An amateur attempt at a whitewash

Whew!!! I’ve just read the Sarfu report on their internal investigation into the Geo Cronje/Quinton Davids and Staaldraad incidents and frankly it has left me confused.

This, according to the press leaks from the offices of the Sarfu president, was supposed to be the report that would confirm that the players were done an injustice and would show that they deserve an apology from the organisation.

But if there are people out there who read through the 26 pages submitted by investigating officer Koos Basson who feel the matter has now all been cleared up for them, they are either cleverer than I am or they do not possess the ability to do a proper critical study.

Basson draws the conclusion during his report that the racism that existed was only a perception in the minds of the black players. Yet he does not bother to interview those players and ask them why these perceptions may have existed.

The only player views he would have taken into consideration were those contained in the report which followed the initial investigation conducted by Sarfu lawyer Adri Brandt and policy manager Christo Ferreira. Basson argues that events were fresh in the minds of the players at the time and he saw no point in revisiting the matter, which is why no further interviews were conducted by him.

If he follows the media he would know that several of the black players who would have been interviewed in the initial investigation have subsequent to the World Cup come out and alleged publicly that there was racism. Among those are Dale Santon, Gcobani Bobo, Ricardo Loubscher and Breyton Paulse.

Santon told the Cape Argus on Tuesday that skipper Corne Krige called the black players together to address their unhappiness at racism in the squad. Bobo said that Cronje, for holding the attitude he did, needed psychological help. These are not statements consistent with what was said publicly by black players at the time.

So why did these players not talk out in August? Perhaps, as I argued then, it had something to do with the fact the interviews were being conducted a day before the announcement of the World Cup squad and they feared being victimised. Former Springbok communications manager Mark Keohane, who was with the squad at the time, has alleged that Straeuli called the squad together and demanded that they pull together. Who would stand up against 29 teammates? Those who recall how the squad refused one on one interviews with media and instead demanded that journalists interview them together might have some idea of the peer pressure that may have influenced individual players.

Talking of Keohane, it remains odd that he was never called in and interviewed in the first investigation. I would be even more curious to learn why Rian Oberholzer, the man who banished Cronje from the camp for alleged racism, was not interviewed in either investigation.

Basson alleges that Keohane’s allegations were vague, yet he himself could be accused of the same thing for arriving at the conclusion, in the only part of the Basson report where he challenges Keohane's 'facts', that it appeared more likely consultant Rob Benadie was the man telling the truth when he says it was Keohane, and not Rudolf Straeuli, who told Oberholzer that Cronje refused to share a room with Davids on account that he was black.

Keohane alleges that it was Straeuli who said this, and says Oberholzer has subsequently verified this to him. Why did Basson not call Oberholzer and ask him, rather than rely exclusively on the say-so of Benadie, who according to my information is still in the employ of Sarfu.

All of these appear to be serious flaws in the investigation process and lend credibility to the theory that there was a deliberate whitewash in an attempt to clear rugby’s reputation (one official has admitted that the brief given to Basson was to “clear the calendar” of the issue).

But if clearing rugby’s reputation was the aim, it stops a long way short of achieving the objective. For me Basson’s argument that he does not want to deal with the details outlined in the Keohane dossier as it would be tedious dooms his investigation and his report to ultimate failure before it even starts.

If you go through Keohane’s report it is clear there are several specifics which need to be dealt with and several questions asked. Only when the answers have been forthcoming and every accusation rebutted will I be convinced that Keohane was wrong and the other side was right.

Even the layman who has had minimal exposure to South African rugby should smell that something odd is going on here. After all, a few months ago the full board of SA Rugby made a decision to institute an external enquiry into the allegations of racism.

That enquiry never took place because the coach of the Springboks and the team manager apologised to the nation. What were they apologising for if there was no racism? And what was Krige talking about when he said on Carte Blanche in his attempt to defend Kamp Staaldraad that the camp sorted out racial problems in the squad?

When the initial enquiry was postponed it was said that it would begin in the new year. There were promises of transparency. That transparency has never been forthcoming, and instead the public has been presented with what looks like a slap-dash attempt to bring closure. It has exonerated no-one, should fool no-one and really just leaves Sarfu again looking like an organisation high on inexpertness and low on integrity.