse to play centrally contracted players from any country.
PRL have an agreement that they will not play players that are centrally contracted to the RFU (hence all the Sevens players are from academies or Championship clubs) but players from another country/Union would be a different matter and any ban could conceivably be considered as a restraint of trade.
As the exile clubs are businesses they must be free to choose who they want to employ, so just as the Unions cannot tell the clubs who they can employ, neither can the clubs dictate to each other.
If it were to become common place and exile clubs were able to field low cost centrally-contracted players, it could, just like millionaire owners, upset the whole balance of the league.
The exile clubs could emulate the owner clubs with bigger squads enabling them to ‘rest’ players for crucial parts of the season to help ensure qualification for the new European competition while allowing players to peak for the international windows.
Arguably, this may be a good thing in the long term, as it could allow those Unions without the huge player bases that allow for full professional leagues to field extra teams of current and prospective international players in a very competitive league.
This is not a problem that could affect the French as they don’t have exile clubs at the top level of their game, leaving the Premiership and England to shoulder the burden, but if it gives the Six Nations a boost in terms of competitiveness, it could be worthwhile.
Talking of boosts, it is regretful news that rugby has a higher percentage of failed drug tests than either cycling or athletics.
With around 80 positives out of 6,129 tests it may not seem many, but the fact that it is higher percentage of failures than were found in 22,252 tests in cycling, or 11,585 tests in athletics, should be a wake up call for the IRB.
However, the IRB’s statement that this proves their ‘intelligent anti-doping programme in rugby is working and catching those using illegal substances’ would seem to indicate at the top of the game there is a certain level of complacency.
With around 853,000 senior and around 3.5 million junior and youth players worldwide, just 6,129 tests is a fraction of a percentage of potential abusers.
The IRB state, “A lot of our testing is targeted and we focus a lot on the Under-20s, quite often positive tests would come from supplements. We know they are particularly susceptible”.
From that statement it would seem the IRB think that the main problem is down to the use of supplements as some contain banned substances and yet it is common practice for the unions to give supplements to academy players and current internationals.
This must surely send a mixed message to young players who are told if they want to make the grade as a professional they must use certain supplements but use the wrong one and your career is over.
At the end of the academy process, young players are desperate to get contracts so as the vast majority are cast aside, should it be any wonder that some will try that little something extra to improve their chances.
Some will be sent off to a lower club to gain experience but it is then that they are at the greatest risk in what is usually a less controlled environment.
If the IRB really want to educate players away from potential abuse they should ban the use of all supplements, legal or not.
*This article was published in The Rugby Paper on July 20
